First off, this author clearly doesn't have any clue about how Private Equity works, and Mitt's role in buying/selling/building companies. Second, this author somehow believes that Mitt was a mere consultant, severely understating the fact that Mitt was only a consultant at Bain for the first few years, and then built something, including major companies like Staples, Sports Authority and others, that mere consultants simply don't build. Third, still calling Mitt a "consultant" after turning around the Olympics and running the state of Massachusetts, is like calling Ron Paul "just a doctor" after decades of substantial legislative experience beyond his medical profession. There's a lot to be said of all the candidates, but it's hard to dispute that Mitt has FAR more turnaround experience than the other three. If you disagree, what have the other three done that even comes close?

And, we're coming up on crunch time now and continuing to be fragmented across the Republican party. So it's time to stand up and be counted. Who are you voting for? We need to unite.

I agree that Walker and Christie have shown tremendous leadership and effective results so far. Neither one of them are running for President, so I'm not clear what your point is. Christie has endorsed Mitt Romney as the one he believes best equipped to do what Christie has done in New Jersey.

Who are you voting for?

So balancing the budget in MA with almost an entirely democratic congress is Marxist? I think that a conservative who attempts and is able to move an extremely blue state to the right AT ALL is someone with much more substantive leadership experience, and potentially more help to the conservative movement than just another Republican in the south, where it's much easier to be elected and get something done. Give the guy some credit. MA is BRUTAL on Republicans, having lived there myself, and hardly able to find a conservative on the ballot. Mitt would be different running a center-right nation, as opposed to a far left MA. Leadership is situational, or otherwise you either don't get elected or you don't accomplish anything at all.

BTW: What candidate are you standing up for in this election? It's decision time, and I can't find one past comment of yours that stands up for a candidate. It's certainly easy to take pot shots at every candidate, but if you want to make a difference and help us conservatives take the White House this election, you will need to take a stand. Otherwise, you're just creating the type of noise and confusion that will help Obama enjoy his second term. I'm with Mitt.

Marxist record? Kidding, right? Have you read about Marx and about Romney? Way off, there.

He would run on his record, but "conservative" challenges are attack Romney from the left on free enterprise principles that Romney executed for 25 years in the private sector. That's his main record. Record in government? Four years in MA taking the state from a deficit to surplus, creating jobs, lowering taxes, and actually able to work with a congress from another party. Solid record and he runs on it. Do your homework.

Romney has spent his entire career doing one thing: turnarounds, taking the reins on terrible situations and fixing them. He turned around many companies, and even industries, as well as the pending fiscal disaster in the state of MA. What he did with the Olympics was stunning. Right now I believe we're in dire need of a turnaround as our deficit, debt, and economic issues are breathtaking. I agree that Mitt might not the most conservative of the candidates, but I'm convinced he can turn this country around. Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrinch have nothing in the remote ballpark of the type of turnaround work Romney has done.

Thus, it all comes down to what is your top-most concern. if you're top concerns are social issues, then vote Santorum or another non-Mitt in the primaries, but keep in mind: a) most of the country's #1 concern is the economy and b) independents will not vote for Santorum or Gingrich in the general election.

For me, the economy and our fiscal situation are in dire need of a turnaround specialist, and Romney is by far the best equipped for that specific mandate.

In terms of the three issues:
- Electability. Independents and moderates of all types - which are now the largest swing voting block in the country- will at least consider voting for Mitt Romney. The same can not be said of Newt, who repels independents and also women not named Palin. Romney/Obama is neck and neck, Newt loses by 10+%.
- Temperament. We need someone who can bring a nation in crisis together and turn the ship around. Mitt is better prepared for this moment - by far - by turning around companies, the Olympics and the state of MA, which comes from having a level-headed temperament, suitable for crisis.
- Conversative. Newt is left of Mitt on immigration. Newt is left of Mitt on free enterprise. Newt is left of Mitt on family values. Newt is left of Mitt on entitlement reform (see the above article.) Newt is also left of Mitt on government spending, as evidenced by all of the large government spending programs he keeps promising to every state. Newt = big government.

I'm 100% confident that Mitt is the best qualified to not only win in November, but to succeed in the White House.

Good point. I agree, he has not been clear on making those distinctions and should have by now. In a general election, he'd likely take the opportunity to press more on working with democrats, given the dismal approval ratings and stalled nature of Congress these days. But that said, it's certainly a tricky position in the primaries and is he would need to be careful about marginalizing the base.

I assume you're kidding. If not, then dude, you need to get off those drugs. Now you're saying Romney isn't even a moderate? Wow.

I guess as conservatives, we should simply give up on all the left-leaning states, you know, important ones like New York, Illinois, California, and Massachusetts where our larges cities, best universities and highest potential business opportunities are. So any Republican who's a governor of these states is a Marxist?

Look at the type of impact that Chris Christie has had on New Jersey. A moderate Republican in office is FAR better than a far-left liberal in ANY state, and at ANY level of government. Mitt Romney winning in Massachusetts was a tremendous coup for the Republican party even if he did run from the center, which you simply have to do. I lived in Massachusetts and could hardly find a Republican on the ballot to vote for, so even having only moderates in office there does a lot more for our movement than having a "pure" conservatives that will not have an opportunity to make any sort of conservative impact on the state.

Even if you characterize Mitt as "moderate" (which I disagree it, given how many areas where he's further right than Newt and Santorum, such as immigration and free enterprise) there is still a SUBSTANTIAL difference between Obama and Romney. Are you kidding me? Obama has helped push the most liberal agenda of any president we've ever had. Even taking health care off the table, the list is long where the candidates will differ: free enterprise (Dodd-Frank for example), government spending, defense, entitlement reform, environment (Romney would have moved forward with Keystone for example), and on and on. At least moderates will consider Romney, at least independents will consider Romney. Both of those groups (and women across the board by the way) CAN'T STAND Gingrich. Romney has also had a very different career path: private sector and executive (meaning execution) experience. Obama had never run anything in his life until Jan, 2009. There are many, many stark differences, in spite of what the non-Romneys believe. Taking health care off the table (which I believe are different anyway) tell me one substantive area where Romney and Obama have the same viewpoint?

In the Republican primary, I can understand how RomneyCare and ObamaCare are going to be linked together by all the non-Romneys out there, particularly due to the individual mandate. I get that.

However, there are substantial differences and in the general election, and Romney could draw distinctions, even if the individual mandate is a common thread between the two:
- In terms of cost and exection, something done at the state level is very different than at the federal level. The bill in MA was 60 pages long. ObamaCare is 2100 pages. One word: Bureaucracy.
- ObamaCare is MUCH more intrusive into corporations than RomneyCare, such as reporting, forcing companies to pay for 26 year-olds at home, etc.

I beleive that Romney will work to repeal ObamaCare, and will be able to more than defend himself in a debate on the topic. Obama can attack the other candidates MUCH more than Romney. "What have YOU done to solve the heatlh care issues in the country?" Independents and others will care about that, and for them, RomneyCare would be an asset to Romney's general election campaign, assuming the base at least will vote no on Obama.