Its worth pointing out that one of the more demented Libertarian splinters of the GOP who eventually ended up inspiring Ron Paul and his merry men were of the opinion that the US constitution was not what we needed to go back to, the Constitution WAS the problem, and we needed to go back to the AoC. Food for thought.

Romney didn't restore his front runner status, he prevented himself from drowning. If he had lost Michigan, which he would have if Gingrich wasn't in the race (But I'm not complaining...I'm still probably a Gingrich voter) he would have no shot anymore. He is treading water right now...if we go into Super Tuesday, Santorum win's Ohio, Gingrich Georgia, and Mitt Virginia, no one is going to be able to claim a huge victory and the campaign will go on...Mitt likely will not win Texas, and I would bet Santorum can take Pennsylvania...this race may come down to how Gingrich and Santorum can take smaller primary states in the Midwest, and Deep south, as I would bet on Mitt taking the West Coast and the North East...so likely no one crosses the 1100 delegate threshold.

As of now, I am thinking the chances of a brokered convention are probably more likely than not.

If Santorum win's because he actually got Democrats to vote for him, rather they want to sabotage Romney or if they are blue dogs...fair is fair. I don't care what they do as long as it stops Romney. If Rick wins Michigan, game over for Mitt.

To the OP, whats disgusting is that we are having someone who might as well be a Liberal being foisted upon us at a time when the entire party has swung to the right. Defeating Romney is worth quite a few "dirty tricks"....besides, this is politics...you think Romney wouldn't do the same if he had a reason to? The man is the consummate opportunist. At least Rick's blue collar stuff actually gives a bit of credence to reaching out to blue dog democrats.

"We have time to be a "team" once the nomination action is over. Right now I'm undecided on which one of these guys is least dangerous."

I am well aware of that. I would rather see the GOP still fighting amongst themselves all the way to the election than see Romney be the nominee.

"Really? For whom will it be a major victory? WE THE PEOPLE, or Newt the DC operator?"

If Newt is honest about what his agenda is, then it would probably be a pretty big net positive for the country. If he's lying or if what he wants to do is politically infeasible, than of course, things won't turn out so well. That's what happens in politics. We vote for the guy who sounds good and hope he's honest.

"The size of his agenda (and Romney's as well) is troubling."

What are you talking about? If you have allot of problems, you need to have allot of fixes...just because those fixes take the form of reducing governmental or Union power does not mean they are not part of the agenda. Just because an agenda is aiming to shrink the government does not mean its small...yes, we all object to politicians doing anything, but to reverse the mistakes of past politicians more political action is required. Are you going to have a hissy fit if our nominee has more than a sentence of policy prescriptions?

"I have one primary hope for the next POTUS... that he will SHRINK the DC bureaucracy and repeal regs and laws that are impeding the practice of capitalism."

As if that is the only thing which is going wrong right now...yeah, right.

"Most everything else will fall into place after that is accomplished."

Is reviving our economy going to do much of anything visa vi the horrible situation that is emerging as a result of the Arab Spring?

"I don't think a one of them seriously considers that."

What the h*ll have we been listening to for the last month? How many times do these guys need to talk about cutting regulations and bureaucracy before your satisfied? Sure, these guy's are lying politicians, and as a cynic, I get that, but its not like these guys have not been hitting exactly that topic time, and time, and time, and time...and time again.

"And, NO Ron Paul is not an option that I would consider, but some of them need to pay attention to his schtick..."

I don't support Ron Paul. In fact, he has been getting steadily more on my nerves. And stop using the caps. Makes me feel like your yelling at me for a suggestion I never made.

Here's hoping Gingrich and Santorum hold Romney off...I'd be fine with either of them beating him of course, but with the super pacs and what not I simply do not see either of them clinching it...but I think Romney's path is getting narrower all the time...I don't want a brokered convention necessarily, but I would be happier with that then a Romney nomination.

Me thinks you are making mountains out of molehills. Gingrich has his flaws, but his is the only, the ONLY candidate who has actually had any major conservative achievements. If he manages to pass half of his agenda, it will be a major victory.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, that RP ad isn't deficit cutting, its campaign propaganda. We should cut defense and Entitlements, but Entitlements are much much worse than defense...but Ron Paul has said he would rather cut defense so we could fund our entitlements. Where the h*ll are this man's priorities?

Besides, I'll be more likely to take him seriously when he stops flying interference for Romney. Not that I think there's a conspiracy BUT I think RP perversely views the more conservative candidates in the race as more dangerous to the country and is more inclined to go after Newt and Rick because he has experience with them but none with Romney.

You sir, argue like a complete @sshole.

Darwin was an idiot. His "Theory" has a big mistake in it, namely the idea that this stuff is purely random. If you think I like Darwin, guess again. I'm trying to chop logic here, not demagogue about the choices you've made. Learn to take yourself less seriously on the internet, and stop judging people. Jesus demands it.

One thing I find particularly unsettling about you is this argument:

"God is the same. No concrete evidence."

God is not a theory. God is not Human logic, though that said, Human logic can prove god exists. Not empirically in the scientific sense maybe...but if you honestly believe that there is no rational ground to argue for Gods existence than you don't know a d@mn thing...I'm assuming your a Christian, so if that's the case I'll tell you something which you better learn: Faith is not a matter of believing without evidence, or believing without reason, without proof. Faith is believing in something rational when you live in a world of evil irrationality. Faith is pushing back the gnawing irrational doubt, not believing in something irrationally.

How can you say Darwin is only talking abut species/genus differences in the first quote when he says "race" even though he specifically conflates his concept of "race" with domestic breeds in the second, breed differentiation being something roughly analogous to Human races?

Your "out of context" defense may be completely sound, but nontheless, what Darwin say's in his second quote contradicts the defense you made for him in the first quote...besides, it is not as if Darwin was developing in a time or field when "Racialism" was stigmatized or looked down on.

And this is a response to your other post, what you say may be right, and I have not spent too much time looking at Social Darwinism in the great totalitarian ideologies...but I'm just curious, where are you coming from ideologically that you feel the need to fly interference for Darwin?