As you know, I hate all candidates (not as human beings, but as politicians), although some more than others. I chose this article because it contributes detail I didn’t know about. And also because I had written a poison pen article on Newt at WND so you can be sure I don't like him and am certainly not endorsing him (in case you thought I was).
But what if the author is right?
What he says about the other candidates is true as far as I know. That anti-contraception foot in the mouth statement by Santorum shows he is at the very best, unwary and unwise in a debating scenario. Ron Paul's focus on the economy is laudable and his vision that America needs a major cutback on spending is probably correct. But his recent statement that people's resentment of immigrants increases as unemployment rises seems offensive to law and order advocates because it seems to conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration.
The focus on the economy is very important. The candidates other than Newt don’t seem to have much of a focus, and at a time when the US economy and public finances are running on fumes, anyone who ignores the economy or gives it short shrift is throwing away a chance to nail Obama where it hurts the most and to attract the attention of most struggling Americans--most of whom do not necessarily see contraception as a bread and butter issue.
It is also noteworthy that the author acknowledges Mitt as a guy whose poll numbers depend mostly on cash and less on substance.
Oh, well, for what it is worth...
(cut and paste to browser-you will learn!)