[TAdams8591]

ALL the candidates are flawed, hon. But Mitt has far more positives to offer than any of the others, the principle reason he has my support.

Mitt came in second in Iowa the state that in addition to voting for Huckabee, also voted for Pat Robertson. That hardly shows that Mitt's unelectable, and has nothing to do with electability. It tells us far more about the voters in Iowa than it does about Mitt. That you draw such a conclusion from the Iowa caucus is laughably absurd.

Mitt's in it for the long haul. He has more delegates than any other Republican in the race and remains a formidable candidate and THE ONE to beat. His two second and one place showing thus far, supersedes the winnings of all the potential R nominees.

Now YOU deal.

[Bosco]

Good points.

Romney has 1 first place, 2 seconds, plenty of cash, endorsements, successful private sector executive experience, successful public sector executive experience.

Khepri likes the "anti-Mormon cult" mantra, doesn't he?

[TonyInOhio]

This was a fun Live Thread to lurk upon.

Mark Steyn gave me a new tagline this morning:

C*H*A*N*G*E (Covert Hillary Agency for Negative Gushing Effusions)

I hope this thing goes all the way to the conventions; we haven't had that kind of fun for years.

[Khepri]

ALL the candidates are flawed, hon.

Yes, I know that. I've said elsewhere here that Fred is McCain Lite, and it's said that he's the most conservative in the field with the possible exception of Duncan Hunter.

But Mitt has far more positives to offer than any of the others, the principle reason he has my support.

They ALL have positives..:) The problem is for some reason Mitt brings the highest *negative* rating along with him when going up against a Democrat.

Mitt came in second in Iowa the state that in addition to voting for Huckabee, also voted for Pat Robertson. That hardly shows that Mitt's unelectable, and has nothing to do with electability. It tells us far more about the voters in Iowa than it does about Mitt. That you draw such a conclusion from the Iowa caucus is laughably absurd.

The Iowa voters were largely evangelics who voted in a "anybody but Mitt" fashion (which I have said is a shame). It's sad, but true. I hardly need to tell you there are evangelicals outside of Iowa as well. That indeed does have everything to do with electablility and is hardly absurd. It's the "big elephant in the room" no conservatives want to admit because it reflects badly on them.

Mitt has not accomplished what he needed to early, and he's heading into what we have to conclude based on Iowa as "hostile territory", something akin to Fred running in NH...LOL

You people need to start thinking about the fact that Mitt has under-achieved so far and by all accounts now cannot overcome Rudy's big state, late game, strategy should that pan out. Mitt's early strategy did not do as well as he needed. Yes, he will go on, no doubt about that, but he's damaged goods now. Attrition will begin to erode him as the idea that he can't win sets in.

Frankly, Mitt shoulda played Rudy and Fred's big state late game stratgey in hindsight, cause he probably could have garnered enough votes elsewhere to beat him overall. Sadly, he didn't. He couldn't, because they both had national name recognition going in. He's in as big of trouble as Hillary would have been in had she lost NH too, and I think he's toast...he'll fight on but it's over. You're turn to deal with it....:)