I think what is fascinating, is the responses to seeing the disastrous Perry on stage. The denial over who is clearly the best Candidate for the Presidency today on the stage remains. Many vocal elements are just not able to accept the sound Mr. Romney. We shall see if this changes over time.

For example, Mr. Kristol of the WS, seems to have a professional competition complex, unable to be fair-decent to Romney merely because National Review endorsed him in 2008. Mr. Kristol foolishly pushed the dreadful Maverick instead, and now cannot seem to get over himself in dealing with a proven Private Sector success. Erik Erickson has been playing some of the most tiresome fashion for so long. He foolishly debased so many of Our best interests by mindlessly equating the two Parties over the past few years, and has provided some awful judgment. He seems destined to push the image/identity game over a cliff yet again.

Bizarrely on FOX Special Report, (fair and balanced), they predictably pushed the idea for someone - anyone - to enter the Race, now that it is clear Perry is simply not up to the challenge - with so many vivid contradictions, problems, inability. It was all too obvious, as they seem to be overtly swayed by fashion as well.

Or is it something more? Is the bias due to the religious aspect? The Mormon question? Or is it simply a little class warfare in regards to this incredible Free Market success named Romney, which makes others insecure? When I study Romney's record, he just doesn't deserve the mindless treatment. He is ethical, moral, decent, with a fine family and a great record of accomplishment. A truly admirable American in every sense, hard working, very intelligent, very proven.

Ironically, much of the bias works towards Mr. Romney's best interest. If he is underestimated, his chances of being deemed a better President will grow with such low expectations.

The thing is, there is no doubt, just like in 2008, who is the best candidate for the Presidency right now in the GOP Race. National Review, Hewitt, Coulter, etc., had it right. The question is, just like in NJ when the fashion was cynical of Christie in the Primary and pushed Lonegan, will the stronger Candidate get a chance to succeed by taking the Nomination? Wiser - cooler heads prevailed in NJ, and did not follow the fashion to self destruction and another predictable enabling of the disastrous Democratic Party.

Only a few months ago on this very same "Corner" comment section, I maintained the fashion had it wrong, that Romney was a serious influence primarily due to his economic credentials in the Private Sector, when many were just interested in vilifying. I believed many Americans would simply overlook the State Mass Health Care mistake, and view Romney in total, especially his well earned, professional economic clout. I thought it would be foolish politically to treat Romney as the enemy. There are many very vocal elements amongst us, who are simply stuck in the fashionable game, but do not accurately represent the larger majority. Sadly, I still humbly believe some are not seeing things with the clarity or the basis which inspired the strength of conservatism.

But the rest of the Nation, outside the smaller vocal passions in Our Base is so deeply concerned about the economy for very sound reasons, after the mess Democrats have created, they simply are not seeing things the way many are inside the smaller arena devoted to the image/identity following.

Here is a prime example:
More Voters Considering Romney Than Obama, Perry

Folks want someone who can do the job. Romney may be the best, the right CEO offering at this time. Instead of living in denial, perhaps it would be better for some to let go of the personal grudge, and begin to try another fair review.

Yet, again, the obvious. The record does not support this contention Mr. Romney is merely a dishonest Bill Clinton, incapable of making serious decisions. That is rumor over reality. Myth and image over substance.

Romney's record is something one should study before writing "incapable of ever making the difficult choices needed to turn this country around" - as Romney has made numerous tough choices, and has repeatedly turned around failure with difficult calls. You reveal you simply are speaking about something you haven't studied. A huge mistake. Indicating your judgement is based more on image, which is the curse of all today.

Again, Romney is clearly for the Free Market, no change in this regard over his Private Sector offering or his Public Sector efforts. His platform from 2008 to 2012 is largely the same, a positive pro-growth capitalist endorsement, with strong national defense.

I never said he was "better than Obama" as a selling point either. That is simply absurd, as it was never ever mentioned in my offering.

Again, Romney is a product of the Free Market, a proven, sound, serious, CEO with great articulation and intelligence. His record is worthy of praise, and politically the fashion was foolish to make an enemy out of his existence.