Totally agree with you, 18:20 -- it's like watching starving people walk past a nice steak dinner to gorge themselves on cotton candy and communion wafers.

I think the column was intended as an apology-in-advance for an upcoming endorsement. Or maybe it's his way of trying to nudge the right to come up with another anti-Mitt.

I'm still scratching my head over how people can look at that group and not jump onto a Huntsman bandwagon. But, being a liberal, I suppose I should realize that my reaction is prima facie evidence that he'll never go anywhere with the GOP primary electorate.

It's a sad endorsement though. "Least likely to screw up??"

This is definitely an endorsement of Mitt. He has nothing good to say about Newt.

Old man yells at cloud.

Really? My immediate thought was the exact opposite -- Mitt's the unpredictable flip-flopper.

That said, neither of them can beat Obama.

CK has an op-ed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-vs-newt/2011/12/01/gIQAtSfOIO_story.html?hpid=z3) that ends

Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second [Obama] term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?

Given the rest of the article, that sounds like a Romney endorsement to me. What do you think?