Ann, you've become the very thing you used to warn us about...establishment elite and a RINO! It started with Christie, now with Mitt! Sorry! You've lost a huge block of your following. I'm one of many who now believe you've joined the enemy!

People are getting behind Gingritch because he is slamming the ministry of propoganda and the marxist agenda of the democrats. If we are to support Romney, he needs to take off the kid gloves and start hammering Chairman Obamao and his anti American agenda, as does Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Boring old mr nice guy will not cut it in the election against the media and Obamao. The attacks against Obama must be truthful, loud, and point to the destruction done by the marxists to our country. Portray Obama as the traitor that he is.

Another thing, in the last election cycle, Romney lost to McCain who lost to Obamao. Now he is somehow 4 years later our new Reagan? Could someone please do the math and tell me how this equasion is possible?

I usually agree with Anne,buy her books,etc...I do not dislike Romney or Santorum,but I also ,being a 68 yr old,lifetime conservative,have followed politics closely since the 1950's;Anne is flat wrong in her eval of Newt and the others;she wrongly divides the facts,which is dishonest...but I still like her ,and agree with her in every other area I know of ,politically speaking.

I like you Ann, but I do not agree with this opinion. We have no REAL conservative candidates left and what is left has weak areas and faults. Romney is "Obama light" to me. Paul has the foreign policy of an average liberal. Santorum is weak on illegals. ANYONE should be able to beat Mr Hussein. My grandmother has a better record to run on. So the real problem for me is which of these guys has problems I can deal with. Youve pointed out some food for thought, but Ive seen just as much Romney fodder out there too. Ill support whoever gets in there, but my concerns are the economy, illegal immigration, too much federal government, too much power for Justices, stemming the attacks on the 2nd amendment, and stopping any politicians from using the Constitution as a roll of Charmen tissue.

I agree with Ken Rodgers, there are no real conservative candidates running for president. I also predict that if Romney gets nominated, Republicans will stay home in droves, realizing that Romney is "obama-lite." If Romney is nominated, Obama will coast to four more years.

Gingrich has "been there, done that" and was thrown out of the leadership position (Speaker) by other so-called conservatives. Anyone remember his ego-laden fight to retain the Speakership?

Just like 2008 when the "conservative" Cain was nominated, we're giving up the White House again.

And Ann, you appear to have become one of the new "conservatives" who land just to the left of the middle.

The more I hear Newt dodge the less I like him.

I don't disagree with the primary point of Ann's column. However, I think what we're seeing in this Republican primary is nothing more than an acknowledgement of the fact that a Beaver Cleaver, "Gee, Wally" candidate will not get this job done. He's already proven he can't handle full frontal assaults in this primary season.

What makes you think he'll fare any better when it's winner-take-all against the left? Ann even points to his tactic of refusing to argue on principle and instead,"declaring that he, too, supported Roe v. Wade." That's how he takes on his enemies? This is a battle for the future of this nation and it's return to our founding principles. Fear of offending the enemy and their ilk will not prevail.

Killer instinct and competitive drive isn't taught. You either have it, or you don't. IF Mitt has it, he's doing a fine job of hiding the fact. Stealth strategy? I doubt it.

Ken & Tex, the only standard for true conservatism is the God of the Bible's morality as found codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. Consequently, there's no one in politics today who's a true conservative; they have all compromised the standard. In fact, the standard was outlawed federally (and later by the States) by Article 6's ban of the State's Christian test oaths. No wonder we have such scoundrels, nincompoops, and criminals running government today.

For more, see "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.php

Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey/constitutionsurvey.php and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7 plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."

All the candidates have one major flaw: they are politicians and as such have had to mislead some one at some time to garner votes.

We need to find the candidate who will get more votes than Obama next November. No other arguement matters until we have an American president who believes in America. I'd like to see Santorum get the job, but since that won't happen, I'll back the candidate who can beat Obama and right now that looks like Rommney.

Wow - comments disagree with Ann but do so without refuting her facts. I like the Newt who delivers the great lines, but all evidence says nobody likes to work with him. Romney isn't flashy, but he's good working with people. Romney could work with Congress; Newt will have them pissed off in weeks (if they're not already, especially after Newt throwing Paul Ryan under the bus). Do you want Repub Congress vetoed by Obama? Or, Repub Congress managed by Romney?

The only way Romney (or any of these Republican bozos) can defeat Obama is if Obama has a heart attack and dies before the election. Newt is such a political slug, he leaves a slime trail in his wake; Ron Paul's supporters will be too stoned to find their way to the polls on Nov. 6; Rick Santorum is, ummm.... Rick WHO?; And Mitt Romney is the most stimulating candidate since Bob Dole. These guys should be competing on a reality show: The Biggest [Political] Loser.

Wow - comments disagree with Ann but do so without refuting her facts. I like the Newt who delivers the great lines, but all evidence says nobody likes to work with him. Romney isn't flashy, but he's good working with people. Romney could work with Congress; Newt will have them pissed off in weeks (if they're not already, especially after Newt throwing Paul Ryan under the bus). Do you want Repub Congress vetoed by Obama? Or, Repub Congress managed by Romney?

Good post Ann.

In my opinion, it will come down to Mit or Newt. This because Liberals controll the MSM, and liberals "moderate" the debates. Liberals use this power of the wagon master and the ramrod to shape our perspective of our own republican candidates and we, like mesmerized dolts prefer the ones they choose for us.

Michelle Backmann was the most conservative of the lot, but we failed to back her. Perry was the next most conservative with a splendid resume as governor but we did not back him. The liberals want our republican candidates to be the most liberal and the least conservative, and we allow them to "lord" this over us.

Understanding this, the choice between Newt and Mit for me, comes down to real world experience. People who never work in the real world live with their heads in the clouds, never have they, nor do they, walk on the face of the earth, never do they come back down to earth.

The mindset born of this unreality, of this academican world, display a proclivity for both the folly of illusion and a dereliction of responsibilty. Here is where the smell of liberal, and the smell democrat, eminate from. This is the source of their stench.

Because Mit has some real world experience while Newt has none that I am aware of, given the choice of Mit or Newt, Mit becomes my choice.

It is time we conservatives get out from under the Liberal MSMs whip and choose our candidates our way, not the liberals way.

Lastly, I would vote for Bozo the clown over Barac Obama. Bozo maybe a dolt, but Obama is on a mission to destroy America, he is ruining America intentionally, and deliberately.

Nobama 201, vote republican. Thank you.

As much as I like your work, Ann, you are off the mark on this one. Gingrich has the intelligence to stand toe-to-toe with Obama and WIN. Romney at times appears to respond like the deer in the headlights when questioned. Romney's wealth is certainly something the Dems would make extensive use of as a battering ram and his nomination would certainly lend credence to the Dems claim that the Repubs are the party of the wealthy. In the upcoming Presidential debates, Romney would be fodder while Gingrich would be the junkyard dog. And right now, we need a junkyard dog.

Rigth on Ann. Newt talks alot but his actions are more telling, He worked with Clinton very closely to cover up the actual deficits but using intra-agency bonds to cover up gov't debt. Promoted green programs . It goes on and on Hehas been promoting gov't expansion in the PAC he started which i refused to join

Ann, I'll stand by Newt if for no other reason than he gets in the liberal media face. He doesn't suck up to them to get them to lay off him.

Only that attitude will get enough attention by the public that they might see the BS media for exactly what it is. There must be a way to grab their attention and get them to read past the headline and first half paragraph.

I had planned on voting for Romney as the lesser of three evils--(I would not trust Newt as far as I could throw him; and Santorum comes off as just too...I don't know what...weak?)---but I am starting to like Romney more and more.

Thanks for laying out the case for Romney in such clear terms.

Nope!...It appears that once again, just like 2008, we've got no worthy Republican candidate. Thus, we're going to have the muslim mole with us for another 4 years. The American people will once again demonstrate their own stupidity and re-elect him. What a damned shame!

After last night's debate, I admit perhaps I was hasty in my assessment of Romney's ability to take the fight to the enemy. If he can maintain that edge, and even perhaps turn it up a notch when facing the REAL enemy, then we may not be in as much trouble as feared.

Newt on the other hand, showed why Dole's claim that his former colleagues in Congress aren't lining up behind may very well be true.

The U.S. Ship of State, which was once a 'battle wagon', has morphed into a 'cruise ship'. It no longer carries 'troops'. It carries 'passengers' who are accustomed to life's finer things. They will not accept 'hard-over rudders' by the ship's captain. He's got to miss the iceberg without spilling champagne and dumping dinner.

These 'passengers' are called 'voters', a majority of whom found Captain Obama acceptable on a recent cruise. They're not ready to sail with a 'Bull Halsey'...

wjmccrindle, you hit the nail on the head!

I liked Romney in the last election, voted for him over McCain and was very disappointed when he didn't get then nomination. This time around tho, the more he talks the less I like him. However, I would still vote for him over B.O. ANY day! I'd vote for any of the 4 remaining candidates over B.O. They all have things I like about them, and only a few have a couple of things I'm not entirely on board with. We conservatives (Republicans and Libertarians alike!) need to band together and support ALL the candidates as a united effort to show our utter DISGUST with the current POTUS. These sort of negative attacks against the other candidates on the SAME SIDE just serve the Dems in their mission to get reelected. Shame on you Ann for playing this nasty game. SHAME!

Ann, I have, in the past, enjoyed your acerbic wit and commentary that leaves most scrambling for a dictionary and thesaurus just to read it. But the moment you went in the tank for Chris Christie, it showed me more about your true colors. Fox show after Fox show, Hannity interview after Hannity interview, you fawned over him as the answer to all of the Nation's prayers for a brilliant president. But he's a liberal conservative on many levels, and has proven that. Plus he obviously has a deal with Romney, or he wouldn't be trotting around the country for him. We do not need another moderate conservative in the White House. Moderate, sit down-and-shut-up-and-don't-make-waves, timid conservatism gradually got us into this mess over the decades. Maybe this time your arrogance and Eastern snob conceit are showing your true colors. So Chris didn't run and now it's Romney, who's been running for POTUS for eight years? Believe me, everyone's had a close look at him and there are real reasons he hasn't raced to the top, and it's not because noone's had a look. Maybe it's because he's not truly the answer to what ails us, as Christie is assuredly not as well. We don't appreciate your attempted manipulation of the primary by yelling fire in the theatre and proclaiming that the sky will fall the day of a pivotal primary. You have now placed yourself on the couch with Nancy Pelosi in your attempts to smear Newt Gingrich. By the way - we have advanced college degrees, too - we can see things clearly - can you?

This is the rough and tumble of the nomination process. It is more intense because we want to stop the damage done by Obama and his

sycophants. Newt has many conservative thinkers I admire coming out to ensure he has been fully vetted. Indeed, Anns thesis of Newt running here and there with his mouth and brain all over the political map isn't unusual for him. I supported Newt now I'm not so sure. Newt, Mitt, Rick or even Ron would be better than Obama. I say let the process continue. I wish we could rotate the order in which state primaries occur each election cycle instead of the same people making our decisions for us. That is what gave us McCain.

Methinks that Ann was stood up by Newt for a date, or perhaps Newt insulted one of her books. Saw her on OReilly the other night and in everything she writes she is over-the-top anti-Newt. It seems very PERSONAL for her.

With that, I can't disagree. Newt is arrogant and intelligent and quick on his feet... but also not trustworthy. He's a chameleon who promises whatever the audience wants to hear. He's a backstabber who made MANY blood enemies in both major parties. He puts his power and himself above any and all principles which are discarded as expedients.

Romney is to much of a status quo man for my tastes, though more 'honorable' than Newt. His support for the Rule of Law goes as far as his owner/operators in the MIC establishment let him go.

But what do I know? I'm no better than a "drug seeker" according to Ann Coulter, I'm a Ron Paul supporter who believes the Constitution and Founding Principles should take precedence over party and partisanship. I'd rather restore American liberty than start a war with Iran, or Syria or Venuzuela. I'd rather restore fiscal sanity in D.C. than build a bridge to nowhere and resuming GOP record-spending of the Bush years.

Appreciate the thoughtful posts,and Ann's take on the candidates,but continue to read and research each,PRAY the right man is chosen!

I supported Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann,and liked Herman Cain,any one of them would have made a good president. Don't know who will get the nomination;will support whoever does.Remember the MAIN OBJECTIVE;DEFEATING OBAMA!!!