[Charles Henrickson]

Playing some kind of gotcha game with endorsement letters is exactly the kind of childish bullcrap. . . .

And that is precisly my point. Here's what I've been seeing around here lately:

"Santorum endorsed Romney and Specter. He's a RINO! We need Sarah, only Sarah!!"

"DeMint endorsed Romney. He's a RINO! We need Sarah, only Sarah!!"

"Bachmann stood next to Romney at a McCain-Palin rally once. She's a RINO! We need Sarah, only Sarah!!"

"Pawlenty said something good about Romney once. He's a RINO! We need Sarah, only Sarah!!"

It gets wearisome. But it only seems to go in one direction. Why don't these same people say:

"Palin endorsed Perry. Palin endorsed McCain. Heck, she was McCain's *running mate*! She's a RINO!! We need . . . we need . . . well, there's nobody left!"

So I'm looking at a range of possible candidates: Pawlenty, Perry, Palin, and more. All the candidates, including Palin, have their flaws. I want one that is generally conservative and that can win.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

No, that isn't what you are seeing. It's what you want to see and what you want to cherry-pick to make a fake argument.

Sure, some folks whine about endorsements. It's hardly the only (or even a primary) argument against these candidates.

So I'm looking at a range of possible candidates: Pawlenty, Perry, Palin, and more. All the candidates, including Palin, have their flaws. I want one that is generally conservative and that can win.

You're not going to get very far playing the 'who endorsed who' gotcha game. That's for sure. Look at records. Look a little deeper than whatever animosity you have towards supporters of a particular candidate. There's simply too much at stake to do otherwise.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

We all know the drill. If you don't support CANDIDATE NAME CENSORED, then you're a RINO. I've even had goobers on here try that with me about supporting Jim DeMint, the most conservative Senator in that body, who is actually quite a bit more conservative than CANDIDATE NAME CENSORED.

[RowdyFFC]

Kind of slow...I’ve already looked, been looking, will continue to look...and the only one I’ve seen with a CLEAR RECORD of having done what she said she would do, who operates independently of the majority of republicans and has taken the policy lead for going on two years now.

Sarah endorsed Perry, as opposed to Hutchison for pete’s sakes and as opposed to Bill White! She took the lead to keep those two out of the running! She SUCCEEDED!

Palin endorsed McCain in an election he already had bagged...and now she doesn’t owe McCain a damned thing...in fact now he owes her and doesn’t dare pull his KRAP! She has SUCCEEDED in cornering him! He can’t now come back and say she’s not competent, now can he?

Your problem, seems to be that you want to overlook her in favor of some she/man establishment type...rather than see her as a viable candidate.

Even Huckabuck and Newt know they can’t compete... Pawlenty’s mea culpa on cap ‘n trade was not the defining moment for him the establishment thought it would be. Yet you want to discount that? And call it a slight flaw? Not to mention Pawlenty is a dullard who couldn’t inspire a chicken to pluck up a june bug, even.

Besides, there’s not one thing wrong with us all seeing the clear candidate we to succeed and backing her with the full force of our support. This bull krap about ooooo..oooo we must be careful...ooooo...oooo we need to check out everybody....oooo...ooooo...we want somebody who can win...ooooo....this...ooooo....that. We’ve been watching this closely for going on over two years yet. Why should we wait, just because others want to eyeball all the she/male republicans and RINO’s. Would be a shame wouldn’t it, if republicans united behind the one clear true conservative candidate and pushed her to run and win it, wouldn’t it?