[C. Edmund Wright]

This would be funny - Newt and Mitt so taken with their hatred for each other that they thought they could ignore Santorum - except that once vetted, Santorum will prove to be a shamefully weak candidate.

We are in trouble.

[aruanan]

except that once vetted, Santorum will prove to be a shamefully weak candidate.

Ha ha. Yeah, right.

[alicewonders]

except that once vetted, Santorum will prove to be a shamefully weak candidate.

You are right, we are in trouble. For the life of me, I just can't get excited about Santorum, and people I've talked to feel the same way. He is a good conservative, but so is my Dad - and I can't see him as the president either.

This is not going to end well.

[ronnie raygun]

I agree with weak, only because he’s an inexperienced fighter of evil. Romney will compromise with this evil, Santorum will be defeated by this evil and the only one left is Newt who fought this evil, knows where it comes from amd knows how to send it back where it came from.

[nathanbedford]

We are in trouble.

What appeals about Santorum is his ingenuousness; what repels about Romney is his transparent disingenuousness; neither one is a strong reed upon which to lean a candidacy.

Gingrich's Achilles' heel is the gender gap. Otherwise he combines the biography demonstrating that he has led and the forensic ability assuring us that he can lead.

Gingrich made a great speech at CPAC demonstrating a matchless ability to articulate the issues and craft compelling solutions. But I want to touch on his direct personal attacks on Obama which at this point I think he must intensify and accelerate. It looks like the nomination is slipping away from him and he has nothing to lose. He has to grab the base now or the media will finish him off.

The more personal the attack on Obama punctuating his personal radicalism the better!

[GulfBreeze]

Can you do two things. One support your point. Two state who you are for and why you think they are best in terms of electability, currently stated positions and past track records?

[RockinRight]

I fear you’re right.

Per se, I don’t have anything “against” Santorum. He was important in getting welfare reform passed and was a part of Newt’s own ‘94 Revolution.

However, although his fiscal and economic record (save for the Medicare Prescription Drug fiasco) is probably above-average, he’s known primarily as a SoCon type which I fear won’t sell well this cycle. He also can’t play the assertive role (which is needed against a d-bag like Obama) without coming across like a whiny, sanctimonious prick.

[Maryhere]

Santorum will not be any more “shamefully weak” than BO was when he ran the first time.

[Hieronymus]

We’ve been in trouble for a very long time.

[Lady Lucky]

Newt and Mitt so taken with their hatred for each other

There's an implied equivalency in that, yet I hear Romney was overwhelmingly more negative in both quantity and quality.

[DoughtyOne]

Hey mighty Kong, why are you spewing this tripe across the forum?

Newt couldn’t even get his own party members to re-elect him Speaker, and resigned in 1999 rather than be humiliated?

If you don’t want to vote for Santorum great, nobody here is forcing you.

I’ll gladly vote for him and if that signifies a low IQ to you, all the better.

[chiller]

santorum shamefully weak ? What's weak about truly held conservative principles shamelessy expressed.

Earmarks? debt ceiling votes ? don;t make me laugh. Maybe it was his 3 marriages...no, never mind, that wasn't Rick. The '06 loss....pubbies of all stripes got plastered.

Any dirt on Santorum pales in comparison and worries me less than Mitt or Newt. Negative campaigns against an altar boy won't go down well, and in fact could backfire.