You did not understand my post.
You aren’t even trying to persuade anybody. You are only hectoring them.
I can play that, too.
Perry isn’t viable because he can’t speak intelligently in debates.
Newt isn’t viable because he flip-flops, attacks Paul Ryan and supported Dede, sat on the couch with Pelosi, and has way to much other baggage.
And then you’ll respond, Santorum can’t even win his own state and he backed Specter over Toomey.
Then we split our votes and Romney wins primaries.
Right now, Santorum is on the way up and will likely win Iowa. Perry is more or less stagnant, Bachmann continues to drop, Newt took a huge hit. Santorum easily has the most upside potential in Iowa, and is the best bet, unless you simply want to go with Paul to deny Romney the win, which keeps a placeholder open for a true conservative in the south.
Regarding you comment about the 19th century. That is partly true because the is no 2/3rds requirement. But each election is different. There is a case to be made for Perry, Newt and Santorum. There is not a compelling case for any of them. The best we can do is deny Romney primary and caucus wins. Pushing Perry in Iowa and NH does not do that. Pushing Santorum in Iowa, Newt in NH, and Perry in the southwest does.
Newt did not sit on a COUCH with Princess Nancy—it was a LOVE SEAT aka short couch or couch built for two.
You could see the love on the vid.