[Vevey]

Just now read your reply. The “sick mind” comment refers to attacking a religion vs. attacking a policy. I'll stand behind the comment. I'm not sure what a “Romneybot” is; if it suggests blindly spouting that Romney is the next Reagan, count me out. My analysis and posts concerning the candidates is not based on who holds the most positions with which I agree (that may be Bachman); my posts concern which candidate I think can raise enough money and win enough states to beat Obama. Beating Oboma is the only thing that matters. All other principals are secondary. It's no good having principals when not a single one of them will be held by the person in the White House; especially when the current occupant poses an existential threat to every value for which Freep stands. I am familiar with the writings of those of us who post here. IF (and it's a BIG IF) Romney has had a conservative epiphany, he surely shares many—but perhaps not even most—of the values of conservatives. It is possible he is a Manchurian candidate who plans on continuing to increase the powers of government if elected. Nevetheless, the devil we know (current POTUS), is far more dangerous than the devil we don't know.

Cain has neither the money nor the organization to get the nomination. A vote for him is a vote for Romney as the anti-Rino’s are gonna split between Cain, Perry, and Bachman. Of those three, only Perry has the organization and money to take on Romney. Perry's poor debate performance does not bode well for him as a national candidate; however, if debate prowess were the deciding factor, then Gingrich would be the nominee.

I'm unhappy Perry has been this cycle's Fred Thompson. I don't think there is any candidate who gets me enthused the way Palin did...but so be it. In the end, we don't build up our chances in 2012 by tearing down whoever will eventually run against Obama. Rather than trash talking who we don't like, find out and promote the values and policies of candidates we like and persuade us to vote for someone; rather than against someone (as the one you are now against may be the one we may need to vote for).

[grumpygresh]

romney is a very flawed candidate. Not at all because of his religion. Not because of his intelligence, demeanor and experience, but because of his policy positions. Having money is important but not the only thing to consider. A sound grass roots campaign is an absoulte necessity. It will not be possible for most self respecting and principled conservatives to make the argument for romney’s position on state health care. Like it or not, government health care is one of the biggest or the biggest issue in the election. Government run health care adversely affects not only health care quality and access, but it has pernicious effects on the constitution and the economy.
Conservatives make decisions on the basis of logical arguments consistent with conservative ideology. Elections are won by a combination of activism and money; an overabundance of money cannot compensate for a poor ‘ground game’. Most conservatives will probably vote for romney (I would) if he is unhappily the GOP nominee. But you cannot expect conservatives to feign enthusiasm for romney and actively participate in campaigns even when obama is such contemptable opponent. And please don’t tell me that romney will spurn a wave of ‘moderate’ activists to work for him.
No vote has been cast. It’s not too late. You can still get behind a better more conservative candidate (Cain, Perry, Bachman, Santorum, Gingrich). Yes, these men and women are not perfect, but they are more conservative overall than romney. Don’t be seduced by the establishment and MSM propaganda that romney is the only viable contender to challenge obama.