My question here is, on what basis is that assessment made as to which of the duly filed candidates is so marginal that he or she cannot win the nomination?  And while I'm at it, I was under the impression that as far as the media's concerned, there's already a front-runner.

See, what I think is causing the twist in the elite's underpants is that ten months of publicly-televised (and internet-streamed) debates is going to derail the coronation of their chosen sacrificial lamb to provide token opposition to the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers.  Because even if the lamb should by some chance win, what the Rockefeller Wingers don't seem to get is that when the government's boot is on your neck, it doesn't matter if it's a left boot or a right boot.

No, in my opinion, whoever came up with this debate schedule has done the true legacy of Reagan quite a bit of justice.  Give the primary voters all the information they need to make a properly informed choice, and they'll usually choose principled liberty every time.

This is why the media liberals (actually, the socialist-progressives, period) have a fairly predictable response to anyone who's actually a threat to their centrally-planned agenda.  Contrary to what the C4L types would have us believe, merely deliberately ignoring someone isn't a strong enough response to anyone who's an actual threat to the commie agenda.  No, if you want to know who the real threats are to those who desire the collapse of America, pay attention to whom they're actively sliming in the media.  (Sorry, paulbots; if Ron were that big a threat to the coronation train, then he'd be getting all kinds of media attention right now . . . the type you don't want and can't handle.)

What really makes life rough for those who don't want their blueblood cheese tampered with is this wonderful American invention known as the Internet.  It's a beautiful piece of defense technology that became publicly available a couple decades back, and has evolved into the platform for all kinds of exchanges of information that those who lust for power cannot control; things like this little gem:

And if Mittens somehow manages to win the 2012 republican nomination for POTUS, then I can guarantee you that that will somehow become an Obama campaign commercial.

From what I can figure, Herman Cain's solid performance at the FOX News / Google / RPOF debate in Orlando a couple and a half weeks back, coupled with Rick Perry's near implosion over that intervening time (plus the reality that both finished ahead of Mitt in the subsequent Presidency 5 Straw Poll), means that George's boy is all of a sudden being threatened with a second primary failure in as many tries . . . before the first actual primary is even held.

Oh dear, what to do?  If only there were someone who is reasonably attractive to conservative voters, who Mitt could talk into publicly endorsing him, that might help bring over enough of those conservatives (and open a few checkbooks) and provide Romney with some much-needed conservative cred.  And so, from the Associated Press:

HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination Tuesday, saying he has the perfect mix of private sector and executive experience in government.

Romney called Christie a "hero" because of his record of cutting government spending as governor of New Jersey.  Christie praised Romney as "the man we need to lead America."

So, yeah, big press conference in Hanover ahead of the debate:

In a companion piece, Holly Bailey calls this endorsement a "game changer":

[Christie] also publicly defended Romney amid criticism over his health care reform efforts in Massachusetts - a defense he repeated again Tuesday, insisting comparisons between Romney's plan and President Obama's health care reforms are "completely intellectually dishonest."

The big question is whether social conservatives and tea party Republicans who had been hoping Christie would seek the nomination will now take a second look at Romney - just as many of the donors who had been holding out for a possible Christie 2012 bid have now transferred their support to Romney.

Christie forcefully argued that Romney is the best candidate the party can field against Obama, insisting the country can't take four more years of a Democrat in the White House.

"He's the best person to be able to articulate Republican values and defeat Barack Obama," Christie declared, as Romney stood behind him beaming.

Well, here's the problem with that, Ms. Bailey; like Mitt Romney (RINO-MA), Chris Christie (RINO-NJ) is no true conservative.  I don't have the time to go into all the details, but Conservative New Jersey has a beautiful eight-part series that absolutely explodes the myth of Christie conservatism.  I'll invite you to read it for yourself.  For my part, by the time I was done, I've become firmly convinced that they'd be perfect on the ticket together . . . if they were running as Democrats.

As I said earlier in this article, when the government's boot is on your neck, it doesn't matter if it's a left boot or a right boot.  Any time a RINO gets into an elected leadership office, all he accomplishes is to make things worse with regard to government overreach.  It puts a bad taste in Republican voters' mouths and primes the electorate to choose a real Democrat next time around, instead of a fake Republican.  (That's if it doesn't prompt conservative voters to just sit it out altogether; we've seen that happen before.)

Interestingly enough, the Campaign To Defeat Barack Obama recognizes the problem that would be posed by nominating a "republican" who doesn't have the credibility to go toe-to-toe with an incumbent who's used said republican's signature policies as a template for his own.