Last year was bad enough when many of us went for broke on the budget, as a pose to taking a more controlled approach, even though Democrats controlled two thirds of the government apparatus - and the media.

This year is far worse as our candidates for president choose to actively spend millions of dollars trashing each other and inflicting damage on the party and conservative cause in the primary.

If we (conservatives and Republicans) are serious about reversing the past three years and re-introducing individual freedoms as a core principle - we must not continually disarm and demoralize our selves.

I am not asking for intellectual dishonesty or to over look policy. We did much of that from 2000 to 2008 and it hurt.

I am asking for a dose of common sense and serious thought about the long term legitimacy of our movement.

Instead of energizing Americans with a passionate vision of pro-economic growth with an emphasis of individual freedoms, there is a steady drum of absolute negativity. Voters become demoralized and write off the whole process as lost and become disengaged for another cycle.

What some seemingly do not understand is that Democrats were smart in the four or so election cycles in that they did not demand free healthcare for all in 2006 or even 2008. It was only after securing the super majority in 2009.

When Democrats did over reach during the 2009-10 years they pretty much did what ever they wanted to.

Similarly, we must be smart. Instead of demanding a balanced budget amendment now, we must boil the frog and take the small wins until the pieces are in place to hit the home-run ball.

That means we on the grass roots level must be patient and work to securing the legislative pieces to promote freedom and prosperity. This means being patient.

In the mean time, our candidates must think through what they are doing to energize Americans to vote for their vision.

Be passionate. Be willing to take risks for liberty’s sake.

Regardless of what people might believe, ANY of the four candidates left in the presidential race believe in liberty and freedom far more than President Obama.

I look forward to when we can unite around a single candidate and move forward. I pray there might be enough voters who are not discouraged and understand the importance of this year’s election to take action to ensure victory this fall.

Romney’s campaign, which was leading up until about a week ago, failed on an epic proportion.

Instead of continuing to explain and sell he went into prevent defense mode. Like many sports teams who use that strategy instead of playing to win, lost.

Any candidate who cannot answer simple questions like “are you willing to release your tax returns” and “what if the economy improves” deserves to get no more than single digits. Romney fared better than that and should be thankful.

To equate Newt’s sudden rise, with all his baggage and whopping sixty percent unfavorability, as the second coming of Reagan is both insulting and wrong.

Similarly, to discredit any rise in Santorum’s polling and try to narrow the race as Newt and conservatives vs Romney is equally wrong headed.

There are ten days until Florida.

Romney can either start answering questions and do some of that firing he was talking about or suffer another loss. The choice is his.

As for me, I am still undecided - and feeling pretty insulted right now at how tonight is being turned into a GOP on GOP act of aggression. Count me out.

One reason I am completely demoralized and sickened over the past few months is best represented by what I am seeing over the past few hours.

At this point I believe neither side wants whats best for America and is only interested in what is best for their power - however limited or grand it is.

The result will be a vastly weakened front against Democrats and President Obama - which can only mean they regain control of the House of Representatives and grow what ever numbers there are in the senate. Hows that for history?

“Establishment:” Let me spell this out to you: for all the wisdom and understanding “how things work” -  you completely miss the why and in the process hurt the very people and nation you are supposed to be protecting. Trying to belittle constructive criticize and having the backs of your constituents is key.

“Self appointed Grass Roots Representatives:” Let me be equally clear. Not all of us want a fight with ourselves. Not all of us are looking for perfection in candidates and get that some times you have to hold your nose and vote for the most electable person. Case in point was O’Donnell and whats her nose in Nevada. Yet if we do not act like good sheep and shake our fists on command then we are labeled as RINOs.

Both are wrong and both are picking the wrong time to fight it out.

To label Newt’s win in South Carolina as a middle finger against the establishment is a lie. Period. Quit trying to make it into something it is not.

Simply put, Romney failed on an epic proportion.

So where do we go from here? I don’t know.

I do know both sides have valid points - and yet neither side is adult enough to provide the leadership to try and bridge the gap.

What I do know is the fires I am seeing stoked tonight is precisely what Democrats and President Obama dreamed about two years ago. It is precisely why Minority Leader Pelosi is still in leadership of some form instead of  enjoying retirement.

I urge both sides to stop giving our opponents hope and start acting like real leaders. Give us a way forward.

Thanks.

Much could be said by simply watching the eyes of his wife - and the kiss between the two - and the tone of Governor Perry’s voice.

Governor Perry is correct that  no one man own conservatism, and that we must all work forward to ensure its advancement, it is clear to mean that he embodies it passionately with clarity and genuineness that no one else left in the race does.

With that in mind I watched the debate last night with my wife and kids. While  side-stepping explaining what an “open marriage” is our children we listened, hoped and prayed for some hint of direction of who to support. We didnt find that direction, unfortunately.

What we did find was a sense of who they are deep down.

My wife, who sees through people far better than I do, was able to put the evening into terms which I thought I might share.  Campaigns reading this blog note: Your work is cut out for you and should take note.

Gingrich: Bully. Words were very sharp and confrontational. Not just with the moderator - but with fellow candidates.

Romney: Out for himself. Didnt answer questions directly. Not sincere.

Paul: Sorta like grandpa. Need someone younger than him to run against Obama.

Santorum: The most genuine man on the stage - but not ready for prime time. Face gets red and too easy to bother. Flustered easily.

I pressed her if she had to vote for someone tonight who would it be.

“Oh, I dont know. If I had to vote for someone it would probably be Santorum,” She waivered.

After thinking about it for a while I can see where she is coming from. I think she is right about a lot of her off the cuff analysis.

Our candidates need a bit more to work on.

I will be watching and listening. Waiting.

I am mad as the devil at how each one of you treated Gov Perry  (and each other for that matter) during the race.

Being honest: Perry’s character and faith far outshines every single person left in this race. Dont challenge me on that notion. It is the honest to God’s truth.

I understand my candidate endorsed Newt Gingrich. That means little to me.

Nothing about you inspires me as being genuine from the soul conservatives which I wold trust the future of my kids with at this point. Period.

Want my vote? You are going to need to work for it.

Childish back and forths disgust me. I want substance. I want answers.

Lets have a long L-D style “debate” to see what you really believe and how you are able to articulate it.

When I ask a direct question - I want an answer.

Finger waving is a minus.

When the media tries to slip in an Obama talking point as a question - I want it called out for being exactly what it is: a trap - while crushing it (the question) with substance.

Most of all I dont want to be pandered to. I want to be respected and not felt as being bypassed on the way to something you - the candidate- feels entitled to.

Governor Perry and Newt Gingrich both referenced Governor Romney’s experience at Bain Capital. The language used was not perhaps the best, and if we are honest, it may help Democrats in the general election.

Keep in mind, as I type this, I am a hard core Perry supporter.

The problem is that there is no context to what happens in corperate America - regardless of what type of free enterprise we are discussing. I know, Ive been there personally.

Companies are free to hire and fire who they like.

Companies are for the most part free to do business where ever they like without fear of unjust government hindering.

There are reasonable but important exceptions to these points including preventing child labor, firing people due to descrimination or running a business which dumps toxins into the environment - doing harm to people and the surrounding community.

Productive workers, who put in long hours to support their family, lose their jobs due to cuts made to give the share holders of the company an extra one or two percent of profit.

Leaders doing this may pat themselves in the back and high five each other by beating the quarterly estimate, but lets not mince words, such actions are morally wrong.

This is where the disconnect happens with many people within both the Republican and conservative heirarchy and grass roots level.

To be clear, the government has no right to intercede in such affairs. No law should be made to interject society into a private industry’s internal employment concerns.

Organizational leaders would do best to abide by the motto just because you can do something doesnt mean you should.

To be fair we must note there are cases where hiring decisions bloated organizations and in order to survive cuts must be made. In those instances it is a matter of life and death of the company.

This is what Governor Romney is referencing his experience in Bain Capital.

Some times a company is taken over, trimmed down and then can move forward and grow again. Job cutting is painful but necessary.

Private industry, unlike government, cannot just make up money out of thin air to pay for its services.

Of course that brings us to what matters in the hear and now. We are currently facing is a nanny state in which the government not only tells the business, even small ones, who they can fire and fire and where they can do business.  This is what we should be focusing on during this election cycle. To do other wise is fool hardy and plays into the narrative Democrats want to run on.

This is what we should be motivating us.

All through the summer and fall I waited to write this observation. Waited for the right time to see how things were setting and more importantly, for us to get to know the candidates a little better.

I am certainly glad I did, as my mind was changed about a great number of things.

Still. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

We must focus our energy on defeating President Obama and Democrats this fall. To believe other wise is fool hardy and ignores the peril of the past three years.

Whom ever is the candidate, I will vote for.

That doesnt mean they will get my financial support or enthusiam or sign off on volunteering in four years *if* they were to win election.

In the end we must remain true to our conservative principles and focus on breaking the shackles of excessive government forged by this current administration and return America to her greatness.

With that in mind I present to you the following candidate analysis in alphabetal order.

Michelle Bachmann

Pros: Arguably our best in-the-trenches fighter. She is tenacious and will not stop. Ever. No question about whether or not she is conservative.

Cons: Shrill. Part of being President of the United States means you must work with the other side while winning. Michelle would try to steam roll them. Not that steam rolling Democrats is a bad idea in the short term - but if you do not have the votes to do so, then what?

The debt ceiling fight is a perfect example. People voted for massive change last November to act as a check against President Obama. However, many did not vote to shut the government down. Some did (including many on this blog). People like my self did not and see it as a failure of leadership on the part of both parties to rise above talking points and do their job for the benefit of the nation.

Conclusion: Would prefer to see her still fighting hard in the House of Representatives and shake up the leadership team a bit. That is her strength. Governing in the executive capacity is not.

Newt Gingrich

Pros: Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Gingrich enacted all the reforms we dream about today - with a Democrat sitting as President of the United States. Balanced budget? Limited government? Newt delivered.

Cons: Since floundering in 1998 and resigning from Congress his solutions sound a bit wonky. I can look past the on-the-couch-with-Pelosi bit. It is the solutions, including backing individual mandates and Heritage did at one point that troubles me greatly.

Infidelity does matter. Just ask Gary Hart.

However, if he honestly got on his knees before God almighty and asked for repentence and made changes - I cannot cast the first stone.

I also have serious reservations regarding what seems to be a haste to use military power in Iran. Do not misunderstand me. We must do what we must do - but to boast about wanting an engagement? Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Then there is the whole judge thing. Yes, judges are out of control. No, you should not usurp Constitutional authority to beat them into submission. Sorry Newt, your wrong on this.

Conclusion: Mixed bag. The man  knows how to get it done in the past. I would love to see Newt shread President Obama in an Lincoln-Douglas style debate where we actually get to see what they mean and know. That will not happen.

Jon Huntsman

Pro: Solid, conservative record in Utah. I know, *gasp.* That is the reality of the matter. His plan to fix the economy was given the thumbs up by the Wall Street journal. He fits the bill of credibility in many places, once one examines his record, which we would all hope a conservative would.

Con: Does this guy really want to be a conservative? Working for the Obama administration is a huge strike. Trying to find your nitch during the GOP primary as a “moderate” is bad, bad strategy. The only people who are really jazzed about this guy is, drum roll please, the Washington media.

Conclusion: Huntsman deserved a closer look that what he got. Based on his record and understanding of policy I would vote for him before Romney and Paul. Still, my oldest child was able to point out he was totally avoiding questions during an interview we watched with Bob Schieffer. What does that say?

Ron Paul

Pro: I love parts of his libertarian streaks. He is right about being suspecious about the government.

At moments when other candidates feel free to jump on legislation which is poorly thought out or may violate the Constitution Paul speaks up.

I also feel that we should have an official declaration of war during engagements such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I also believe that there are many red flags with the government intruding on basic individual rights. This is what I believe is driving his supporters in Iowa.

Con: His foriegn policy is beyond laughable. I do not have the time or patience to discuss what I would call extremist (near anti-jewish?) views on the middle east and other odds and ends.

Conclusion: If Paul gets the nomination I would vote for him. Yes. Would work like the dickens to make sure Congress would keep him in check and from abandoning our allies and interests across the globe.

Rick Perry

Pro: Burried somewhere in all the smears pushed out the door by rival campaigns and scared media types is a proven record of a governor who is generating the most jobs of any other state. Perry gets it on _all_ the issues ranging from Healthcare to medicaid to social security and of course the role of the 10th amendment.

If there ever was someone who was qualified to be President of the United States of America, and who embodied full spectrum conservatism, its Perry.

Con: He’s not The Great Communicator. Lets get that out of the way now.

Perry also had problems during a session with Mike Huckabee when three state attorney generals quested him about how he would tackle healthcare. Instead of specifically citing how the law allows for vouchers, he came across as stating he would create an executive order to repeal any legislation he didnt like. Ugh.

Conclusion: Perry is still my first choice through thick and thin. Ive seen what he did in Texas, and how he understands what this nation needs. He is absolutely correct.

Mitt Romney

Pro: Battle tested. Willing to do what ever it takes. Conservative principles are at least sketched out. Understands power base and is willing to work with it.

Con: No soul. Changes positions based on what is needed to win.

Conclusion: I will vote for him without any problem if he is the candidate.  However I really dunwanna.

His back and forth position on abortion irritates me. How he feels like he doesnt need to be vetted - especially after tearing Huckabee apart for being overly religious - makes my skin crawl.

It also tells the tale of a man who is willing and knows how to do the little things to win a nasty campaign. Never underestimate these people or discard them.

Like Paul (and Newt to a lesser extent), we would need to lean on Congress to keep in check.

Rick Santorum

Pro: Santorum is a straight shooter. I can think of no one else more consistent with ideas. I like the battles he’s fought and why he fought them.

Cons: Whines too much. Instead of thinking of how to create a message, like Cain’s 999 plan, Santorum whines a lot after debates about time he got to speak.

If you get the big chair, you need to act like it and press ahead. Be creative. Tell us what sets you apart and show us your leadership.

The “surprise” revelations ultimately are not geared toward the Republican primary voter, but to discrediting these conservative icons into the abyss of unelectability.

One need to look no further than the Washington Post’s ploy of litterally looking under a rock to understand the depths at which the media, and ultimately Democrats, fear losing this election.

Herman Cain’s situation is similar. While Politico obviously researched elements of the story, they were unwilling to reveal the details of accusation or note payments were closer to severins pay than a “settlement.”  This was done either as a way to either legally force a breach of confidentiality or simply watch Cain’s campaign squirm.

Then there is smear campaign which the Washington Post is running against Rubio. Whether it is to prevent Rubio from serving as a vice presidential candidate or destroy him as a national conservative figure who can help bridge the hispanic voter gap for Republicans is unknown.

What is apparent is like Bob McDonnell or George Allen, the Washington Post is on an all out mission to destroy and discredit Rubio at nearly any cost. Period.

You might say Romney is notably missing. The reason is simple. Team Obama and the media do not feel threatened by Governor Romney on an idealist or campaign strategy level.

That cannot be said about Cain, Perry or Rubio.

Dont look for the same treatment to be given to Democrats either. President Obama is still the media’s stand up guy who they will go to the mat for. Dont doubt that for a moment.

The four people I would like to see discussions break down to are Perry, Romney, Cain and Gingrinch.

These four people promote the best substance in the debate.  In fact you could argue that Cain and Gingrinch might be the most entertaining and substanative.

As for Paul, Bachmman (Romney’s new running mate) and Santorum simply do not add any real substance or relevence to the debate.

While I believe all three do bring a unique and interesting qualities, none of them add much to the process beyond taking time other candidates could use to expand on substance. The exception Bachmann a couple of weeks ago when she set a media personality straight about Obamacare.

So I say, bring on more debates, but lets start whittling the time down so we can get into more substance.

How can I say such a thing?

Easy. There is more energy being put into knifing each other in the back and building up stalking horses than focusing on policy.

One need to look no further than Mitt Romney proping up Michelle Bachmann during the last debate, and her role in attacking other candidates except for Mitt, as an example.

To be fair, though, I would also offer Herman Cain’s statement about accepting a vice presidential candidate except for Rick Perry.

Add to the fact that in the past few debates the candidates decided to attack each other more than President Obama and did not mentioin Solyndra or Fast and Furious.

Then there is the rush of who wants to be first during the primary season. Everyone wants to be first. Never mind the fact that we need a process with pauses to fully vet a candidate and their process out.

There are valid reasons for each of these occurrances within their own setting.

It is more than depressing, however, to see happen. It forces me into the belief there is a greater concern over an internal power struggle and demand for perfection instead of honestly focusing on what is best for our country.

One wonders if Republicans and conservatives can play things any better for President Obama next year.

Oh wait, did I mention Sarah Palin switching her Face Book status to “conservative” and Rush discussing “breaking up the old team?”