Up for Debate: Romney gets offensive

Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:18am

What's your reaction from Thursday's Florida debate ahead of that state's primary? How effective was Mitt Romney's offensive stance?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

57 Comments on this post:

By: yogiman on 1/26/12 at 11:42

He's beginning to feel a little more desperate and trying to be shown as more aggressive.

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 12:20

It seems the news media feel they should select the candidate we should vote for. Have you ever wondered why they refuse to allow Buddy Roemer to be in any of these "debates"? But they have mentioned Senator Rubio of Florida and the LA governor, neither of whom is constitutionally eligible.

I'd say they haven't put them on the "debates" because neither of them has thrown their hat into the ring knowing they aren't constitutionally eligible. But Buddy Roemer has thrown his hat in the ring, is former governor of LA, a former Representative, a successful business man and is constitutionally eligible. But his name is never mentioned.

Tuesday is going to be a very interesting vote. Ron Paul was well applauded tonight because he made many practical answers the people liked.

By: Loner on 1/27/12 at 5:41

I don't watch the "debates"....nothing but a clap-happy crowd of selected idiots fawning over a stage full of losers in suits...moderated by well-coiffed pundits and punctuated by annoying commercials.

It makes no difference who gets elected; all these jerks are on the take. The system is dysfunctional and the nation is suffering as a result. With the advent of the unregulated superpacs, the corrupted system will become a national farce and an international joke.

Special interests...many of which are multi-national or foreign in nature...are running the show....the public's interest is usually ignored.

The republic will not long endure, unless there is genuine reform quickly....but don't look to the politicians, the media and the lobbyists to solve the problem....the people must retake control of their government before it is too late....but realistically, it may already be too late.

By: Ummm... on 1/27/12 at 5:54

It's beginning to be less entertaining now that there are fewer participants in the Republicans' circular firing squad.

By: dargent7 on 1/27/12 at 6:16

Romney took offense of Gingrich calling, "Spanish, the language of the gutter".
He told fatso his dad and his grandfather were born in Mexico.
Gingrich, the forever lying bastard he is, backpeddled knowing there are 450,000 registered Latino Republican voters in Florida. A state he badly wants.
I hope he's blown out on Tuesday.

By: Loner on 1/27/12 at 6:54

Newt stooped low...he hinted that Marco Rubio might be his veep choice....promising a political position, in exchange for support, is specifically outlawed in our Constitution...so the clever and crafty Newt did not violate the letter of the law...but he made it clear that Rubio would be on his VP short list...Newt is a historian/lobbyist/politician, a triple threat to our freedom, if he gets into the White House.

Newt once suggested the death penalty for drug users...like they do in Taiwan, Singapore etc. And he wants black kids in high school to work as school janitors, to get on the job training. The guy is full of novel ideas like that.

Newt and the First Slut, Caligula, living in the White House...getting their asses kissed every day....and they in turn kissing Netanyahu's ass....the image is almost too much to bear....yet it may come to pass...the Adelsons gave ten million to a superpac that is backing the Newtster....and this is just the primary....Newt is a money magnet for the one-percent crowd. Newt could buy his way into office...but it will take over a billion to do so....he just might be able to pull it off....with a little help from the War Super-lobby consortium, (DIE).

By: dargent7 on 1/27/12 at 7:04

As the USA's debt ceiling was raised now to $16.5 trillion, I'm again looking at Romney.
He and Trump as VP could do whatever it takes. If they can't help us, then it's not possible.

By: Ummm... on 1/27/12 at 7:10

dargent7, Trump as VP??? Really? Seriously?

By: Loner on 1/27/12 at 7:15

What we desperately need in these "debates" is the swimsuit competition.

Imagine Gingrich in a racing Speedo. And pink flip-flops.

Romney would be wearing the official Mormon swimsuit.

Santorum would wear a modest swimsuit, with a Christian fish pattern on the material.

Ron Paul would be wearing a black, 1901, men's, bathing suit, the kind with the tank top. With his website address printed on the back....he's savvy like that.

The swimsuit competition might have helped the GOP drop-outs:

Michelle Bachmann in a Republican red thong bikini....and red high heels? Hmmmm.

Sperman Cain in a bright yellow, men's, thong-type, mono-kini? Mister pepperoni?

Rick Perry in red,white & blue trunks.... and wearing a matching cowboy hat & cowboy boots?

I'd tune in to see that. If it's useful for selecting Miss America, the swimsuit competition could be very useful for selecting our next POTUS.

BTW...President Obama, in a swimsuit, would make all those guys look bad...the guy looks good...you gotta hand it to him...he looks damn good. He looks presidential...that's 90% of it.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/27/12 at 7:56

Obama leads Mitt Romney 49 percent to 43 percent, and leads Newt Gingrich 55 percent to 37 percent in the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/206973-poll-obama-leads-romney-and-gingrich

By: Captain Nemo on 1/27/12 at 7:58

'If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state and federal offices,' he said.

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 8:02

Loner,

If Gingrich would place Rubio on his ticket as VP would put him in the same boat as Barry Soetoro. Rubio's parents were still Cubans when he was born. And no, just because he was born in the US, that doesn't make him a natural born citizen. And he knows it, but I would bet he would take it.

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 8:13

dargent7,

I didn't hear Romney make the statement his grandfather and father were both born in Mexico.

From what I have read before, his grandparents were both American citizens living in Mexico when his father was born, which would make his father a natural born citizen.

If his grandfather was born in Mexico it would depend on whether his parents were both American citizens to be considered a natural born citizen.

By: pswindle on 1/27/12 at 8:21

Rubio would fit in perfectly with Newt or Mitt because he lies, also. Did he think that the public would not find out the truth about when his parents come to this country? It just weakens him becasue of this bold face lie.

By: dargent7 on 1/27/12 at 8:34

Yogi: You are full of sh*t. I do not care what you heard or din't hear.
Ronmey's father was born in Mexico. How does that make him a "natural born US citizen"? He immigrated.
Willard was born in Detroit from a mother, who's dad was born in Wales.
Doesn't matter where their parents are from or were born.
The mothers bore them in the USA. I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than debate you.

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 8:36

Oh Jesus H Christ yogi - why don't you just freaking google natural born citizen.

The Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on the issue - therefore the commonly accepted term will apply until it is specifically defined. Time and time again thru congress and what few court cases there are, if you are eligible for US citizenship at birth, then you qualify...which doesn't have to have SQUAT to do with the parents. If the kid is born on American soil, then they qualify. Same thing goes for if one parent is a citizen, then the child is eligible (so there goes your whole Kenya born baloney too).

A memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), states:
Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

To the rest of the gang - I know I'm trying to use logic on someone wholly incapable of understanding it...but I had to try.

By: dargent7 on 1/27/12 at 8:38

Anyone else besides numb-nutz not hear Ronmey get all upset with Newt, calling him, "anti-immigration"?
That's when Romney said his dad was BORN in Mexico. His wife's dad was BORN in Wales.

By: treehugger7 on 1/27/12 at 8:40

thanks for the mental pictures, Loner! I'll have some nightmarish visions tonight!

By: dargent7 on 1/27/12 at 8:42

jvh2b: Thank you. I haven't the time or the desire to look "yogi's" bullsh** up, but glad you did. You'd think that would END it, but no. He'll contine on until Obama finishes his 2nd term in 2016.
Or an asteroid hits the Earth and puts all of us out of our misery.

By: Moonglow1 on 1/27/12 at 8:46

Moonglow1: All of those Republicans should "self deport. "

Ron Paul said it best when asked the question about putting a colony on the moon. He said there are many politicians who belong on the moon.

Gingrich is so bizarre. When Romney goads him, Gingrich folds. Gingrich wants a moon colony and he would grant 13,000 moonies as citizens of the moon.

Other countries must be LOL.

By: d4deli on 1/27/12 at 8:48

'Romney gets offensive"? Romney IS offensive, along with Obama. I pray that there is hope to turn this train wreck around. God has blessed America, and look what we've done to her!

By: bfra on 1/27/12 at 8:51

It is very apparent, the old man does not have sense enough to know what a "natural born citizen" is. He is a stupid agitating troll, with nothing better to do with his time.

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 8:52

dargent7,

Even if his maternal grandfather was born in Wales and had not became and American citizen, if his mother was born in the US, she gained American citizenship by birth and would pass her American citizenship on to him. But she would not be considered a natural born citizen herself.

Even though his father was born in Mexico, he was born to two American citizens... making him a natural born U. S. citizen.

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 8:56

Your welcome darg...I normally try to ignore him consider he think he holds the sole definition to natural born citizen -- despite what the rest of the country, our law makers, and the judges think...

But I just had to chime in now that he's seeing a 'usurper' in every corner.

It's a commie plot! Someone dig up McCarthy...quick!!!

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 9:02

jvh2b,

Why do you think our founders placed the "natural. born citizen" status into our Constitution? Their theme was for anyone in that office not to have any allegations to another nation. They must be a pure American.

It has been found on many cases in the past, to be a natural born citizen both of your parents must be a citizen of the nation you are born to.

As I have stated before, your argument says an illegal alien can sneak into the USA, have a baby, take it home and that baby will be legally eligible to hold the Oval Office of the USA when they reach the age of 35 because that baby was given American citizenship at their birth.

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 9:23

It's not my argument yogi -- it's wide held fact at this point....esp until the Supreme Court weighs in, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

Yes, that was the intent - but mainly to keep foreign officials w/ lots of money from being able to get in an create a monarchy. If you born here, then you are a natural born citizen -- and were likely raised here as a US citizen...and there goes the 'foreign influence'.

Not to mention the few case law there is supports this position, keeping in mind the supreme court often sides w/ prior case law to make it's decisions. Hate to tell you this yogi ...but as usual...your wrong....

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/03.html

"U.S. Constitution: Article II

Clause 5. Qualifications

All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Inde pendence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ''a natural born citizen'' in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. 94 Whatever the term ''natural born'' means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ''naturalized.'' Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ''[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States'' are citizens. 95 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ''the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .'' 96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. 97 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. 98 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ''case or controversy'' as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.

Footnotes

[Footnote 94] 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.

[Footnote 95] Reliance on the provision of an Amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by but is strongly militated against by the language in Freytag v. CIR, 501 U.S. 868, 886 -887 (1991), in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of ''Heads of Departments'' in the appointments clause. See also id., 917 (Justice Scalia concurring). If the Fourteenth Amendment is relevant and the language is exclusive, that is, if it describes the only means by which persons can become citizens, then, anyone born outside the United States would have to be considered naturalized in order to be a citizen, and a child born abroad of American parents is to be considered ''naturalized'' by being statutorily made a citizen at birth. Although dictum in certain cases supports this exclusive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 - 703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

[Footnote 96] Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied). See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661 -666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672 -675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American-citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).

[Footnote 97] 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 7 Anne, ch. 5, Sec. 3 (1709); 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731).

[Footnote 98] See, e.g., Gordon,Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968)."

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 9:24

children (you too, bfra),

Try reading the courts findings in the Minor v Happersett case on natural born citizenship. And that's only one of many of the same findings.

I'm sure you children know how to look that up. Even you, bfra.

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 9:35

jvh2b,

Its should be interesting a court in Georgia heard a case on "Obama's citizenship yesterday. It will be interesting on their finding in the (hopefully) not too distant future.

The point the issue has been presented in so many courts in the US and have been refused by, or would not be allowed to, the Supreme Court should make people wonder.

Why have so many intelligent people brought the issue up?

What should scare you the most is the fact congress has went right along with it all the way.

I see it as one of two ways: If you're in favor of Barry Soetoro because you are of the democratic party, I understand. But even with that issue, If you can't see what's happening to our nation, you simply can't see beyond your nose.

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 9:47

Or MAYBE just MAYBE the reason all the courts refuse it is because it WASTES the courts time to push forward with this BULLS#&!. just to satisfy the tin foil hat wearing crowd like you, that is even more of a minority than all the gays the right wingers are more worried about destroying this country.

I can at least agree that the legislation being passed (ie detainment w/o due process) is greatly disturbing.

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 10:03

jvh2b,

Quoting Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

Paraphrasing: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be a natural-born citizen, so we look elsewhere. Using language familiar to the framers of the Constitution, it was never doubted that all children born in a country or parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives of natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. The natives were born of at least one citizen parent, and the natural-born citizens were born of two citizen parents.

Some people go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction to parents who are permanent resident aliens domiciled in the US."

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 10:10

The NDAA bill should be more than just greatly disturbing, jvh2b. It should not only be shocking, but it should scare the hell out of you.

And consider, it wasn't an Obama bill. That bill was passed by a majority vote in the Senate and House.

The last I read it was a 93-7 vote in the Senate and 85 percent in the House. Hopefully that will wake enough people up to get them the hell out of there.

But then, has the communist party already taken over the majority of the people and we'll just get more to replace them?

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 10:35

And this has to do what with the price of tea in China?

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), was a United States Supreme Court case appealed from the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning the Missouri law that said, "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."

This had more to do with if the 14th amendment grated everyone the right to vote or not...which they state it didn't (this was after all 1875). Which if this is the most recent opinion you can find to support your position makes for a pretty weak position.

And just for the record, the Chief also states in the opinion: "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."

Ie congress can decide the issue...but it hasn't...and therefore YOUR specific definition is not support in ANY way shape form or fashion.

The Chief ALSO goes on to say: "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

While it may have some issues in 1875, it clearly held ZERO relevance to this case, and therefore any 'opinion' the justice may have on the matter is irrelevant to any current decisions that would be made on the matter.

And while I appreciate your 'paraphrasing' my reading comprehension is just fine thank you...

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 10:40

And no..I don't think the commies have taken over the will of the people...there isn't anyone I've met that like that law.

What will keep it alive is people pathetic short memories and diversion tactics from all sides.

People's stupidity and complaisance will keep that bill alive...not the commies.

By: Loner on 1/27/12 at 11:32

I see that the troll got everybody all worked up...again. Mission accomplished.

No amount of argumentation will suffice...Yogi does this to be an asshole...for no other reason...just to see if he can get somebody's goat. He did.

I ignore the creep.

Try some herb before bedtime, Treehugger..it's what I do.

By: Loner on 1/27/12 at 11:47

Can you imagine the harassment and cruelty that Yogi meted out to his charges when he was a prison guard? Maybe one of his victims will track him down? Poetic justice, IMO.

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 11:50

Well at least I got him to back up his position this time w/ an accurate quote...even if the source wasn't given and it was out of context...lol

By: Loner on 1/27/12 at 11:55

JV, logic, reason, facts and the law mean nothing to the troll...he does this to bug us....he can't keep up with the conversations, so he tries to throw a monkey wrench into the forum...to get attention...I have already wasted too much time discussing the jerk's modus operandi...all we can do is ignore him...once they are starved of attention, trolls sometimes move on to other sites.....we can pray that our troll will move on.

By: dargent7 on 1/27/12 at 12:46

Somebody shoot me.
With jvh2b's 5 posts, quoting numerous legal sources, you'd think "yogi" would give it up and just say, "I did not know that".
I don't know what makes Obama's dad born in Kenya is any different than Romney's dad born in Mexico. Romney's dad's dad was also bvorn in Mexico.
And Romey's mother's dad was born in Whales.
Obama's mother and grandma were born in Kansas.
If we trace back everyone's family tree 10 generations, NO ONE would be eligitable for President. We're all from Vikings, Indians, or Martians.
That's why the US Constitution made it easy, "born on American soil.

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 12:52

jvhb2,

I'm glad you got me back to "my position". So can you explain: Why did our founders put that "natural born citizen" requirement in our Constitution when it was signed in 1787? What changed their meaning of that requirement when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868?

By: Loner on 1/27/12 at 12:56

Please...ignore the troll...can we change the subject?

"A lonely, sadistic, drooling, internet troll and devout Birther walks into a gay piano bar....."

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 1:05

Ok ... last time..

I addressed the founding fathers question in my next to last post to you...it was to keep rich foreign officials from buying their way into the system and converting it into a monarchy. BY the time the 14th amendment has passed, so had the fears of anyone trying to run over the country, the South had been defeated, along with the possibility of England/France helping them to take over.

Now as to the 14th amendment...just read whats in the 14th amendment...kinda spells it all out for your.

Take into consideration the founding fathers were then dead by that time, Civil War has just ended, and the North was working to make sure blacks could vote, in order to counter the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court.

Again...that amazing computer in front of you can go to MORE than tin foil hat run sites. Try something as simple as Google. Up comes Wikipedia's summary:

"The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court (1857) that held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.[1]
Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials."

For someone who claims to be old and have had a good education, either your education really sucked or you just can't remember any of it. Might wanna actually try reading one of those copies of the constitution you say you pass around.

Ok...I'm done trying to teach the pig to sing...it is wasting my time and annoying the pig.

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 1:06

What ya wanna talk about Loner?

By: Loner on 1/27/12 at 1:15

Anything but the President's eligibility for the job sounds good to me JV.

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 1:16

Well, Loner,

You and the rest of your fellow children playing this game on this site can think of me anyway your hearts desire. That's the least of my worries. And in my lifetime, I could care less. But I'll repeat the question I've asked several times before and have never received an answer from any of you: Just who in the hell is this guy?

Further, you all have accused me to be a racist for wanting to know who he is, but you don't consider yourselves racists for voting for him simply because of his race. Huh? Why was you all so willing to readily accept, vote for and continue to accept and support, a person to be the president of our nation whom you know nothing about?

If that makes me a racist in your views, so be it because it makes you a bunch of idiots in my "racial" view.

Also again, considering all of the damned old fools like me, why will he not simply "turn the light on" and brighten this nation up? Its really simple; simply prove you are whom you claim to be.

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 1:18

And in the face of logic...it diverts. love it.

Is it 420 yet loner? ;)

By: yogiman on 1/27/12 at 1:25

One more thought to consider, jvh2b. Can you explain why Barack Obama made the statement "So what? I''m not running for the President's office" to Alan Keyes in their campaign for the Illinois State Senate when Mr. Keyes accused him of being born in Kenya?

Kidding perhaps? I don't think so. Was you watching the debate?

By: jvh2b on 1/27/12 at 1:33

Because as I have point ed out all ready, the currently accepted definition of natural born is valid if you have one parent that is a citizen and you are born out of the nation.
It doesn't matter either way...and therefore is a waste of time...which you have managed to waste plenty of mine today with this bull.

By: pswindle on 1/27/12 at 1:35

I believe the question was about Mitt's behavior last night. I personally to not give a damn about how he acted. He as messed up too many lives to give im a second thought. Newt is just crazy to the bone.

By: Loner on 1/27/12 at 1:40

JV...the next 4:20 event will occur in Singapore (AM) and in St. John New Brunswick, CA (PM) in forty minutes.

By: Loner on 1/27/12 at 1:47

I would prefer Romney to Gingrich or Santorum...if I was forced to choose between the three...hopefully, none of them will ever get close to the WH. All three are great BS artists, but Romney seems the least corrupt.