[D-fendr]

Who has better credentials than Newt?

Yet a sizable number on here won't unify behind him even though he's the only one left.

So who? DeMint?

Perhaps, we'd have to see him actually build a campaign to know.

What if he stumbled like Perry did… Sarah?

Perry, the candidate, hurt himself and didn't recover in time to stay in it, Sarah teased but never entered. So, no, these two were not strong candidates, one wasn't a candidate at all.

A strong candidate would be one who A) Entered the race; B) Had and communicated a strong and effective message; C) Campaigned well on the stump and in debates; D) Built an effective organization and staff, including fundraising; E) Unified the base voters.

Who would that be? Obviously no one this time. We really don't have bench strength, though there may likely be others out there I'm not aware of, I've heard names I know little about, that may have been strong candidates.

You want to blame the field rather than place the blame where it belongs

Partly the field for the reasons above (and partly because they did not unify behind one nonRomney). But also us for not unifying, worse working to destroy each other. You may remember that Perry was severely trashed before he got out of the gate, etc. It's axiomatic that opposition to an incumbent has to be united or it fails every time.

he blame where it belongs, with the GOPe and the media-e that they play footsie with.

Here I think you misplace the blame. The party didn't make others sit out and it didn't prevent unity behind one other candidate, nor trash the field. And the media? They're against us for the foreseeable future and they've had their candidate beaten before. In any case, I don't see your strategy for defeating the media here.

It went from Bachmann to Cain to Perry (or was it Perry to Cain, I forget) to Newt to Santorum. And in turn, each was attacked by Mitt's GOPe ..

They were attacked on here also. Even if the GOP *and* the media disappeared, the notMitt vote was still split.

It was murder in the first degree.

If that's the analogy, I think I've stated my solution; what is yours? How does it work, what is the result?

thanks for your reply.

[Defiant]

You can't take over the GOP without winning the nomination, and you can't win the nomination with the RNC stacked against conservatives. Not without taking them by surprise, like Ronald Reagan did. They are determined not to let that happen again. So, whenever any issue of any kind comes up, the RNC is always going to make the decision that favors the liberal. That is true whether it involves who gets to vote in primaries, the order of primaries, the seating of delegates, or money. Then there is the RNC insiders, the Roves, etc. who take their marching orders and go out and trash whoever is the conservative of the day. They also are good at coming up with funding for Mike Castle, Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter, but not so good at helping out Tea Party insurgents. Their ties to MSM helpers ensures that the press goes after whoever they dislike, without backup from the RNC.

With all that said, if the primary process could be changed in terms of the order of states, that would possibly allow a conservative to squeak through. But it never will be changed, and if anything, has been made worse for conservatives in recent cycles, as open primaries are skewing the process.

To win as a conservative, you'd need to be independently wealthy, squeaky clean, articulate like Newt and Reagan, likeable like Reagan, on your first wife, have lovely children, and able to use wit to turn ridicule against the Alinskyites. You are right, we don't have anyone out there who fits that bill. Darn.

For those reasons, and the many I have stated in this thread, I think it will be easier for conservatives to win the Presidency through a third party campaign than through trying to defeat the Republican machine. It would not have to be a true third party. You just have to be beating the Republican candidate in October, and then try to get the Republican party to coalesce around you by sweet talking how you will unite the Republicans again as President. You could reduce Mittens down to 10 percent of the vote (which is what John Anderson got when Reagan won his first term) If you are ahead of him in October. And when you win, you can rejoin and work with Republicans in the Congress, the way Lieberman did with Democrats, and in the manner of Murkowski. In that scenario, the Republicans want to be with the winner, and conservatives will get control of the party back that way. If the GOPe won't cooperate, they can just go the way of the Whigs.

Your view is a recipe for decades more of RINO socialist candidates, very few of whom will win and none of whom will change anything.