In the words of Hillary's husband, it's still "the economy, stupid." And to me it's clear among all the candidates, republican or democrat, there's only one with any experience in the private sector and with a hope of turning around what is the largest enterprise on the planet, the American economy. That's Mitt Romney. It's not fear, it's reality; the American economy was pictured on "The Economist" as the swimmer with a large "Jaws" shark underneath just a few weeks ago. Hillary and Obama will raise taxes to support their programs, which would be a disaster with an economy on the brink of recession. Huckabee would have to do the same, and McCain has admitted he doesn't know economics but "has Greenspan's book." I'm a social conservative as well, so between the economy and social issues, there's only one candidate that combines them: Mitt Romney.

I'll tell you why Mitt: no one in the field has his knowledge of the economy or is expertise in turning things around. He's got executive experience, experience in the economy, turned around the Salt Lake Olympics when they invited him in to clean up the ethical and financial mess his predecessors made (and turned a huge deficit into a surplus), and he balanced a $3 billion budget deficit in Massachusetts. He's succeeded at everything he's tried, and he's committed to building the economy in Nevada and the entire US. I'm for Mitt because of this experience and because it's obvious the economy is headed south, and if we want to get out of the mess you don't elect a career senator who admits to not knowing enough about the economy (McCain) or someone likely to raise taxes (Huckabee, Clinton, Obama). Looking at the results for all the races, it's clear the republicans in NH, WY and MI all preferred Mitt.