[C. Edmund Wright]

I hate to admit this, but in 20/20 hindsight, I think either of them would have been beaten far worse than Romney was. I think they would have been beaten Goldwater bad, not just 2 percentage points. Our field was weak, the IRS, the voter fraud, the MSM traitorous malfeasance could not have been risen above by any of them.

Interesting theory, and I disagree to a degree: Newt had the best chance to win, and the best chance to implode and get blown out. He ran both the best, and the worst, campaign in the primaries.

Santorum was a total non starter, and really only pulled a meaningless "huckabee second place" by hanging around and taking advantage of the "bad Newt" and his stupid strategy. I think he could be a decent Prez, but would have been an awful general elect candiate for sure.

Mitt prolly sneaks through and wins if A: Christie had not given Obama press with Sandy, reminding voters of Katrina and B: had kept his pedal on the metal after debate one. Then again, if Rove and Bush had not let all Republicans and coservatives take the hit for democrat and bureaucrat corruption in Katrina, none of this would have mattered......someone should write a book (oh, wait...)

[Lakeshark]

When Newt was on, he was great. Unfortunately he has never been able to maintain that in the manner Reagan did. Not only could he not maintain it, he would rabbit trail to something so off kilter (Nancy, global warming couch) way too often. It was a flaw that would have likely destroyed him had he been the nominee.

I say this reluctantly as a former and often current supporter.

My least fave was Mitt, but as you say, without Christie's idiocy, Candy Crowley's traitorous collusion, and in my opinion the traitorous foolishness of two per cent "conservative purist fools" who stayed home we would be rid of this Marxist stain.

I hope we can learn a lesson from all this.