Kellyanne is a paid consultant to the Gingrich campaign, so her endorsement might be expected. But I'm sure Newt is drawing on the keen national political instincts of Thompson, Cain, and Perry.

Norris and Watts have their glory days behind them, Michael Reagan would be unknown if his surname were Smith, but of course Linda Upmeyer has a strong national following.

Impressive array!

Nightmare is more like it.

Speaking as a life-long Texas Republican who's voted for Perry in every statewide race he's run since he switched parties to run for Texas Agricultural Commissioner:

You have to understand that it wasn't just non-Texans who were dismayed by the rapidity and thoroughness of Rick Perry's collapse as a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. It was Rick Perry's base back in Texas who was more surprised and dismayed than anyone else. The magnitude of the collapse is still pretty much inexplicable to those of us who've seen him thrash very capable Democratic candidates, and most recently the senior sitting U.S. Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, in the 2010 Texas GOP gubernatorial primary.

Gingrich is counting on Perry to "deliver" Texas to Team Gingrich. But that ain't gonna happen. If Gingrich does well here (and I think he'll do somewhat better here than he did in Florida, but way less well than he did in South Carolina), it will be because of doubts about Romney and Santorum, not because of Perry's endorsement.

I think that Rick finally figured out that he was making no progress toward the nomination himself, but badly hurting his political future in Texas by continuing on. That's why he finally dissolved his campaign. But in hindsight, for purposes of his own political future in Texas, he ought to have done that about two months sooner than he did. Instead, he hung around long enough to collect some really pathetic vote totals.

Gov. Perry is now focused on regaining the respect that he had earned in many past Texas state-wide races and many terms of office. He can't look like he's betrayed Gingrich, but neither is he silly enough to spend any of his own greatly diminished supply of political capital in his home state on someone as volatile as Gingrich. Perry can't be Veep; he doesn't want a cabinet spot; Gingrich has nothing to offer him.

what exactly was the context of this photo? what was the text that was sent out with it?

Is this supposed to be his future cabinet? I could see Perry as Veep, and Thompson as AG, and Cain in Treasury... but WTH are Chuck Norris and Michael Reagan supposed be be? SecDef and WH Spokesman?

The beauty of photoshop. Gingrich looks like a Nutri Systems spokesperson.

OK, so Fred Thompson at Defense, Rick Perry at State, Herman Cain at Commerce, J.C. Watts at Justice, and Chuck Norris at Homeland Security. Oh, and under-the-radar guy at Treasury.

What does everyone else do? Oh. Right. Jobs for the distaff side. This is America in the 21st century, after all.

Romney is the worst frontrunner ever in American politics - way, way, way worse than McCain. He cannot win a primary election against: 1. A libertarian who is running for fun and has zero chance or winning the nomination or the general election. 2. The most divisive speaker in US history who cheated on his three wives and who's main plan is to colonize the moon. 3. An ex US representative who lost reelection by 17 points in a conservative district, and who has no organization and no money. And Romney cannot win!!!

"the nuts at CPAC"

Why nuts? Paul Ryan, Rick Perry... nuts?

I think Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and many other Progressives are all kinds of evil. (A sentiment you likely think is nuts.) But I would never describe them as nuts.

Or, is the audience there you think are nuts. Know any of them personally, or by reputation?

Methinks you know that sort of outburst on your part is emotionally satisfying, possibly leading to head nods from your friends, but bears no relation to any sort of accurate description. Or is it the case that calling CPAC-goers nuts is just another in a long line of dismissing the opposition without argument by use of a smear?