[9YearLurker]

Over-the-top is Ms. Noonan’s middle name, but I think she is precisely on with this.

W, like Carter was or I think Huckabee would be, was detrimental to the office because he saw it as the platform through which he would demonstrate his (Christian) goodness. And the genius of our republic is that is fairly well defends against leaders trying to do this at, of course, the expense of the people’s liberty and treasure.

Romney, I think, is dangerous in a related but different way: his eagerness to please (and show his own perfection) leads him to a pandering, big-government, technocrat’s approach to actual governing.

That’s why it is so frustrating when either politicians or voters clamor for so-called ‘personal attacks’, which is often simply evidence of the candidates’ character, to somehow be off limits. Along with philosophy and platform, character is a critical criterion for assessing prospective presidents.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Huckabee reduced the welfare rolls by almost 50 percent. If it turns out to be Huckabee then you should be glad the truth is better than the stereotype you bought into.

[catbertz]

I wouldn't say he destroyed us, just betrayed us frequently. He has certain issues and motivations that do not line up with conservatives. Illegals, belief in big government solutions, misplaced loyalty to lackluster advisor's, excessive willingness to make nice with the Dems etc.

He isn't the first president to piss on his own party, they all do it, usually in the second term. He has carried conservative water on many occasions, even if we had to push him hard, that's ok. I think we are just fatigued after eight years of one man, and the drama that 9/11 sowed, followed by Iraq.

We as a party will survive even if we loose to Hillary. Perhaps it will foster a resurgence of conservative values if we become the opposition party again, fighting a guerrilla war against the evil queen and her stooge first husband.