Replies

I suppose that would require that we are all in agreement that said candidates are viable conservatives. Perry is not, and he has absolutely zero chance of getting the nomination.

Gingrich is pro-amnesty. I have no desire to debate that issue with anyone as it is pointless; the man said he wants to make certain ILLEGAL aliens legal and, by his own words that is amnesty. I backed off of condemning him for that long ago. If he gets the nomination I hope he wins. But I won't be voting for him as I cannot vote for a pro-amnesty candidate.

At this point, I would politely suggest that you make the case for the guy you can vote for, given how utterly crazy this process has been.

I have had issues with all three men. And willingly admit I have expressed those issues often on FR.

But take a moment and think - our choices are stark - Mitt, Paul, or Perry, Newt or Santorum. And compare the three anti-Romneys to Obama. Cripes, it is a no-brainer. Perry at least has shown he is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-business and understands the 10th. Santorum is pro-life and pro-business and largely is conservative. Newt is pro-life and cripes, he led the last EFFECTIVE conservative revolution in DC - effective meaning the real power to carry out changes such as welfare reform.

You cannot make the case how any of those three would not be a significant improvement over Obama or Romney or Paul. So please, with all due respect, make the case as to which man is the best of the three.