You know, as long as our so called representatives remain lax regarding the election process, showing themselves ineffecient when it comes to collecting the proper credentials and verifying eligibility of all our candidates running for POTUS, the rudement our constitution provided for our national security, all candidates are more of the same. The birther thing has more to do with national security than any other issue we have faced since 2008, and no one wants to address it, preferring the usual "oh, we know he's an american" response, the mantra of sloth. What happens when a future president isn't an american, and we miss it because of our lax vetting and verification process, feeling no urgency to confirm each candidates bonafifes?

Ron Paul might as well be from Mizar 5; Perry doesn't even know his own opinion; Bachman can get so heavenly minded she becomes no earthly good; Cain was unprepared. Pawlenty couldn't find the financial support. Mitt has become reduced to personal attacks; Newt is pedantic and arrogant; Huntsman is too appeasing. Santorium has never really made his case. Christy and Palin won't run; and they're singing me and Rubio down by the schoolyard. Somebody throw us a bone!

Newt may be slightly more conservative than Mitt, with more foreign policy experience than Mitt, and the political savvy that can be a benefit when the right candidate wields it's power on behalf of america. Most of Newt's personal issues havebeen well documanted also, so the element of surprise has been greatly reduced for him. But which one, Mitt or Newt, will build a cabinet that truly has America's best interests in focus, that will remain committed to making the hard decisions which will push our country forward, sacrificing their own political futures on behalf of doing the right thing? The heart of a servant? Has anyone really seen a candidate in this field that fit's that description?

Rudi Gulliani made a statement recently about Ronald Reagan, siting his commitment to some of his unpopular acts as POTUS that he remained solid on, though they sent his approval poll numbers plummeting, saying "Ronald Reagan knew why he was president". I have not felt that type of committment from anyone in any election since Reagan until 2008, when a little governor from alaska with approval numbers through the roof showed up as a cheerleader for america. To bad she had to be partnered with a progressive republican who's vision for america was a dull glow in the light of her vivaciousness, forcing his campaign team to shackle her enthusaism by remanufacturing her is such a way that she didn't steal John's thunder. No fear Palin. The 1.

The irony of it is that all of these so called 'occupiers' are out there protesting against the injustices of capitalism, while being financed and manuvered like pawns on a chessboard by the very capitalists they are protesting against.

And I suppose they were also the same crowd who welcomed all of us vietnam veterans back from overseas in the late 60's and early 70's with chants of "baby killers" and "army pigs" or "traitors" and "your a disgrace to humanity", right? Yeah, that certainly felt like it was the conservatives, especially when the loudest voices could be heard on University ave in Berkley. Not quite Einstien. That's where your mamma and daddy graduated with their BA'a in liberal arts.

Christian sweety, isn't it passed your bedtime?

@ X.J. The money Sarah Palin has made she owes a debt of thank you to you and all the other leftist hater-aid drinkers who wanted to sink her boat, only to find it was noah's ark. You accused her and she wrote a book. You accused her again and again, brought frivilious lawsuits against her, harassed she and her family, libeled and slandered her, took aim at her children, hacked her e-mail messages, and financed one of her enemies relocations into the house next to her to attempt to vibe her. You've used every form of communication to intimidate her and nothing has worked yet. And now you have seriously underestimated her. If I were Todd I would have knocked one of you out. But he knows what we now know...she's already done that!!

@ Esquire, I disagree with your assessment that Sarah has done enough to deviate and embarass the republican party. I'd stand next to her through a fire-fight if I truly thought she could deviate and embarass them any more then they do on their own every time they sneeze. Their unwillingness to stand behind her as the liberal media and democratic politicians and stratigists started lobbing all the offensive gernades at her show what kind of brothers in arms they would be to her, and intelligently she chose to fight her own battle, never giving the GOP anything but her support, as she repeatedly stated that her affiliation with the tea party would also be built on the planks of the republican party and....ect, ect, ect. She's the deal!

"Didn't Clinton essentially have a balanced bidget"? Yeah I guess he did, if you spell budget beginning with a really small d and recognize that it was balanced on Monica Lewinski's lower lip.