[SoConPubbie]

My point was that in addition to those mentioned by Jim, there are other points worth consideration. We have to survive as a nation for any post-2012 strategy to have meaning. I, for one, still believe the world is a dangerous place. And unilateral disarmament will leave us vulnerable to foreign aggression. 'Peace through strength' is how Reagan put it.

I think we got your point.

ANd I am sure you have gotten ours, the differences between Newt and Mitt are gigantic, the differences between Mitt and Obama are almost differences without distinction.

Because of that lack of difference between Mitt and Obama, he cannot and will not win if God Frowns on us and lets him be our nominee.

Instead of pimping a sure-fired loser on a conservative site when there are 46% of the delegates yet to be won, maybe, if you truly are a sincere conservate, you could join the rest of us and try and defeat the enemy to conservatism, Mitt Romney.

That is IF you are a sincere conservative.

[LucianOfSamasota]

Instead of pimping a sure-fired loser

Have I advocated a candidate?

I observed (on my original post) that Ron Paul was looking better by comparison, but I presume that you are accusing me of endorsing Mittens?

I would be delighted to join the rest of us and try and defeat the enemy to conservatism, Mitt Romney (sic). So why don't you enlighten me, and tell me how to assure the victory of a sincere conservative ?

Otherwise, my points were factual, and meant to augment those provided by Jim's original post. To say there is NO difference, when there are clear differences, is to prevaricate. Conservatives win with the TRUTH, not the twisted, half-truth, misrepresentations favored by Godless socialists. Tell the whole truth, and let those of us with God given conscience decide which points affect our decision.

And please, please please stop putting words I did not say into my mouth. If your arguments are sound, and you are the servant of Christ I hope you to be, you do not need to embellish my post to 'win'.