The Republican base sees Romney as a country club Republican, slightly to the right of McCain. The base sees Santorum as a "true" conservative, whatever that is, but without a rudder.

Bottom line: We are looking for a candidate who has core principles and states them clearly (something neither Romney or Santorum can do); both pander to whatever group they are in front of. The principles are clearly defined in our Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Why politicians can't simply state those principles is puzzling.

Santorum is a Christian, Romney is not.

DavidMac is right on target. No one except Ron Paul is clearly stating the principles of Rule of Law and LIMITED government, but Paul terrifies the "establishment" within BOTH wings of the BIG-GOV Party, the Republicans AND the Democrats. Neither wants to live within the Constitution and actually LIMIT the central government to its enumerated powers by curtailing spending. That is anathema to their core constituencies.

In the debate last night in Mesa, AZ, Romney clearly demonstrated that he cannot answer a direct question with clear principles. His tendency has always been to use circuitous and vague language, to issue platitudes and cliches by the boatload and to avoid a stance on principles.

As DavidMac and others are pointing out, Newt and Romney play to their audience, pander and flip-flop...leaving people who watch them over time wondering if they are sincere...or wondering if we should be insulted by their brazen pandering that seems to presume we are stupid or have an attention deficit.

Ron Paul called out Santorum for inconsistency and flip-flopping on issues like Federal intervention in Education. Santorum confessed that he supported "No Child Left Behind." Ron Paul, of course, is the only candidate proposing to ELIMINATE the federal Department of Education, which is NOT authorized by the Constitution. Santorum and Romney now say they would repeal No-Child-Left-Behind. A consistent man of principle would NEVER has supported the usurpation in the first place.

One of the better questions last night asked each candidate to give ONE WORD and one word only to describe themselves. I shouted it at the TV before Ron Paul could answer, and he gave that word: CONSISTENCY.

Not just during this campaign, but throughout his career, Paul has consistently stood for the Founding Principles and Rule of Law. Santorum said, COURAGE. I expected Romney to say something trite like "CONSERVATIVE," but frankly can't remember what he said. Romney is like that, so sanitized and so bland, so vague... and totally forgettable. Then "Moon Colony" Newt closed the discussion with a facetious answer: "Cheerful." Newt has sarcasm and zingers down pat... but he's too much of a faddish loose cannon and flip-flopper to be entrusted with the Presidency.

or not . . . ?

My point being we need a candidate that will run on the fact that he will make decisions based on bible doctrine. Are either one of these guys THAT guy? I don't think so.

@JtC : Since when did we become a Christian theocracy? That would be only slightly better than, say, Iran. Yeah, I just said that. Tyranny in any form is still tyranny. We do have a little thing called the First Amendment; perhaps you should study it sometime.

Should Romney become the nominee are you telling us you'd vote for 0bama because Romney "isn't a "Christian?"

What we so desperately need is a President that will make decisions based on the Constitution, not the Bible.

Romney,Santorum,and Gigrich all stated last night that they would attack Iran and continue to police the world for big oil and the big bankers. Well, we can't afford it and it isn't worth the trillion dollars a year it costs us to do that for the greedy powers that be. That policy of being the worlds policeman for the globalists is all over; there is no money for it and our own people need help until our economy gets going again. Only Ron Paul seems to understand this and states his policies clearly to do it. The others just hype the threat from Iran or Syria or anywhere just to keep the money going to the banksters and corporate globalists. Ron Paul gets my vote and he should get yours, too, to stop this madness.

Ann's point that Romney is the only one of the given four nominees that has a chance to win against Obama is a strong one.

We must, once again, be pragmatic and make the best of what's been given.

Romney,Santorum,and Gigrich all stated last night that they would attack Iran and continue to police the world for big oil and the big bankers. Well, we can't afford it and it isn't worth the trillion dollars a year it costs us to do that for the greedy powers that be. That policy of being the worlds policeman for the globalists is all over; there is no money for it and our own people need help until our economy gets going again. Only Ron Paul seems to understand this and states his policies clearly to do it. The others just hype the threat from Iran or Syria or anywhere just to keep the money going to the banksters and corporate globalists. Ron Paul gets my vote and he should get yours, too, to stop this madness.

Not so quick Dave.

The Constitution was based on Biblical principal.

There are no historical ifs ands or buts about that.

It was written by men of profound Christian faith.

They believed in freedom and that only a moral, christian citizenry could be trusted to keep the nation free. The promotion of Judeo-Christian values was a universally respected pursuit for the first 170 years of the USA and its falling into disfavor parallels a decline not unlike that of the Roman Empire.

There is no Tyranny in Christianity. The essence is choice. Choose Christ as Savior or reject Him. Without that choice our love of God is naught. And outside of a society that advances that choosing the only possibility is Tyranny.

Try going to Iran and testing your half baked theory.

As a conservative (and not as a mere republican or a libertarian), I am not searching for a titanic saviour to our cause. Such a person is mythical and cannot be found. I am looking for a humble repairman who has the knowledge to stop the leak and keep her from foundering.

As conservatives we should look for a candidate who will be able to beat Obama in November. A toad could run against this loser and get elected; an eventuality which now appears more likely as gas and food prices and jobless Americans continue to rise.

Still, if we are serious about restoring the United States to its founding principles and Constitutionality, as conservatives we must ensure whoever the "alternative to Obama" turns out to be, he stands by the prinicples of federalism and lower taxation. This election is about trying to reverse the course of our ship of state and have something left to pass on to our progeny. It will take time and patience to allow her to luff her way and begin to reverse course.

I never thought I would agree with Ann Coulter, but here I am, she tells it like it is! This is the BEST column I have read anywhere on the current idiocy of purists within the Republican Party who would rather go down with the ship, than support a talented decent conservative who just might beat the incumbent president. With the world in a shambles, and our country endangered, by a less than vital economy, unemployment, and possible terrorism from within, these people are obsessing about abortion and contraception. There are laws on the books, this issue has been laid to rest, and this is America. Romney has pandered enough to these people, and they still persist. May I suggest that decent people everywhere will strive to do the right thing. Thank you Ann for expressing the frustration many of us feel, although I unfortunately understand you are preaching to the choir.

While I'm at it, my two sense on the debate last night. If we could just Frankenstein these guys and take a leg form this one and a heart from that one and maybe section in a few brain parts, I'm sure we'd do just fine. I'm just afraid Chris Matthews or someone like him would get into the act playing the role of Igor.

So we have to choose.

The 2016 plan for debates sounds pretty good and all the comments about the absurdity of hiring lefties to help present conservatism ring true and real.

But what we got it what we got and I'm paying more attention to Ann Coulter by the day.

I loved Rick Santorum up till when he threw Toomey under the bus.

Gingrich is not Churchill, no matter how I try to torture the likeness, but he is erratic and unpredictable and, to many people, just too scary to vote for.

Paul would make Obama look like a military hero by comparison.

Read all Ann has to say about her guy, Mitt Romney.

She makes the case better than anyone. Enough of the search for the "Not-Romney". If he is the nominee, we need to focus on the "Not-Obama"!

Uh, make that "two cents" please. Editor!

Ann is right. While we Republicans are fighting among ourselves as to who is the true conservative, Obama is making headway with a strong probability that he will win another 4 years. That being said, we need to knock off the BS, and nominate the best chance to Beat Obama. Failure to do so endangers our future, and if Obama does win, the Republicans have only to blame themselves. DON'T Blow This Opportunity.

Ann is apparently so in love with Romney's hair that she can't stand any criticism of the guy. Unfortunately, a lot of Ann's "facts" just don't hold up under scrutiny. To take but one example... As discussed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, the Heritage Foundation did not rate Governor Romney particularly high in it's various ratings. For one thing, they specifically noted that Romney's claim that "He balanced the budget without raising taxes" (as Coulter puts it) is bogus.

Romney last night claimed that because Santorum supported the then republican Spector, he is responsible for Obamacare. This is beyond stupid, and a far strech of immagination couldn't make this case. With whoppers like that, Romney needs to rethink that line of illogical thinking or just go home and end his campaign. If he truley believes that, he is unworthy of high office. It was one of the most stupid things I have ever heard a serious candidate say. Within a month we should know who our nominee is. It Will Not Be Ron Paul, and we must support the eventual winner. It is all about defeating a marxist Islamist, and Our Nominee CAN WIN.

If Romney is the guy, then he certainly has my vote over Obama. But there are two reasons he makes me nervous. First, he is a Massachusetts Republican, which is just like a California Republican, which makes them their own special breed that needs to be monitored closely. Think Governor Schwarzenegger. Secondly, Ann doesn't touch upon what most people find troubling about him, which was signing into law his state's version of Obamacare. If getting rid of Obamacare is priority 1 (claimed by Ann herself), how can a candidate that thought it was great for his state be the one to do it?

Do I hear a drum beating???

AC makes the case for Romney better than Romney has thus far. In his latest ad in Michigan, Romney states that the easy party would be to repeal Obamacare. That cuaght my attention but how does he do that exactly? If he's the last one standing, he would get my vote.

I don't think it's a drumbeat, more like hooves coming in from the East. Either way it's disturbing.

@ Right Side of Ohio-

Reagan was a California Republican too.

@RightSide... Hold it, did you just make a comparison between Romney and Schwarzenegger??? I almost stopped reading your comment at that point... And the brilliance of Romney's governorship is that he was able to successfully work both sides of the aisle. Romney's healthcare plan didn't pan out long term, but did okay initially. And let's be very clear: it's not "Romney's version of Obama-care"... Obama thought his healthcare was the best thing ever until he started getting pummeled about it, and then immediately turned and said he based it on Romney's model (the master of diverting blame). Your arguments aren't valid and contain no weight compared to the successes that Romney has driven. The man is a proven leader (nice change from the putz currently in the WH), which is what this country needs now.

Don't know what it is but my BS detector screams when Romney speaks. It might be bolstered by his snide, eye rolling, condescending looks he gives other contenders, or his attempt at snappy answers that fall flat. This has nothing to do with his being a Mormon or from Mass. There is something rotten in him.

Ann Coulter is 100% right thank the Good Lord. I use to look up to Hannity I looked past 08 him falling all over himself about the former Liberal New York Mayor, after he and Rush much too little to late endorsed the Great Mitt Romney. Mitt's right on the money, Pro Life. Pro Military and his church Baptise in the name of the father,son, and Holy Ghost and that'ss the way the Baptist, Methodist, and Catholic and most churches Baptise so he's a Christian good man. Lincoln never joined any church, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were Deist. The one's that are Turn Coats on Mitt like Hannity, Rush, Santorum, and many more wouldn't know what a Conservative is if it was written in Stone. I guess that why Hannity screener want but me through to his crumy Ole Show. Thanks Ann for calling them out we must work 24-7 for Governor Romney. A SPED. Teacher Retired Mississippi Dee Jay Traditional Country Dee Jay a Pentecostal that does Lay Speaking in Methodist Churches. I'm 64 years old and have never voted for a Donkey for President. They keep talking about Dole and McCain losing because they weren't Conservative enough what about Goldwater in 64 to LBJ. Love Willie Go Governor Romney:

@Jim:

In what ways is the Constitution based on Christian principals? I find that assertion to be absurd. As you think about how you would answer, I'd advise you to think carefully and identify only those princpals that are uniquely Christian, as opposed to those that are equally present in Judaism, Mormonism (since apparently some here think Mormons are not Christian), Buddism, Confucianism, and so on.

Yes, some of the men who wrote the Constitution were Christians. Some were Deists. All believed that a cornerstone of liberty was the freedom to choose your own religious path in life.

They believed that freedom and liberty could only exist in a moral and just society. I do not believe that equates to a Christian society. Strictly speaking, Judaism is not a Christian religion. Are we to believe that Jews are not capable of being moral people? JtC asserted above the Romney is not a Christian, I guess based on his belief that Mormanism is not a Christian religion. Are we to believe that Mormons are not capable of being moral?

I would agree with you that part of our problem as a society is related to a degradation in morals and values. I do not agree that Chrisianity is the only path to achieving a moral life.

When you (or JtC) assert that we are a "Christian" nation you are directly in contradiction to the First Amendment, which tells me you have no respect for one of the cornerstones of our Constitution.

And sorry to say it, but to me there is little fundamental difference between a government that forces me to believe in Islam and a government that forces me to believe in Christianity. Both are exercising a tyranny of the worst kind: They are telling what I must think.

Thank God for Ann Coulter for calling Hannity out about him Flip Flopping on Romney, nothing has changed accept Mitt has gotten little older and a lot wiser the valedictorian of BYU and a Business/Law Degree from Harvard. A retired Country Dee Jay, currently a SPED. Teacher and a Lay Preacher. Hopefully as soon as Mitt beats Rick he will endorsed him again. Willie Harrell:

It is a tragedy that the candidate that actually proposes to reform government to stay within its Constitutional limits is not the leading man because we have all become too accustomed to the special piece of the corruption pie that we would lose if he was elected.

Principles have become so outdated that anybody that has them is considered a relic and not electable against anyone that runs on popularity and promises of more pie.

@ Right Side of Ohio -

You obviously haven't read Ann's defense of Romneycare - check her archives.

@ wjmccrindle - couldn't have said it better myself...

So far I haven't seen Romney, or any of the other candidates for that matter, actually talk about policy or what they actually plan to do to reverse the detrimental course the Obama has steered us into. The last Republican Candidate who actually did that was Herman Cain. Since then every debate has been Romney attacking the past records of his opponents. None of these debates have been productive. These guys need to stop bickering with each other, start listening to the people, and start putting together a real plan on returning America to the Constitutional Republic that it is supposed to be. So far Romney has not demonstrated to me that he can do that. If he does receive the nomination then he had better start putting a plan together that doesn't include constantly attacking Obama's record because look at how well that did fof McCain. I don't think Romney is a better choice over Santorum at this point, but , I'd be happily surprised if he could change my mind.

@Dave. Jim's got it right -thank you, Jim. By the way, I know the First Amendment VERY well Dave, thank you. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion . . . What did I say that made you think I don't understand that? I didn't "tell you" I would or wouldn't vote for anyone. The point is the bible is THE source of truth and any and all decisions made via the application of bible doctrine (TRUTH) are and always will be the correct decisions.

"JtC asserted above the Romney is not a Christian, I guess based on his belief that Mormanism is not a Christian religion." The one thing you got correct about my statement. Mormonism is NOT Christianity. You came to all kinds of erroneous conclusions about what I said. Here's another: "a government that forces me to believe in Christianity". That is tyranny and I never suggested that, either. YOU said that. All I said is that this nation needs a president that will make decisions based on the TRUTH of bible doctrine. In that there is NO fault.

Apparently Ann's discovery of her "inner moderate" has driven most of the actual conservatives away from her blog. I still drop in to chuckle over her school-girl crush on Mittens; not unlike Chris Mathews' leg tingling over Obama.

As for Mittens himself, I've said it elsewhere and I'll repeat it here: The only way Romney could defeat Obama is if Obama were to rape a small child on the White House lawn on live TV and then eat the child. And then only if he did it within a week of the election, before the media could spin it and the voters forget it. If indeed elections are determined by the independents and "moderates", then why would anyone think for a moment that these voters are interested in switching one big-government, globalist horse for another in the middle of this stream? Why would anyone think that those that wish for Obamacare to be repealed want to replace it with Romneycare? And why would they vote for the white progressive over the black progressive when it would label them as racists (which apparently is the worst thing you can label someone these days)? Mittens is just a younger, better looking McCain.

"JtC asserted above the Romney is not a Christian, I guess based on his belief that Mormanism is not a Christian religion." The one thing you got correct about my statement. Mormonism is NOT Christianity. You came to all kinds of erroneous conclusions about what I said. Here's another: "a government that forces me to believe in Christianity". That is tyranny and I never suggested that, either. YOU said that. All I said is that this nation needs a president that will make decisions based on the TRUTH of bible doctrine. In that there is NO fault.

Dave, I hear echoes in your comments of the heaps of revisionist history that have been inundating the nation from the left. The country was utterly Christian at its founding. The Bible was absolutely at the center of all things commonly being considered. And nothing was more basic to that founding than the insistence that there be no government establishment of religion, close as they were then to the religious bloodbaths of Europe, which drove so many here in the first place.

I have a brother who fears the "Christian Right".

Maybe he should.

Maybe you should, too.

I, for one would be elated to see the Government's establishment of their Religion of Secularism, driven from the public square.

I would like to see the free expression of religion go unhindered.

I'd even like to see pornography banished and I'd like to see policies that serve to strengthen marriage rather than to diminish its critical societal importance. I think a country involved with real creative sex within the faithful union of marriage can survive. And I strongly suspect that a country given over to imaginary, lonely self-gratification cannot.

And finally it may be true, "Strictly speaking, Judaism is not a Christian religion". But Christianity is certainly a Jewish Religion.

My Savior was and is a Jew and that leads me toward a certain affection towards my Hebraic Brethren.

Anti-Semitism from a "Christian" is an absurdity beyond the pale.

@ JtC:

Perhaps I did read too much into your statements.

Making decisions based on Bible doctrine still sounds too much like a theocracy to me. In particular, your use of the term 'doctrine' has certain overbearing implications to me. You may think the Bible is the source of all truth. Many others in our country have other belief structures. Just as one example, Jews may prefer we make decisions based on the Torah, or the Old Testament only. There is much to be learned about moral behavior from eastern religions - why not look to them as well to inform our judgements?

If, for example, you had said we needed a President who embodied Christian values, I'd not have any objection to that. It's a fine line perhaps, but one where clarity is vital in my opinion.

What we desperately need is a President, a Congress, and a Judiciary that will make decisions based on our Constitution. For too long we have allowed our government to operate well outside the bounds of the Constitution.

We don't need liberals, moderates, conservatives, or other ignorant Americans. WE NEED CONSTITUTIONALISTS!!! Someone of honor and great moral behavior, no matter what his religion. We need a man that can be president of all the people, not just so-called Christians.

I no longer listen to Rush, Hannity, or others like them. Talk about flip floppers. What a disappointment they've become. I'm amazed.

The only two decent candidates left are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, but Ron stammers constantly, never completing a sentence. Just not presidential.

How can anyone support Santorum or Gingrich? Just look at their philosophy of government, and especially their behavior. They are totally NOT constitutionalists.

Wake up America...before it's too late.

GO ANN. YOU GOT IT RIGHT.

One more point.

This election is not just about electing a president. It's about electing a Constitutional Senate.

If the Senate continues as it is, full of liberals and democrats, controlled by Harry Reid, even if Obama is defeated, we'll still be in a world of hurt.

How come this is never mentioned?

I am personally tired of the incessant debate. We have all got to get behind one person and get rid of Obama. The problem is I don't think we even have a really solid front-running decent GOP candidate: Gingrich with all his baggage; Ron Paul's clueless foreign policy; Santorum and whatever people undoubtedly dislike about him and Romney's a Mormom and Romneycare and whatever! We have all got to get behind one Republican for the continued existence of this country because BHO and his ilk are doing their best to destroy the American way of life. One more term for BHO will be the beginning of the end of the United States of America.

The good news is, there are now training videos for when the end comes on the National Geographic Channel. The show is called, "Preppers." I'm only being slightly facetious...

The problem with Romney is simple: Romney is either a liberal or a compromiser, but he's not conservative by any measure. Just look at his record.

1) RomneyCare was the model for ObamaCare. Anyone who is serious about overturning ObamaCare can't support Romney, who authored essentially the same legislation as governor of Massachusetts.

2) Our candidate should be fully pro-life. Romney was pro-abortion until his run for presidency in 2008 when he flip-flopped to get votes. He's been "pro-life" for the last 4 years? Give me a break! He's not fooling me!

3) Our candidate should support traditional marriage. Romney folded like a cheap tent in a tornado when faced with the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision on gay marriage and gave up without a fight. On these issues, we need a fighter, not a compromiser!

Is there anything Romney did as governor that could be considered conservative?

@ Dave "What we desperately need is a President, a Congress, and a Judiciary that will make decisions based on our Constitution. For too long we have allowed our government to operate well outside the bounds of the Constitution." I certainly do not disagree with that -it would be far better than what is going on now. I do not begrudge anyone who looks at religion for moral guidlines. I just mean to say that 1) Christianity is NOT a religion and 2) Nothing is needed beyond the bible for moral guidance. Don't let the word "doctrine" put you off.

Jim -

No argument that the country was overwhelmingly Christian at its founding. That's a very different thing than saying Christianity is the basis of our country.

The biggest thing I fear from the Christian right is that they will drive the selection of a candidate who is so far to the right socially that he alienates the center, and without the center we'll have another four years of 0bama. I fear we are nearing a tipping point, and there might not be much left of our country after another 4 years of 0bama.

There is something instructive about the solid base of support behind Ron Paul despite his lack of money, certain wacky views he holds, and his inability in many cases to clearly articulate his case. (BTW, I am not advocating that he is a better alternative). He draws support from those who believe in our Constitution, from those who believe in liberty. This includes many in the center who are stand up moral people, but who believe there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the goverment to intrude in many personal areas of our life.

I agree with you 100% that the debilitation of the family is at the root of many of our societal ills. That said, I find nothing in the Constitution that indicates a role for the federal government in "supporting the family." We do need to eliminate those social programs that have served to destroy the family in many segments of our society, but that's only in keeping with our Constitution.

Despite the fact that I am not a Christian, I agree that we have gone way overboard in the zeal of some to eliminate religion from the public sphere. I appreciate Christianity for the values it embodies, and have no problem with the expression of those values in our public and even political life.

I suspect that although we may come at the issues from different directions, that we agree about a whole lot more than we disagree about. Nevertheless, I continue to maintain that the most important issue is to return to a government whose scope is properly limited by our Constitution.

When politicing in Massachusetts, Kennedy attacked Romney, and tried to link him to Ronald Reagan, as if that were a bad thing, Romney's reply was "Look, Im not trying to take us back to Ronald Reagan". So I ask: Why Not? Somebody should be. Our leaders have got to stop simply halting the leftward movement in this country, just until the left returns to power and continues the run left. They have got to take us back to the right, we are running out of time. Because he buckled and said that, I will not vote for Romney, he is not the most conservative among the Republican candidates. We need reformers not comformers. I will not vote for Romney even if he wins the Primary, and there will be no guilt in me if such a split costs the election, because I am finished compromising and selling out. If others want to sell out I can do nothing about it, but I will not. And if we lose to Obama, then show me the Succession papers, full steam ahead succession for me. I am sick and I am tired, of the power hungery corrupt greed of the left, and the spineless conforming of the Republican party. While they play games, Americans lose. Thomas Jefferson himself said if the Federal Government ever becomes an oppressor of the people, it is their duty to revolt.

Good point Che.

(hey, do you have any reletives down in Bogota?)

Interesting comments. I think Santorum believes in conservative principles. Why Romney will never speak conservative principles is beyond me. He just continues to say he's a real conservative, that means nothing unless he understands what they are. The debates, including the one put on by Fox News, have distorted what is important in America today.Many fail to understand 90% of the debates run by CNN & the Networks are spreading Obama"s talking points. ABC started the "repeal condoms" lie. Did all of you understand last night, there was never a word spoken by the moderator about energy costs, about religious freedom, desert spring failures, question the economy recovery lie, and so on. It's a complete deversion to keep our minds off Obama's continuous failures because the democrats have nothing else to run their campaign on. Who in their right mind wants three more years of Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi? I will support the last man standing before I vote for any democrat. All the candidates need to focus on Obama's failures and quit destroying each other.

Dave,

I get your worry about social conservatism proving to be the tool Obama wants.

Santorum might give some the jitters by virtue of his last devastating loss. I don't recall the particulars but surely his opponent drive home all the fears that moral relativists share about strong Christians coming on jackboots to peak in a bedroom near you.

Given his loss one would think he'd haved learned the way to be constant and faithful without stepping in it to the delight of the demogogic left.

I'm afraid he's to much a self righteous goody two shoes to be clever enough beat Obama.

I suspect, come November, we'll both be praying for Mitt Romney to prevail. I will anyway. You might try it too!

Is this disestablishmentarianism? Are the opposing arguments antidisestablishmentarianism? Praise be to Ann; I never thought I'd ever be able to use that word in real conversation.

Merry C.: Exactly! You nailed it! Romney is the Plastic Man, regurgitating stuff that his handlers think he should say. He has absolutely NO leadership qualities and he simply isn't that smart. His IQ is probably the same as Obama's: average.

Let me sum up for everyone. There are no hard core conservatives running for the presidency at this time. Ron Paul is pretty close to hard core conservative, but he has some ideas on foreign policy that do not set well with conservatives. The following is the huge elephant in the living room:

Do we try in this election to find and support an ideal conservative who could and would turn this country around (if elected), at the risk of another 4 years of Obama, or do we compromise some of our principles and reluctantly say, "The important thing is to beat Obama. We will worry about getting an ideal conservative in 2020".

Can this nation stand four more years of King Obama? You ain't seen nothin' yet. He will dance daily on the U.S. Constitution, and perhaps many of us will be in jail for "crimes against the state".

I do not like Romney, either. I would like for a candidate for the presidency to say, "This is what I am, this is who I am, this is what I believe. If you like what you see, support me. If not, support the other guy, but I will not lie about my standing on issues, or color the truth, or make deals with bad people." I think we are all looking for such a candidate. But we are not going to find one between now and November. So we are left with simply trying to make sure Obama never serves again. The ideal conservative is clearly not electable this year. Neither Alan West nor Marc Rubio are running for president. Nor are any of several very conservative senators. We must go with the choices who have the best chance of beating Obama. Ann Coulter, is, unfortunately right. She dreads and abhors the thought of another four years of Obama, as do all of us. I am from the deep South. I have nothing in common with Romney other than we are both human beings. But I will support him to beat Obama.

If Santorum were more of a sure bet, I'd go his way. But we must sink the Bismarck.

Dave, I would encourage you to read "The Theme is Freedom" by M. Stanton Evans. He does a much better job than can be done here, but does conclude that the American Founding was based on a distinctly Christian world view. But a few examples from memory:

1. the idea of a bicameral legislature was a direct extension of the Congregationalist governance structure, which in turn was an Old Testament model to prevent tyranny.

2. much that is attributed to Locke in terms of social compact, was implemented in the new world prior to Locke's birth by the Mayflower Compact.

3. the idea of checks and balances comes from the notion that men, even good men, are sinful and need constraint in government.

4. for the first time in human history, mans' rights were endowed by God, and there is no doubt that they were referring to the God of the Bible.

It has also been said in Spalding's "We Still Hold These Truths" that the founders were both followers of reason AND revelation, that these were inextricably tied together and could not be severed. No doubt they read the British/Scottish enlightenment thinkers, but placed it in the context of deeply religious roots. Just read Washington's words and it screams from the page.

Generally speaking, every politician will talk to an audience in a way that he believes the audience wants to hear. That is, he will select facts, nuance positions, forget past assertions, and trash opponents in the race. (even if the opponent is his regular golf or tennis partner every week.)

They will also lie, cheat, and steal to obtain votes, and if they can get the folks in the graveyard to vote for them a couple of times, that is ok, too.

I've voted in and watched every election since the 1960's. Promises to achieve energy independence, reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, and to simplify the tax code and improve the economy have allways been made, and when was there fulfillment?

Another Coulter column - Phew.....

To Mac ....

Che is a Navajo word for "honored maternal grandfather".

It is also used in Argentina to mean "Dude", "Buddy", etc.

It doesn't always refer to Che Guevarra, the South American Communist, which is like saying Mac must be a truck.

who can beat the bamster? that is the one most important issue since we cannot survive another year, much less four years of socialism which will become even more backed up by the not so supreme court if he gets to appoint more of them.

Christian, Mormon-who gives a rats ___. Going by the Constitution will actually solve most of our problems almost immediately. so, what's important? Someone who can beat the bamsterscum and someone who will push this country back to the rule of law, our Constitution. Ann's right. Too bad Paul can't win.

TERM LIMITS-IMPEACH-PROSECUTE

Okay, I can see you Ron Paulies are at it again! Do you just do a "blogwheel" and line up about 50 names and download this stuff? I will never understand the reasoning behind this. And then I wonder is it Obama trying to prevent Ron Paul's message from being considered? Ron Paul is the only person running who has any personal integrity at all. Oh, how this political warfare stuff frustrates me.

For my two cents worth: Who pretends Ann Coulter is a conservative? Who pretends Romney is a conservative? It is not that they are conservative, it is that they are trying to drive conservatives into even more liberal positions than they have been dragged to in the last 30 years. Conservatives have lost connection with the righteousness of God by following leaders who have gained positions of leadership under false pretenses. The only way to escape this manipulation is to stop following the leaders into the pits are start looking to God's word to re-gain the knowledge of what righteousness looks like. When we refresh our minds and hearts as to what God's righteousness looks like, we will be less likely to be fooled by wolves in sheep's clothing. Wolves are liars and the truth is not in them. They dress up so as to appear to the eyes and ears as if they are good shepherds, but they are hired messengers of wickedness in high places.

As a friend of mine, who is a "Ron Paul guy", said recently. "Let's have Romney be the GOP candidate and move on. I'm burned out by the primaries." We need a candidate who can win in November. I believe Romney gives us our best chance. Romney has the best organization, the most money, both private sector and government experience, experience as a governor, and has the intelligence to counter Obama's record. In addition his family life is above reproach. His organization also has the where with all to fight fire with fire by coming up with political ads that will combat those that will certainly be put forth by Obama and the left. I was, and to an extent, still am impressed by Newt's ideas and ability to fend off cockamamie questions from the MSM; however, I want Obama out in November and Mitt Romney gives us our best chance to win.

Someone, who is as wrong as Romney about God and His Son, really isn't the right person to lead this country. Obama has done away with most (if not all) public observances of Christianity, and Romney hasn't got the knowlege of the Truth of God to restore our national heritage (86% of the people claim Christianity as their religious belief) to the level of import that it SHOULD have.

Those who claim that the Constitution supports seperation of church and state should READ it. It has NOTHING in it stating that at all. It is just the uneducated left pushing their agenda using whatever ignorant sound-bite it can come up with.

In 2000 Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer got combined 23% of the ccauus votes, in 1988 Pat Robertson got 25%, so there is lots of votes going to the evangelical leader type of candidates. If we look at the 4 recent Iowa winners, we can put them mainly on two categories. Large margin victories by evangelical leader candidate, or small margin victories by the next in line . Huckabee was of the first type, Santorum is of the first type, GWB was kinda combo of the both types, and Dole was and Romney almost was of the last category. Actually Dole didn't have an evangelical style leader, who had actually ever won any elective office as opponent, only Alan Keyes, so we could deduce that if there is a good, somewhat qualified, evangelical style candidate, he should take Iowa rather easily.A person who manages to get the identity politics edge, to claim the position of evangelical leader in Iowa ccauuses, if that person has required political and communication skills, and charisma to be a good presidential nominee, that candidate will totally crush the competition in Iowa, like Huckabee and GWB did. Santorum didn't, he got almost exactly the same as Pat Robertson did (24.56% vs 24.5%)...So he is going down because he is pretty candidate, not happy enough warrior, even when the MSM is giving him a free ride and right wing media is giving him a boost.