I think we are on the same wave length. I have not decided on which candidate to support either.
I know that, in the absence of very unexpected developments, I won't be voting for Huntsman, Johnson, Roemer, Romney or Paul. I could vote for (in no particular order other than alphabetical) Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich or Santorum. I could have voted for Sarah Palin if she were running.
This year's very disagreeable process (a new low) has allowed a leftist turkey shoot (starring our party's candidates as the targets, that must not to be repeated. The only "debate" that I found worthwhile was the one in South Carolina run by Senator Jim DeMint. No Ted Baxters. No Katie Courics. No Wolf Blitzers. No Carl Camerons or Chris Wallaces for that matter. Etc. Jim DeMint is a trusted senator and made a useful appearance as did a distinguished Princeton Professor Robert George who asked nuanced and meaningful questions evidencing great thoughtfulness. I forget the rest of the details of who asked the questions but it was a great contribution to the race. Each candidate got absolutely equal time unlike the other "debates." No candidate was able to hear the responses of any of the others since they appeared on stage one at a time while those not on stage were in isolation rooms. Instead of "gotcha" questions from insufferably biased smartass leftist wannabe news celebrities, we got thoughtful questions and comprehensive answers. We could deprive CBSABCNBCCNN, et al. of advertising revenue while we are at it.
In future contests for POTUS nominations, the GOP should set a number of "debates" reflecting DeMint's standards. One contest per week, each focused on one or more areas of issues: social issues (abortion, marriage, euthanasia and such), military, foreign policy, tax reform and reduction, regulatory reform and reduction, crime and our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, education reform and alternatives, economic recovery and growth, energy policy, trade policy, how to restructure "entitlements," monetary policy, tax reform, reducing and eliminating deficits and the national debt, defending genuine personal freedoms from the statists, and an open ended issue area for expressing imagination as to what the USA and the world might be 25 or 50 or 100 years from now and how best to get there.
Broadcast on TV, radio and internet simultaneously with the ability to replay on internet at leisure. Ignore the petty personal scandal obsessions. No candidate gets questions in advance. For qualifying questioners, place a priority on intellect, creativity, serious Socratic method and sober presentation (using Professor George as an ideal) and insist upon the questioners being within a diverse range of Republican thought. You never know but that such a program might draw serious interest among serious citizens, contribute greatly to public discussion of issues with an inclination toward GOP values and even dramatically re-establish the Republican brand. The Demonrats would have real problems playing copy cat lest the public get a good snootful of what Demonrats REALLY think.
We can make hilarious fun of the Demonrats as the anti-intellectual, politically craven, anti-moral cowards that they truly are when they unsuccessfully try to get us to go back to having Wolf Blitzer, Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer "vet" our candidates through their dime-store Bolshevik prism with tabloid questions and same old, same old gotcha politics.
God bless you and yours.
“I know that, in the absence of very unexpected developments, I won’t be voting for Huntsman, Johnson, Roemer, Romney or Paul. I could vote for (in no particular order other than alphabetical) Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich or Santorum. I could have voted for Sarah Palin if she were running.”
Roger that, Patriot!
I think the majority of the Conservative Movement is in the same boat.