Well, Herman Cain's candidacy now joins the carnage of the other brief front sprinters. Newt has grabbed the baton for his charge ahead of Mitt, and we're wondering how long that will last. We think it's a good time to do a post-mortem on all of them, and try to get a handle on an extremely fickle electorate. We ask, are the fickle, or just very demanding of their candidate in very demanding times? We think the latter.

The scenario is always the same - Mitt and the anti-Mitt. Let's go in order. First Michele Bachmann came on hard in the first Iowa Caucus, and tore up Rick Perry on his E.O. mandating Gardasil injections - then she jumped her own shark by linking Gardasil to mental retardation. She hasn't been out of single digits since.

T-Paw was next up and took a hard swipe at Mitt using the term Obamneycare. Then he backed off, forgetting the first rule of politics - If you want to take down the king, you better be able to. He then faded back into the wallpaper and went home.

Trump was entertaining for awhile, but was never serious - he was just generating more buzz for "The Apprentice" and his other money making enterprises.

Rick Perry rode in like the Lone Ranger ready to take on the evil Mitt. Then he spoke, and made us wonder if there's something in the water in Texas that makes it impossible to have a coherent thought in a debate. We actually like his tax plan, but we just wish he'd find a forum that he can speak in more eloquently than his predecessor as Governor, the big W. His candidacy is not dead yet, but his success is now dependent on someone else screwing up, which really should be giving him hope.

Then it was Herman's turn. We found him refreshing in his blunt honesty. We cringed a bit when he tried to wing answers on things he didn't actually have knowledge of, but you could forgive that because he's new at this. Then he committed the one unpardonable sin in this election cycle. He lied, or at the very least, withheld some unpleasantness about his personal life. Everyone from Nixon to Clinton will tell you that it's not the sin that kills you, but covering it up.

Now Newt is riding the crest of the wave. He's avoided Cain's fate on adultery because it was already out there for all the world to see. That and the ant-Mitt candidates are running out. He's a bit manic (We're thinking probably an official case of ADHD), but he does bring the fight to Obama. He also doesn't take any crap from the media. We enjoy that. He's a scrapper and not afraid to mix it up. Can he hold it together? If he follows the formula we'll know in about two weeks.

If Newt does screw up the next guy in line is Rick Santorum, who is as solidly conservative as any of them, and maybe more so. Still, he suffers from Pawlenty disease - you can accept the intellectual argument for him, but it's hard to get passionate. It's a sad truth, but to win, your supporters need passion.

Which brings us to the candidate with the most passionate supporters - Ron Paul. Can't fault him on passionate followers, but Dr. Paul is not a Republican, or a conservative. He is a Libertarian. We don't fault that. We lean towards Libertarianism in many areas. Still, the refrain heard in conservative circles is that his foreign policy is naive and dangerous. You need more than passionate supporters to carry the day.

Then there's the other guy - umm... umm... Jon something or other. Huntsman. Yeah that's right. I think. You can't even call him toast. He never warmed up.

Common Sense Dictates

So is the electorate fickle or demanding? Is the process working or hopelessly dysfunctional? Are we stuck with Mitt? (A guy we would have been happy to have over McCain in 2008...).

Mitt remains the guy to beat. He is prepared, has answers, and has the best temperament for what people look to in a President. He is calm, in charge and adult. The proverbial steady hand. He appears to be entirely scandal free, and owns his own decisions - just ask him about Romneycare. Still we are not in love.

Is the process working? In the desperate attempt to find a candidate better than Mitt, we have picked up candidates individually and examined each one closely, one at a time. Each on has disappointed us in one of the fundamental areas that we find critical in this election cycle. We are looking for a strong, principled candidate who will speak hard truths and defend America and the Constitution.

We are tired of childishness, of ignorance, and of dishonesty. We are looking for a grown up to take the White House away from the petulant child, and get the country back on track again. No apologies, no excuses, and no socialism.

So far, each of the anti-Mitts have fallen short on enough of these critical qualities that there is not even a mourning period when they get tossed. Fickle, no. There's just no time to waste on the wrong person. It's nothing personal. We just have more pressing things to worry about than a candidate's feelings.

We are doing the exact opposite of what we did in 2008 when the media crowned our nominee. We are paying attention and examining each candidate under a microscope. We are living up to the call of being educated voters. In our opinion, the process is working, and when the nominee is decided, he (or she) will be in top shape to take on Obama. And whether it is an anti-Mitt or Mitt, we will be confident that we have the best out of the pack that we are putting forward. The times demand it, and so does Common Sense.

RLB