Late to this particular party but here goes...
The summary by Charles is more or less equivalent to my own opinion on the matter.
One of these candidates is going to be our nominee.
There will be no write-in or draft Palin nonsense.
Eliminate the obvious deadwood: Huntsman. Bachmann. Santorum. All gone after NH at the latest.
Paul will stay in it all the way to the convention. He doesn't have the sense or the grace to get out of the race and will maybe get somewhere between one and ten delegates.
Romney will stay in it all the way to the convention because a) it's his turn and b) he has the money. More on him below.
Perry will be in it through South Carolina or maybe Nevada depending on how he finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire. I'm not writing him off because as unlikely as it looks now he is still a viable Not Romney. But he could be finished without a strong showing in IA and NH.
Cain is getting a lot of support from Limbaugh and Levin for reasons I cannot fathom. On the one hand I know that they do not like the Clarence Thomas style of smears that have come his way. I don't either. And I don't believe them to be credible. But, that said, over the last two to three weeks I have had the exact same shift in attitude toward Cain that IDP has chronicled. I reluctantly overlooked the "right of return" gaffe but it did raise my awareness toward this problem. I was further annoyed by the "abortion" gaffe. There isn't any point in listing them all...we know them... Cain is not exhibiting the behavior and temperament of a serious candidate. That this is now evident to political geeks (like us) means that it will be evident to the rest of the base before the IA caucuses. Cain has enough money to make it through the first two or three primaries but that will be it. Limbaugh called out Bachmann and I have to wonder just how much longer he can carry Cain's water. Can't be too much longer.
There is a damned good reason that most of the field consists of Not Romneys. Romney, as pointed out above, isn't a conservative and calling him a RINO is being extremely generous. Romney is a liberal technocrat. He will sell himself as a better manager of big government than BO and, if he is the nominee, that will probably be enough to win. He is, as pointed out elsewhere, our Dukakis. Since I would vote for anyone who is nominated to oppose BO I will vote for him. Dutifully. Just like I dutifully voted for McAsshole the last go round. Because I have to tell my children and grandchildren that I did everything in my power to oppose BO.
Which leaves Gingrich*. Gingrich has well documented problems, most of them listed in the above posts. Gingrich is, like Romeny, a technocrat. He is not a conservative in the vein of Reagan. He does not see a real problem with the bloated size of the federal government but rather sees it as an opportunity to step in a do a better job of managing it. His history more than verifies this. I see him as a Romney Lite. A more astute Romney. More of a fighter than Romney. Of all of the candidates, I have to admit, I look forward most to Gingrich facing BO head to head just because he would intellectually eviscerate BO in the same manner that he did Scott Pelley last Saturday night.
I see the field right now as Romney, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. I believe, barring something very odd, it will be one of these four who will be our nominee. I just don't see how one of the others rises up to win at this point.
I also believe that any of these can beat BO. BO sucks. Everyone knows it although there are a great number of squishes who will not publicly admit it. BO makes Carter look wise and thoughtful. I honestly do not know how BO isn't defeated by anyone after his tour de force of incompetence.
So...where does that leave us?
If one of these yahoos is elected, what then?
It comes back to Congress at that point. I hate to put our national salvation in the hands of Congress but that's really what it will come down to. And there is some recent precedent for it. The Class of 1994 was truly amazing. They rose to the occasion and fulfilled the Contract With America and then proceeded to reform welfare, balance the budget and create a budget surplus (even though the MFM gave Clinton the credit for it).
If we end up with a weak president (from a conservative point of view) then there is a very strong incentive for Congress to rise up and lead in his place. A weak president will sign whatever legislation the Congress sends his way.
That puts the real trick in electing an even more conservative Congress than we have now. Not easy to do but at least there we have options.
In the presidential field our options are pretty bleak.
*Does kind of make you think of Pawlenty and what might have been.
(and welcome back, rickl)
