[TomGuy]

Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Santorum, and Gingrich were all poor candidates.

Romney did not really beat them all because there were too many of them and they divided the vote.

Romney beat each of them because none of them were really very good.

I have come to the conclusion that that was by design. It was almost a repeat of 2008. Get several 'conservative' candidates to run and split the vote so the preferred GOPe candidate gets the nomination.

McCain, even after he sewed up the nomination, seldom got more than 70% of the primary vote. Romney didn't do much better.

Still, 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 'conservative' candidates did more mucking up than putting forth a viable alternative. Even toward the end, when it was obvious Gingrich couldn't win with Santorum in the race and Santorum couldn't win with Gingrich in the race, both held on until Romney won by default.

[rogue yam]

Even toward the end, when it was obvious Gingrich couldn't win with Santorum in the race and Santorum couldn't win with Gingrich in the race, both held on until Romney won by default.

Do you think that if either Santorum or Gingrich was the GOP nominee right now we would be happy with where we were?

Would we have a good, solid, across-the-board conservative candidate?

Would our candidate be more popular, and more admired, and doing better in the polls than Romney is now?

Would the leftist attacks against our nominee be as ineffective and failing as they are now?

Would the focus of the campaigns and the election and the media coverage be as much about the economy and about Obama as it is now?

I think the answer to each of these questions is "No."

[no dems]

Even toward the end, when it was obvious Gingrich couldn't win with Santorum in the race and Santorum couldn't win with Gingrich in the race, both held on until Romney won by default.

BINGO!!! WE HAVE A WINNER! WE HAVE A WINNER!
We Conservatives did this to ourselves. The GOP Elitists didn't do this, we did; with a bunch of losers running in the Primary.