I try to be an optimist, I really do, but...........

I must admit that I am concerned that the GOP is going to find a way to lose in November. It is not that I doubt that Santorum, Romney or Gingrich are FAR better choices than Obama. All three clearly are, it is not that at all. It is that I can see any of those three losing to Obama.

Santorum? Boring, and yes, he appeals to the Social Conservatives, but, I do fear that his Achilles heel will be some of his past statements would be used effectively to turn off the middle of the road voters.

Newt? Sure, is debates performances have been good, and he has had lots of applause lines, but man his baggage will hurt. He is very polarizing, and comes across as an arrogant ass at times. Lots of positives but lots of negatives too.

Mitt? He will be class warfared to death, and face it he does NOTHING to excite the base, and YES, that does matter, no matter what the establishment types tell us.

Sm, I can see an election where Obama will have a good chance to win re-election, and that is a depressing thought. As she often has during this primary madness, Jill expresses the same anger at the shallowness of voters, and the idiotic manner in which we choose a nominee!

But it’s impossible to compare the process of electing a president now to what it was two centuries ago, or even to fifty years ago when television changed everything. Huge piles of money are now crucial to success, and media scrutiny is so intense that not many persons, even great ones, are willing to subject themselves or their families to its pitiless glare.

Now for a bit of dead-horse-beating. As for the might-have-runs who chose not to offer themselves as candidates this time around, none of them had the complete Rick Perry package: genuine conservative principles, a long record of successful leadership, and a temperament suited to the office. And none of them was without his own negatives. To name a few: Mitch Daniels: “truce,” bald, family problems; Bobby Jindal: dull; Chris Christie: too fat, RINO-esque, arrogant; even Paul Ryan: inexperienced. And who knows how the fickle at-home viewers would have rated their debate performances? Perry’s notorious oops (and the resultant disproportionate, magnifying spin) was the biggest factor in his failure to attract support. Amid all the attention, little serious discussion was given to what kind of president he was likely to have been, based on his extensive record. His flop was an enormous win for Obama.

Now we’re looking at a couple of guys with towering negatives, some of which may constitute deal-breakers for some conservative voters. Come November and beyond, when this American Idol-esque nomination process has borne its strange fruit, Perry’s “oops” may look very tiny in comparison to the one uttered by the rest of us.

And for anyone who is going to throw down the “that is how politics works” line, let me say this. That may be true, and if we just continue to accept it two thing swill happen. Substance will cease to matter at all. Accomplishments? We will overlook them, because “gaffes” are so much more important somehow. And, God help us, once substance and records no longer matter, America will simply fade away.

So, if you wish to defend this madness as worthwhile, spare me. If you wish to defend this intellectual bankruptcy, then you are a big part of what is wrong with this nation frankly. So do not come bitching to me or anyone else if Newt or Mitt are beaten in November. Go look in the mirror. And please, no one tell me, that we need a “solid Conservative” with principles. That is pure, grade A BULLSHIT frankly! We had that, and we rejected him.

Why is it that Conservatives so often want what they want, until we get it, then, we forget what we were wanting! I tell you, I seriously wonder if Reagan could get nominated today. I am sure that we would find enough superficial, stupid reasons to dismiss him too.