Gingrich and Romney. The others are either whack jobs (Johnson and Paul), liberal (Huntsman), Teabrainers (Bachmann and maybe Perry), or simply not viable (Santorum). Only these two have 1. the viability of getting elected (or even nominated); 2. reasonable ideas; and 3. the basic knowledge and intellect (i.e., they aren't Teabrainers).
Attacks on both have both validity and irrelevance. Both would maintain national security, allow people to keep guns (Romney's Massachusetts record, though inexcusable, was at the state level in a very blue state and pre-McDonald), and have no public record opposing cats (Romney's distant relatives in the UK even run a cat shelter: http://www.romneyhousecatrescue.org.uk/ ). Hence on the important issues of the day, both are acceptable.
Both are attacked without warrant. Romney's recent talk with a homosexual veteran in New Hampshire, though played by many as a founder, was actually spot-on, and almost exactly how I myself--the smartest person I know--would have handled the situation (though I would have slapped the aide who sought to extricated me from the situation). Video here: http://youtu.be/GRN9Y5Nvdqk Gingrich is criticized for a reference to certain young people not learning to work, with criticisms saying it would alienate people like. However, Gingrich was in fact brilliantly using code talk to distinguish between rural farm youth and inner-city youth (you know what is meant there), and if played right, would go a long way to exploiting the only real advantage the GOP has going into the election. Article here: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/01/newt-poor-children-have-no-habits-working
Thus, in conclusion, and this is likely to be one of the few things I say here about the 2012 GOP primary race (except that Sarah Palin, after the betrayal she suffered in 2008, is the only one who morally deserves the position), these two middle-age White Christian males are the only reasonable candidates for the nomination. Thus, chalk up CGNS's dual endorsement for these two.
