After a caucus in Iowa and a primary in New Hampshire many conservatives in America still say that Romney still isn't "right" enough to be the Republican Party's nominee in 2012. In fact, they may be itching for a battle between Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Gov. Rick Perry for the title of best Reagan Republican.

However in light of the results of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire it seems that Romney may be just right enough to be the nominee for the Republican Party when all is said and done.


A month before the Iowa caucuses, (a state wherein over 50 percent of likely caucus-goers identified themselves as evangelical Christians), Romney was expected to come in fourth.

Romney wound up winning in Iowa – albeit in a virtual tie with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. But the fact is that Romney did much better than expected and he did win.

Then the race turned to New Hampshire (a state that prides itself in its independence and where independent voters make up a large part of primary electorate).

Romney maintained a comfortable lead after Iowa and eventually cruised to a comfortable win in the Granite State primary.

Rick Santorum was not able to capitalize on his Iowa showing in New Hampshire and came in fifth.

Paul came in third in Iowa and Gingrich came in fourth.

In New Hampshire, Paul came in second and Gingrich again came in fourth. Everyone knows that Paul is neither selectable by the Party nor electable by the People for the office of president of the United States. So if anything Paul has run interference for Romney from the rest of the pack.

In Iowa, Gingrich promised to stay positive and take the “high road,” but soon thereafter veered off to the low road after Iowa and has been on it ever since. In fact, his latest attacks on capitalism launched against Romney seem to be backfiring.

Now the race moves to South Carolina where Christian conservatives again play a major role. Huntsman dropped out of the race today and endorsed Romney.

The remaining field is now comprised of Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum. These three presidential hopeful are doing their best to channel President Ronald Reagan and claiming they are the only true Conservatives.

Paul is just being Paul – happy just to be there.

If Romney is able to take a first place or a very close second in South Carolina then I believe Florida will be the place to sew things up.

A win in South Carolina will be overwhelming proof that Romney is just “right” enough to win the nomination.

If that were to occur, Romney would have won in the conservative Midwest, the more liberal/independent Northeast and the conservative South.

Perry, Santorum and Gingrich need a win, place or show in South Carolina to continue to Florida.

It's obvious that Paul isn’t going anywhere.

The real question will be one for Gingrich to answer. If Gingrich doesn’t come in a close 2nd or 3rd in South Carolina, will he engage in a “scorched earth policy” that if it is not going to be him, then he will make sure it is not the other guy either.

I hope Gingrich will be smart enough to join ranks and seek to unite the Party and not further divide it.

History has shown that South Carolina is a validator of Iowa and/or New Hampshire and not a place for upsets. In addition, to date no GOP nominee who did not win the South Carolina Primary went on to win the election.

After South Carolina those not viable to continue will have to put the Party above their own ambition and ego. They should do what Bachmann, Cain and Huntsman have done and just fade away.

To be considered a viable candidate beyond South Carolina you need four things to continue:

1. Fundraising

2. Organization

3. Message

4. Voter Support

Romney clearly has 1, 2 and 3 in advance of the South Carolina primary, however, the others may have only 1, 2 or 3 but not all 3 to date.

Conservatives sooner rather than later need to come to the realization that the ultimate goal is to defeat Obama. They need to select the best possible nominee in 2012. They need to select someone who is electable by the American people.

At the end of the day it is better to be “just right” than to be totally wrong.

Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/16/is-death-match-coming-between-gingrich-santorum-and-perry-to-be-reagan/#ixzz1jgkn3URF

An opinion piece, a very slighted one at that.

Yeah right...and the BS MSM feeds people (especially FOX) feeds people is ALWAYS right! As bored said, an opinion piece....

To bad it's right on the money, your just mad it describes your precious Ron Paul the way it does.

It is so early in the primary season that dropping out now simply does an injustice to the American people. To have just three or four states decide what choices are presented to the rest of the nation just robs voters of their voices.

I understand that some of it is about rallying the party around a candidate, just as I understand that campaign finance is a big part of it. However, perhaps it is the system that's flawed.

For instance, maybe the order in which primaries occur should be rotated or otherwise altered each election cycle. In 2016, maybe Washington, New Mexico, and Ohio should hold the first three primaries rather than Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Generally speaking, I think the further you get away from the East Coast, the poorer Romney's polls will be. However, if candidates are withdrawing before reaching those states, then the will of the people is not being properly represented.

Sadly, I remember a time when four candidates would last months deep into the primary season. One of my favorite things as a child was following presidential primaries and the conventions during an election year. It was one way I managed to connect with my family elders, whether it be my parents or grandparents. Perhaps that is why I am still prone to discuss politics today.

I vote Actionlynx for president. >.>

Ohh, right..

Forgot we can't 'choose' who we want..
..only from the 'given' options.

I still think Stephen Colbert should run..
Might be the first time I'd vote since..
Holy wow..
Clinton. o.o

That's ashame that you dont xercise your rights. Youhave thr option of a write in.

..for what?

Even IF there was an awesome president out there I liked.
Even IF he truly held in his heart the passion to change the world.
Even IF I voted for him, he won, and sat in the oval office.

There are too many other pathetic, greedy, son bishes that don't want change. That keep this crappy cycle of ours the same.

Obama could write out some of the best laws known to man..
..but he has to get how many other pompous twits to agree to it?

They just don't care.
It's all just a show to them. A paycheck.
It's like they think they work at McDonalds.
I don't feel like flipping burgers today. So I won't.
What's the worse that could happen?

Politicians change their minds with the times.
That's all it is.
Faces. Names. That's all that changes.
Its corporate America.
The president is just the mascot.
"Protecting us from terrorism is our first priority."

Is it?
So why haven't they arrested themselves yet?

They feed the rich.
Rape the poor.

Exercise my right for what? Change?
For me to make change.
I need to gather a following.
Not just any following; a following similar to Martin Luther.
At the forefront. I need a face, not just a name.
This face has to become a household face.
The type you'd recognize miles away when you see him walking down the street.
You need a backing.
You need money.
You need power.

Without any of that...
What change can anyone make?
You can protest.
You can post your blogs and rants.
You can get 150,000 views.
But without power, you have no voice.
Because those 150,000 people who viewed it, liked it, and agree with your thoughts won't come out from their safety net just for anyone.

I mean, seriously, who even nominates these morons?
Do they just stick a monkey next to a lottery machine.
Spin the numbers around, and randomly select them?

This country argues over the most ridiculous things.
"Oh he wasn't born there."
"Oh, he was behind this."
"He's getting BJ's from her."

Seriously?

Poverty. Disease. Cancer. Crime. Unemployment. War. Famine. National Debt. Lowering Education/Graduation Rate Decline. Homeless. Evictions. Losing their homes. Natural Disasters. People abusing the system. Healthcare. Global Warming. Nuclear Crisis. Oil Spills. Terrorism. Violence. Racism.

..and you want expect me to give a flying chit about the color lipstick on that guys ****? ..or whether or not he was born where he says he was? Get out of here. Seriously.

I don't care if the dude just crawled out of a cardboard box beneath the 8th Street Bridge, if the dude wants to make the country a better place, and has the ideas, motivation, and know-how to do it--Let him do it.

But, that's not what politics are about.

It's about butt kissing the media.
It's about butt kissing the public.
It's about convincing the masses, 'I am going to do this.'
Then spend 3 million tax payer dollars to go golfing in Tahiti.

You truly want change?

Replace ALL the politicians with average Joe's.
People who actually care.
Who don't waste 6 hours in a 'conference meeting' and decide on nothing except the simple choice between Prime Rib or Stuffed Lobster.

It's pathetic.

So, if I did vote...
...what exactly am I voting for?

A man's words?
...or a man's actions?
Doesn't seem they are ever one in the same.

Actionlynx for president!
(Unless Colbert runs)

Because you have an opportunity to exercise a right that many would wish to have. Because many gave their lives to give these rights to the United States. Many gave speeches, some were assassinated to give all men and women the right to vote.

Well..

I do put a nomination in for Colbert..
So.. >.>

I didn't know Actionlynx in time I don't think?

In fact, I put a nomination in for him last year too..

Now there is an idea. How about a Romney-Colbert ticket.

you kill me slow!

Not gonna get into an argument with you over it. It accomplishes nothing. You are simply enamored with anyone who has the slightest edge over RP. These are primaries. I remember you liking Cain and bolstering propaganda about him, next Perry and Gingrich. Yeah, your 95% accuracy level is dead on when picking a candidate. Grow up, grow a pair and support one person, not whoever the countries flavor is this week.

S&S . . . how can I say this.

I agree with everything you wrote, except for the conclusions. Yes, most of the candidates are virtually bought by the money interests. Yes, a person with great ideas can be elected president and then be swamped by vicious pettiness and self-centered ideologues. But I still get distressed when people don't vote. I mean, there is no way we can replace the politicians we don't like except by voting for somebody else. I know a lot of people feel like their one vote doesn't count. But it DOES count. To me, not voting is almost like letting yourself be bullied by people who disagree with you.

You want the power of MLK? Well who was he when he started? He was a nobody. But he didn't give up, no matter what happened. He took advantage of being in jail, for pete's sake!

It's easy to think that electing one person President will make a huge difference. But the President's real power is persuasion. If he's not able to persuade Congress--the people who actually make the laws--to follow his lead, then it's not going to happen. Do you know how this current poisonous atmosphere developed in Congress? Because a few Republicans a few years ago made it their mission to shape Congress to their desires. They started in the state legislatures with gerrymandering, got their safe districts passed quietly, then started getting their radicals elected to the House as seats came open. They had a brilliantly worked out plan to get their way even though they were and are the minority.

All I'm saying is, if you want the power of MLK, the last thing you should be doing is declining to vote. It takes a lot more than one vote, yes, but you can't expect to energize a following if you aren't even going to do that.

I actually don't mean to criticize you. I understand the frustration perfectly. I just think you're giving up too easily.

Now if you really didn't give a damn about the whole thing, that would be another story. But you obviously do.

Personally I refuse to vote when I cannot make an informed decision. During some elections, I have been just too busy working double-shifts, afternoons, evenings, and nights, or even taking classes while holding down a full-time job. When I'm that busy, I don't get to pay much attention to candidates or issues. To me it is irresponsible to blindly cast a vote.

That does not mean that I have not been guilty of doing so - I have - but generally only during local elections where most of the campaigning was via newspaper and radio. I have never voted blindly on a national or state level. Doing so would affect too many people. At least if I cast a vote for the wrong person on the local level, there is some manner of recourse.

There are only 6600 people in this town, and I have lived here all my life. I personally know many of the local politicians because I worked with them, went to school with them or their children. Sometimes I was even taught by them when I was in school. There are plenty of people I know in this town. More than once, I wondered if I should run for town office because of the choice of candidates. The main reason why I haven't is because I have made mistakes throughout my life, some of them because of my ADD, which could be spun against me.

That's what bothers me about politics in general - it's all about spin and image, not the issues. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are or how good your heart is. It's how well you can deflect bullets.

Nobody is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. Our current politics are merely symptomatic of a deeper social problem. We have become a nation which focuses on the negative rather than the positive. A nation of bullies and sheep.

You dont vote? Do you realize how many people have died for us to have that precious right? You can atleast go in and vote None of these candidates.........

None of them is always right BUT they they are right the majority of the time.

In some states you dont, here in Nevada you cant since it's the automated box you have the choice of None.

When Romney get's the nomination he will need to pick someone with extensive military experience and srtong conservative values without a history of flipflopping to be taken seriously in November.