I don't know that a gaffe like the Etch-a-Sketch comment is worth firing a communications director.  In the age of the sound bite, it was a stupid way to express what is conventional wisdom: winning the nomination is a different ball game than winning the general election, so you tack to the right to win the base in the primaries and tack to the center in the general election.  The gaffe feeds the nagging fears that more conservative members of the Republican base have about Romney.  If the current campaign is the best he can do at painting himself a blood-red conservative, what will he look like in the general election when he tacks to the center? 

I'll concur on the writing deteriorating drastically after Book 1, and I wouldn't score Book 1 very high at the outset.  I'm an OCD reader, and it requires a tremendous effort of will to read only one of a series, or to leave a book unfinished.  I was originally put on to the series by one of my college students who suggested it as a quick, entertaining read that dealt with some serious societal issues.  The heroine is an entirely unsympathetic character and poorly written.  My guess is that Suzanne Collins, who has stated that one of the themes she wished to explore was the effects of violence upon children and youth, deliberately made her protagonist malleable and amorphous.  Such a characterization doesn't exactly inspire, though, especially when the supporting cast shows a lot more grit and gumption.  In the end, I'm not sure the heroine isn't a bit more Occupy Wall Street than Tea Party.

I read the trilogy recently and enjoyed it.  It's not brilliant in terms of literary quality, but contains some interesting ideas.  I'd agree heartily that it is a scathing indictment of statism and centrally planned economies (as well as a pointed jab at our celebrity and reality-TV-driven culture).

Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the final book is that the nation is about to exchange one version of statism for another.  A fascinating twist prevents this from occurring, but I won't give it away.  Suffice it to say that all live freely and in the pursuit of happiness ever after.

I remember a conversation I had with a friend in PA during the early primary season in '08.  At that point, it was still a 3-way race between McCain, Huckabee and Romney, but McCain was quickly moving to victory thanks to the structure of the primaries.  I told my friend that McCain was inevitable, not on the basis of delegate math (which I barely followed), but based on the fretting of Republicans convinced that the party must have a moderate candidate appealing to independents to overcome the drag of Bush's unpopularity.

Which brings us to 2012.  For some reason, Republicans are nervous as ever that the benefits of incumbency and a massive, well-funded campaign machine will be almost insuperable obstacles that can only be overcome by an eminently electable (read moderate) candidate.  I have yet to understand how a conservative senator who won two state-wide terms in a liberal-leaning state is less electable than a one-term blue-state governor with a mixed record on conservative issues.  When I cast my vote, I'm looking for the candidate who has a philosophical grasp of conservatism and can communicate it best.  That's how you win.

I voted at 11:30 am here in Oklahoma.  There was one other person voting at the time.  What puzzled me is that she was in her little voting cubicle when I arrived and still perusing the ballots when I left (we had closed Republican and Democratic presidential primaries and a non-partisan mayoral primary).  I can only assume she was a Democrat perplexed by who the four people running against Obama were, and whether she should vote for one of them, as Democrats in 15 other Oklahoma counties did successfully. 

Our office assistant mentioned that she decided to vote after work because her polling place had a long line at noon.  My impression is that turnout was average in Oklahoma.  Romney carried the urban areas, Santorum everywhere else.  I sympathize with Mollie - in 2008 I voted for Huckabee in our primary, even though McCain was already virtually assured the nomination.  I didn't like McCain and wanted to send a message to the national GOP that I don't appreciate having an "anointed one" shoved down my throat.

I'm fairly certain that Gingrich would give a full-throated endorsement of Santorum should the former Speaker bow out of the race.  However, it's definitely not going to happen before Florida votes, and whether Santorum has the staying power is a good question.

Two items I've been pondering:  1) Why is Mitt Romney considered more electable than Rick Santorum when their positions on fundamental issues are not all that different?  Is it because people are snookered by the media portrayal of Santorum as a kooky extremist?  2) This is a primary to find the best nominee.  Don't Republicans across the country deserve the opportunity to vote for an alternative to Romney (besides Ron Paul)?  The only thing that gives him the aura of inevitability in my opinion is his money and organization, but those advantages will accrue to anyone who becomes the actual nominee.  As John McCain discovered, it's not all that easy to expand your ground organization in the general election when the party members are unenthusiastic about your candidacy.

As Michele Bachmann did, Perry ought to have read the tea leaves after Iowa and ended his campaign.  A difficult thing to do for a man who prides himself on never losing an election and who still - at the time - had a considerable amount of cash in his war chest, but he should have bowed out nonetheless.  After an undramatic third place finish in NH, Huntsman needs to go.  I'm content for Ron Paul to continue his "mavericky" campaign, only because every political party should have a thorn in its side to keep it honest.  I agree that Santorum/Gingrich is the big question.  I support Santorum, who is one of the few candidates evincing a coherent, cohesive philosophy.  When he speaks about his positions on the issues, you know he believes in them and has thought them through, rather than merely adopting them as convenient or expected, which is everyone's fear about Romney.  Gingrich and Santorum will continue to split the not-Romney vote until one or the other's money runs out, which I think will depend heavily on the outcome of South Carolina.

I've been re-evaluating Newt lately. Initially I thought he had too much baggage, but virtually all the candidates do, either owing to blemishes on their record, the lack of a record, or simply espousing opinions unpalatable to a genuine Republican. Since Ryan and Daniels have opted out of a run, and Perry and Romney are engaging in a center-stage Punch and Judy show, I think we need to take a close look at the second tier. There's a long way to go until the caucus/primary season starts.

In these early, rough-and-tumble days of campaigning, I enjoy a good rhetorical grenade thrown with gusto as much as anyone.  Heck, I enjoy them any time.  However, I look for a bit more in a candidate running for the presidency.  That's why the country desperately needs Paul Ryan in this race, much more so than Chris Christie.  We have enough grenade launchers and limp rags in this race.  What we need is a genuine Republican in the race, firmly committed to principle, and most of all a candidate with the ability to articulate principle and policy so as to persuade the American public.  Contrast the way Christie dealt with unions in Jersey with the way Walker dealt with them in Wisconsin.  Christie said he doesn't mind duking it out as often as is necessary.  But what happens to his reforms when he's no longer there to play hardball?  Scott Walker managed to bring about long-lasting, effective reforms that do not depend on him being around to defend the taxpayer.  That's how you win the war, and that's why we need Paul Ryan as president.  Less flash, more gravitas.