Barack Obama has been President of the United States for 100 days now. Are you still happy with the vote you cast on Election Day 2008? Feel free to discuss after you answer the poll question.

A very telling spat erupted within the Republican Party recently. Meghan McCain, former presidential nominee John McCain's 24 year old daughter, wrote a blog entry for The Daily Beast that questioned the nasty tone and habitual meanness that fellow female conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham conduct themselves with in their various media outlets.

To Coulter's credit, and God knows I give her very little, she did not respond to McCain's criticism. I would have preferred if she had responded in a respectful way but, given what Ingraham said, Coulter gets points for inaction. Laura Ingraham's response to McCain's criticism was to characterize the young woman as a "Valley Girl gone awry" and "a plus-sized model." Aside from not knowing what in the 9th level of Hell the latter has to do with a political discussion, both disgust me and make me want to call in to Ingraham's show and ask her what point she was trying to make because it clearly got lost in translation.

However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that those particular insults are right in line with spoiling a female conservative commentator because the mostly male talk radio crowd and the ultra-conservative males all have one thing in common: if they're going to listen to a female they want to be able to drool over her. Ingraham's first salvo was an easy cheapshot: portray Meghan McCain as a ditzy dumb blonde from Sodom & Gomorrah (wait, sorry, California to those of you speaking Ingrahamese) and she can be automatically discounted as an ignorant Left Coast Liberal. Body shots to Meghan McCain's intellectual reputation? Check. The second statement, however, is by far the single most pernicious and nauseating thing that I have heard come out of a conservative commentator's mouth since Rush Limbaugh's television "joke" in which he says everyone knows that the Clintons have a White House cat named Socks. He then asks if people knew they had a White House dog. The punchline is that he holds up a picture of a thirteen year old Chelsea Clinton. Ingraham's sorry retort was basically saying "Hey, a fat girl's criticizing me! Who's gonna listen to some chubby chick?"

The whole point of Ingraham's statements were to illustrate that 1) Meghan McCain doesn't have a brain and 2) Even if she has a brain, she's fat so who would want anything to do with her anyway? This cuts to the quick of the problem with the Republican Party collectively. The party objectifies women to an obscene degree. Meghan McCain is, to my mind, pretty and smart. Unfortunately, that doesn't matter in this current showdown. The Republican Party has a clear history of objectifying women in their ranks and one only need to look back at last November to find concrete proof.

Sarah Palin, the rising star of the Republican Party and Vice Presidential nominee in 2008, was lauded as a big deal. Once her name and face got out among the public, what did I hear? What else did I expect to hear... she was a sex object and that overrode any and all questions about her fitness for office. The earliest and most lasting label attached to her was "GILF": Governor I'd Like to F***. Talking to some Republicans that I was working the polls with on Election Day, they regaled me with stories of how when Palin visited West Chester, Ohio that grown men were using a camcorder to ogle her ass and legs and spent the entire political rally talking about the multiple sundry things they would like to do to her. Better yet, some of the young bucks that were doing the physical labor tried (and thankfully failed) to create a hole in the stage so that they could obtain an upskirt shot of Palin: a bit of privacy that no one deserves to have taken away from them. Not only that, but the clamor among men was so loud that a pornography film from Hustler was made entitled "Nailin' Palin." Also, the gun community was all abuzz about how absolutely hot it was that Sarah Palin not only carried firearms but hunted animals with them and, apparently, brought many men close to climax simply by being photographed with her heavy artillery.

So we get to Ingraham trying to discredit Meghan McCain. It would seem that unless you are considered a hot and attractive woman that you cannot hold a position in the Republican Party, much less voice it. Ingraham's response indicates that she knows what her audience likes: articulate women that are bombshells (comparatively at least) that dress like sluts. Meghan McCain does not dress like a slut so, unfortunately, she is going to be tarred and feathered for saying anything besides the party line.

And so we have arrived at Bizaro World: a party that is angry with liberals for destroying family values and not outlawing pornography caters to a base that consumes ever-increasing amounts of pornography and will only listen to a woman and take her seriously if she sates the needs of their sexual fantasy world.

I've been gone from the Republican Party since May, 2006 and all I have to say is this: What the f***?

The Republican National Convention is filled with all sorts of speakers, ranging from "Independent Democrats" like Joe Lieberman to hardcore conservatives like Fred Thompson. In fact, just about the only thing they have in common is that they all support John McCain. Oh... and most of them are unemployed politicians hoping for a job in John McCain's cabinet.

What's so special about the cabinet?

According to Wikipedia,

The United States Cabinet (usually simplified as "the Cabinet") is composed of the most senior appointed officers of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States

These folks wield power. Not as much as, say, the 1920s, but still powerful. Oh... and many of them, especially the Secretary of State, use the position as a stepping stone. Thomas Jefferson was the first Secretary of State, James Madison was Jefferson's, James Monroe was Madison's, and John Quincy Adams was Monroe's. Other folks who went on to take the national spotlight were Henry Clay, Martin Van Buren, Daniel Webster, Edward Everett, William Jennings Bryan, Henry Kissinger (Secretaries of State), Dick Cheney (Secretary of Defense), Robert Kennedy (Attorney General), Alexander Hamilton (Secretary of Treasury), Herbert Hoover (Secretary of Commerce), and Elizabeth Dole (Secretary of Labor). In short, being a cabinet member can bring you to higher places.

Who McCain wants to have

It's obvious that Joe Lieberman will have some sort of position in a McCain administration. He's one of McCain's biggest boosters. Of course, his main problem is that he still considers himself an Independent Democrat and caucuses with the Democrats a lot. But his speech last night at the RNC may signal a change in that policy. Lieberman attacked Democrats and praised Republicans, and Harry Reid is not happy right now. Additionally, there's a good place for Lieberman to fit right into a McCain administration: Secretary of State. He's a strong supporter of Israel and the war in Iraq, two very Republican features that McCain also backs immensly. He was the honorary co-chair of the 2004 Committee on the Present Danger, a NAFTA supporter (like McCain), and proposed the Department of Homeland Security.

Another very friendly face to McCain is Lindsey Graham, senator from South Carolina. Graham and McCain vote extremely similarly, and Graham supported McCain early on in the primaries (and indeed, did the same in 2000). He was co-chairman of McCain's 2008 bid. The question is, of course, whether he would prefer that job or his current job as senior senator from South Carolina (he once quipped "I've got the best job in America. Everybody elected to the Senate from South Carolina lives to be 100" when asked about his cabinet chances).

A more longshot choice is Mike Huckabee for Health and Human Services Secretary. He's a nice guy, but he's actually middle-of-the-road as far as social policies go. However, Huckabee is the guy who quite possibly handed John McCain the election. McCain is a loyal guy.

Who McCain should have

What most people don't know about Fred Thompson is that he co-chaired John McCain's 2000 campaign bid. And if you saw his speech last night, it's obvious that the big Tennessean is a strong McCain fan. He'd also be a perfect Attorney General. His law career is flawless. In fact, Thompson was the minority counsel in the infamous Watergate Hearings in 1973. And he's a strong conservative, if you didn't notice.

There's also a little known CEO named John Chambers. He's head of Cisco, and he has, according to Wikipedia, "grown the company from $1.2 billion in annual revenues to its current run-rate of approximately $40 billion". This is a guy who I can see running the US economy. The question is, of course, if Chambers actually wants the job. He is currently a co-chair for McCain's bid, but he's also a powerful CEO at a great company.

Mitt Romeny is another strong choice economically. If Chambers doesn't want to join up with McCain, Mitt Romney could be a very interesting choice. His economic plan was his main strength during the primaries and he has a lot of business experience, making him an interesting pick for Secretary of the Treasury. He's also come out whole heartedly for the McCain campaign, indicating that he would be very interested in working with McCain. However, there's the problem that he might not be interested in a cabinet spot (The Journal reports that "he would not relish being 'soldiered by 27-year-olds in the White House.... That is not an attractive position, in my view.'").

Who McCain shouldn't have

Carly Fiorina keeps on coming up as a possible Secretary of the Treasury. That's the main reason I support keeping the DEA: maybe they'll get around to Fiorina's supporters. Because if they haven't noticed, Carly was fired from HP. Fired. So what her supporters want is a washed up corporate executive who was fired from her position to be the chief economic advisor in an economy slowly turning into a recession. Right.

Equally ludicrous is fellow former CEO Meg Whitman. She wasn't fired, but she left during some pretty rocky times. According to MSN Money's Editorial,

Is it time for Whitman to step down? If you're an eBay shareholder, you might think so. The stock was abysmal in 2006 and continued to disappointment in 2007, staying mostly in the $30-$35 range when companies like Amazon saw shares go through the roof. (Ebay closed yesterday at $32.49.)

She was a lousy CEO, responsible for such mergers as the infamous Skype acquisition. The core product, the auction marketplace, is slowing down. The company is being criticized for being out of touch with its sellers. But somehow, this is the woman that some want to head the US economy.

While we're talking about bad Secretary of Treasury options, let's look at Phil Gramm. He sounds like he has sound economic plans, and in fact he might. But he's tainted with scandal after scandal. First, he was involved in the "Enron Loophole Legislation". Then, he was blamed for helping spread the mortgage crisis. Then, he was asked to step down from his position on the McCain campaign after comments about a "mental recession". Bad guy to have around a reformer.

In a McCain administration, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson would play a dominant role in selecting Supreme Court nominees and other judicial appointments, sources close to the McCain campaign and to Thompson tell us.

So far, Mr. Obama owes his success to elites captivated by his personality. But in the general election, most folks will care more about a candidate's philosophy and stand on the issues. And what's considered mainstream values in a general election is different than in a primary.

Mr. Obama knows this, which is why he peppered his North Carolina primary night speech with culturally conservative language. And it is also why he is reaching out to Jewish voters.

Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain 61%-32% among Jews. John Kerry won the Jewish vote 74%-25% in 2004. A weak performance for Mr. Obama could make it harder to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio or Florida. It could even put New Jersey in play.

McCain advisers have paid close attention to how Hillary Clinton has exploited Mr Obama's weakness among blue-collar, culturally conservative white voters and intend to use a similar strategy against him in the general election. Aides say that if Mr McCain can win about 20 per cent of moderate Democrats nationally – an achievable target, based on recent polls – he will win the White House.

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama's aura of inevitability in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination has diminished after his loss in the Pennsylvania primary and amid the furor over his former pastor, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

According to some excellent reporting by Politico.com, a rather frightening meeting took place here in New York City two nights ago. Billionaire far-left zealot George Soros had a dinner in his Manhattan home that included Clinton confidante Paul Begala and the vicious character assassin David Brock, who runs Media Matters. Apparently, these three are starting an organization called Progressive Media USA.

Now as we reported last week, a number of organizations are set up to attack John McCain, including this new Progressive Media deal. As much as $350 million could be spent vilifying McCain. I believe this is evil.

Sen. John McCain said Sunday he hasn't seen signals Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is interested in running as vice president.
A leading GOP strategist says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may want to run with Sen. John McCain. His comments follow a report that Rice is angling for the No. 2 spot on the Republican presidential ticket. "I missed those signals," McCain told reporters on his campaign plane. "I think she's a great American. I think there's very little that I can say that isn't anything but the utmost praise for a great American citizen, who served as a role model to so many millions of people in this country and around the world."

What exactly is wrong with an optimistic president who has confidence in the long-run future of the American economy?

President Bush took this stance in a recent interview with me and at the Economic Club of New York. He told me, "Like any free market, there's also downturns, and we're in one. But I am confident in the long-term strength of our economy."

Optimism, after all, is one of the few levers our chief executive can use every day. By remaining optimistic, Bush is borrowing a page from Ronald Reagan, and rejecting a whole book of malaise from Jimmy Carter.

John McCain has finally secured the nomination. But there's one critical thing he hasn't finished yet. He hasn't picked his vice president. And right now, he's got a host of suggestions.

• Governor Haley Barbour, Mississippi. Eh. He did a good job on the Katrina aftermath, but Mississippi is not a swing state. He's also got a lot of corruption attacks. Kind of old, too.
• Representative Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee. A young woman who would definitely be effective in courting the female vote. And she has extremely strong conservative credentials. Of course, Tennessee might not be a swing state, but Blackburn's national appeal would be very helpful.
• Governor Matt Blunt, Missouri. He's only 37. And he just announced he wouldn't run for re-election, "to spend time with my family". Hey Matt, that's great. I'm in support of that. But you're going to stop your politics at 37? I doubt it. Matt also has the family name (recognize his father, Roy?) and the fact that he actually served in the military recently (actually, he's still a part of the military). He also had the highest rating for any governor this year from the Cato Institute. Unfortunately, he's not a popular guy. He only has a 48% approval rating.
• Governor Jeb Bush, Florida. As much as I like him, he has one problem. His last name.
• Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma. He has the sticky problem of being one of those who voted against the funding for Iraq in 2007 and called it a mistake. Since one of McCain's biggest issues is Iraq, this could be a problem. His fiscal conservatism is impeccable, of course. But between his foreign policy, his relative age, and the fact that Oklahoma will probably vote GOP 2008, Coburn may have a problem.
• Governor Charlie Crist, Florida. He has a chance. He was one of McCain's biggest backers, and would definitely help swing Florida (especially after the whole Florida Democrat primary debate). But he's not especially conservative, being more of a moderate (it is Florida). That, and the fact that Crist would probably help swing Florida anyway, is why I don't think Crist will become VP.
• Senator Jim DeMint, South Carolina. An impressive guy who I think will run for president one day. Fairly young, and ranked by the National Journal as THE #1 most conservative senator in the Senate. But is he too conservative? That's the main problem for the popular senator from South Carolina. That, and the fact that South Carolina isn't a swing state (or better not be). But if McCain wants to solidify his conservative credentials, this is the guy.
• Senator Liddy Dole, North Carolina. Again, North Carolina ain't a swing state. And Liddy is 71. But as a woman senator who's done just as much as Hillary, she could add a lot to the ticket. But I don't think McCain is looking for someone as old as he is.
• Speaker Newt Gingrich, Georgia. He's kinda old and has some baggage. And he wants to stay chairman of American Solutions.
• Mayor Rudy Giuliani, New York. My former mayor would definitely help put up a fight in the north (unless he flops like Edwards in 2004). But he won't solidify McCain's credentials, and IMHO could be the guy to push some dissatisfied conservatives to a third party Ron Paul ticket.
• Governor Mike Huckabee, Arkansas. A likeable guy with the evangelicals. That's about it. I think we can forget about a McCain-Huckabee ticket, despite all the help Huck gave McCain.
• Representative Duncan Hunter, California. Between him and the Terminator, California could potentially go to the GOP in 2008 if Hunter was on the ticket. And Hunter is a pretty solid conservative. Still, he's a little too little known. Even so, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with the VP slot.
• Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas. Too old, though she'd definitely do a lot to bring the women over to the GOP (Ladies' Home Journal ranked her in the top 30 most powerful women in America).
• Governor Bobby Jindal, Louisiana. I don't think he'll do it this year, as he's not done cleaning up Louisiana and just started serving as governor. Too bad, because he'd be perfect (Indian, young, and a conservative). But I will predict this: Bobby Jindal will one day become the Republican nominee for president.
• Senator Joe Lieberman, Connecticut. Whoever thinks that McCain would pick Lieberman is crazy. He's liberal, would definitely force conservatives to a third party, and would be overall a stupid choice.
• Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska. A really young attractive woman who could be really helpful to McCain. The problem is that she's only been a governor for two years. So she has basically no record.
• Representative Ron Paul, Texas. Yeah right. Even if he wasn't a libertarian in a conservative's clothes, he's too old and opposes McCain on foreign policy. On the pro side, he would definitely rule out any third party movement, keep the libertarians in the GOP, and is a really charismatic guy. Still... no chance.
• Governor Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota. A longtime supporter of McCain, and would definitely lend some conservative credentials AND swing Minnesota. There's only one problem, this quote: "I said I would serve out my term as governor if I was re-elected. And that's what I intend to do".
• Representative Mike Pence, Indiana. A definite possibility to shore up the conservative vote (calls himself a "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order". He also has the complete support of the talk show pundits, who have been down on Johnny recently. There is the tiny problem that he has a not-so-good immigration record, just like Mac. Regardless, he might not even be interested (he may be more interested in running for Senate in 2010).
• Governor Rick Perry, Texas. Very popular guy (longest serving governor in Texas) who could definitely help get Texas into the GOP fold come 2008 if he's the VP. Strong fiscal conservative, moderate social conservative, and an all-around good choice for getting more conservatives.
• General David Petraeus, New York. I doubt it. McCain is already strong with the foreign hawks, and besides, Petraeus would probably prefer to stay in Iraq.
• Secretary Colin Powell, New York. I doubt it. Sure, he's African-American and would take away Obama's support. Somewhat. But he's old, wouldn't swing any states, and is a big moderate. He's pro-choice, likes affirmative action, and doesn't mind gun control. Ouch. He even went so far as to say that he might not vote GOP 2008 (he even expressed support for Obama!).
• Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Alabama. It would be interesting to have a person who would kill Obama AND Hillary with one stone. Strong foreign policy, great diplomat... and that's about it. Very little of anything on fiscal issues is known about Condi. But it might be worth it. Unfortunately, she right now is saying no "I have always said that the one thing that I have not seen myself doing is running for elected office in the United States." Of course, they all say that until they're asked.
• Governor Mitt Romney, Massachusetts. Seems to me that before McCain was the frontrunner, we all thought ROMNEY was a liberal. Remember his liberal leanings towards abortion and health care? And we all predicted he wouldn't be able to carry Massachusetts in the general election. But now, everyone is forgetting that and pushing for a McCain-Romney ticket. I personally doubt it... but you gotta guess that he's on the short list.
• Governor Mark Sanford, South Carolina. Perfect conservative... and that's about it. Can't swing a critical state and has no record outside of SC. Still, he's young, likeable, and has a good record.
• Representative Tom Tancredo, Colorado. Yeah right. He's way too extreme, as much as I like him.
• Senator Fred Thompson, Tennessee. Doubt it, after his poor showing in the primaries. I mean, he was supposed to be the nominee. We all knew it was Fred '08 this year. And then he flopped. How would he help McCain, who by the way isn't very inspiring by himself?
• Senator John Thune, South Dakota. Strong conservative Christian, but not very well known.
• Representative JC Watts, Oklahoma. He's a great choice. African-American, University of Oklahoma star quarterback, CNN contributor... he's got the name and could beat Obama. He was the guy who responded to Clinton's State of the Union address. He was chairman of the House Republican Conference. What's too lose? To me, he looks like a great candidate. Unfortunately, the media hasn't even started mentioning him. And until they do, there's no chance he'd get picked.

My Picks

Sanford, Crist, and Coburn would be mistakes for the reasons I already outlined. Hunter and DeMint would be good on paper, but they have little national recognition. Romney will get a long look, but I don't think McCain liked his universal health care plan. Pawlenty and Perry would be the best choices, however, since they have a state that's important to the GOP and have fairly solid credentials.

Oh, and look for Matt Blunt, Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal to spring onto the national scene in a few years.

Yes, I want Mitt Romney to be John McCain's running mate. Take a listen to this Mitt interview with Sean Hannity and see why it is said Mitt Romney is the choice of GWB, Jeb, Karl Rove, and yours truly.....McCain-Romney....has a nice ring to it dontcha think?

I have to hand it to Hillary Clinton. They said it couldn't be done that the free pass Obama had received thus far from the mainstream media this primary season could never end. They were wrong. They said the walk on water Barack Obama could never be proven just a mere mortal. They were wrong. Turns out Obama's not just a mere mortal he's a mere politician. Yes, it took Hillary several long months but somehow just days before Super Tuesday II all the gods aligned and the infamous Clinton Machine finally inflicted a slow air leak to the Obamapalooza bubble. And it was this slow air leak that allowed Hillary to do what they said could not be done. She won both in Texas and Ohio and stands a very good chance of winning again in Pennsylvania on April 22nd.

Yes, sure, Hillary's new TV ad launched just days before last Tuesday's vote the one with that phone ringing at in the White House at 3AM proved effective. It made voters stop and think maybe for the first time "Is Obama really ready?" But it was not this ad alone that pushed Hillary to her big win last Tuesday. All of sudden there were questions. They may not be all new questions but they were for the first time rising to the surface threatening to prick the Obamapalooza bubble and prick it they did. You know the questions. But they bear repeating. These are among the questions that made it impossible for Barack Obama to seal the deal. These are among the questions American voters now want Obama the man himself not one of his surrogates to address:

1. Please explain to us why your campaign has described your relationship with Weather Underground's Bill Ayers as "friendly?" Do you think establishing a "friendly" relationship with a known terrorist will sit well with the American electorate?

2. Please explain to us why your campaign at first denied the conversation between your chief economic adviser and Canadian officials re: NAFTA ever took place. If indeed there was no "wink wink" why deny?

3. Why have you not rejected and denounced the minister of your church who has bestowed honors on Louis Farrakhan?

4. Please explain to us what role Tony Rezko played in the purchase of your family home and tell us if Hillary's depiction of Rezko as a corrupt slumlord was unfair in your assessment? Why or why not?

These are the questions that prove to all of us that in fact no Barack Obama is not the new messiah. He may indeed be leading a movement ---a movement that many have described as spiritual ----but Obama it seems thanks to that slow air leak has finally floated back down to earth. And there are six long more weeks for more air to escape from the Obamapalooza bubble before the next big state primary in PA. Now that we've proven that Obama is just another man like any other man (albeit with a gift for oratory) doesn't that make Hillary Clinton as the first woman to run for this highest office the new novelty of the day? Is it advantage Hillary going into Pennsylvania?

The polls indicate it would be easier for republicans to win in the fall with a McCain-Clinton match up vs. a McCain-Obama race. I'm not so sure. While it's true a Clinton nominee would help rally conservatives to McCain I for one had been preparing myself to see the GOP take on the inexperienced junior senator from Illinois. While Hillary did effectively hit Obama on NAFTA she was not so effective on the Rezko or Louis Farrakhan bits. I believe the GOP stands a good chance to not only hit Obama harder and more effectively than Hillary did on these issues which speak to character but on the more substantive matters of policy as well. Yes, Obama wants to change America. He wants to trend this country toward higher taxes, socialized medicine, and surrender to the enemy. Yes, Obama wants to change the United States of America the country which I have always loved and the country of which I have always been proud. And so I must warn not just Obama's minions but any undecideds thinking they might support Obama in the fall: not all change is good.

And now I turn once again to you my fellow newsviners and ask you to vote in my Obamapolooza poll. We've seen that Obama's bubble has suffered a slow air leak. But can it be burst once and for all? Please be sure to vote in my survey and share with me your opinions regarding the health of Obamapolooza and as always I thank you once again for your participation.

Well, the inevitable finally happened. John McCain secured the 1191st delegate, winning the Republican primary. How did we end up with him, with a few liberal stances on some key views, when we had tons of other strong candidates?

The candidates

At first, 2008 looked like a great year. We had two guys with a 99 from the American Conservative Union (Brownback and Tancredo), the guy from 2004 who everyone kinda liked America's Mayor who was tough on crime and a real likeable guy, a fairly conservative Massachussetian named Mitt Romney, a representative no one knew about but whose positions everyone supported (Hunter), a libertarian, and a Southern Baptist minister. Plus, we had movements to draft Fred Thompson (the ultra conservative from the GOP's point of view) and Newt Gingrich (the guy who led us to power in the House a decade ago).

Unfortunately, a few things happened. First of all, McCain quickly lost the popularity he had originally had when he worked with Ted Kennedy on an amnesty bill. Tancredo got off to a horrible start thanks to his one-issue campaign (immigration), Hunter got too little endorsements, Brownback was too little known outside of Kansas, and Ron Paul was a libertarian running for a conservative party. So with all the "true" conservatives out of the race, we settled back and waited for Fred Thompson. Since the rightwingers were planning to vote for the man who wasn't running yet, Giuliani and Romney leaped to the top. That was our biggest mistake. Because Thompson was going to announce in February. Then March. Then April. Then May. Then June. And finally, when he announced in September, he had lost much of his momentum. And then... he flopped. He had virtually no charisma, was boring, and looked awkward. The conservatives grew disillusioned. Many knew that he had no chance in a runoff against the charismatic Hillary or Obama. Then, a miracle happened. A small unknown Southern Baptist preacher-turned-governor started putting on steam. I had been following Huckabee since he announced, and for the longest time he had no support (most didn't know who he was). But suddenly, a surge of evangelical Christians brought him into the spotlight. And thanks to his FairTax (and Romney's abortion flip-flop and Giuliani's social liberalism), the smooth talking Bible thumping preacher began to get looks from the conservatives. Soon, they had put him second to, and then in front of, Rudy Giuliani.

The caucuses and primaries

Well, it began with a bang. Huckabee did the unthinkable and took Iowa with 34%. Everyone suddenly began considering Huckabee as a legitimate candidate. Romney came back with a huge victory in... Wyoming. And then in New Hampshire, John McCain pulled off another upset. Michigan put Romney back in the spotlight. By now, it was obvious that it was a four man race: Huckabee, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani as a longshot. But McCain then took the strongly evangelical South Carolina, bringing the attention onto his campaign again and led to him being dubbed, "The Comeback Kid". Huckabee fired back with another win in Louisiana. Florida came, but Giuliani's lack of early campaigning as well as Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain did him in, with McCain winning Florida. Then, Super Tuesday arrived.

Huckabee pulled off yet another surprise in West Virginia. But it wasn't enough, and all Huckabee did was manage to steal Romney votes and help McCain win the nomination. Romney promptly dropped out, and McCain virtually sealed the nomination.

So what happened?

Well, a few things. First of all, we were too enthralled with Fred. If we had looked at some of the other candidates (Romney didn't look so bad towards the end, but was ridiculed as a liberal in the beginning), perhaps when Fred flopped we could have had another choice. Second, we shouldn't have been so quick to jump on Huckabee's bandwagon. I admit that it was probably mostly the fault of us evangelicals, who heard the words "Southern Baptist preacher" and started wearing Huckabee 2008 pins. So basically, next time we need to see the bigger picture.

Dear Mike and Rudy:

I sit here on the eve of Super Tuesday and I, the Charming Conservative, ask myself over and over and over again, "How did this happen?" How is it possible that the Grand Old Party, the GOP, the republican party of which I have always been an extremely proud card carrying member has made John McCain frontrunner for the GOP nomination? How is it possible that a man so despised by the base of his party has managed to earn frontrunner status?

Oh, there are a number of theories. It all came down to Florida didn't it? That state where after the 2000 election I proclaimed to my husband he could just forget about ever retiring to. No I told him I could never live in a state that in one fell swoop tried to undermine our nation's entire system of elections and shift the power away from the people to the courts. Yes, I've been annoyed with Florida ever since 2000 and then when that same state allowed Terri Schiavo to be murdered by her ex-husband in 2005 well that was just the icing on the cake. The subject was closed and we weren't ever moving to Florida. And then came the Florida primary.

Let's face it John McCain had already been crowned GOP frontrunner even before the Florida primary by the mainstream media and those pesky independent voters in the early primaries. So when January 29th finally arrived, I hoped against hope that the closed primary in Florida would mean advantage Romney. Even if Romney managed to win by only a point or two, I wanted to stop McCain from heading into Super Tuesday saying that he was the choice not just of independent voters and the media but of the republican party as well. And things looked pretty good for Romney in Florida until McCain dropped a little zinger the weekend prior to the vote misrepresenting –no lying about- Romney's position on Iraq war timetables. Romney demanded an apology but it was too late particularly when nearly simultaneously Governor Crist went against his word that he would let the Florida voters vote and endorsed McCain. Many people say that endorsements don't matter but with John McCain the Crist endorsement mattered. McCain went on to beat Romney in Florida---- he did't trounce him like Obama did Hillary in North Carolina. No McCain won by just 5 points with 36% to Romney's 31%. But sadly it was enough.

And then the unthinkable – who said there was no good television this year because of that writer's strike ---you, Mr. Giuliani, can I call you Rudy? You endorsed John McCain that very next day after Florida. Shame on you-- shame on you Rudy for endorsing McCain before Super Tuesday with Arnold Schwarzenegger following right on your heels. It seemed so wrong. It made your entire campaign look like a farce. It made me wonder if your so called Florida strategy had been designed all along to help your good friend John gain momentum for the nomination while you allowed your own position as last summer's frontrunner to freefall and did nothing to stop it. Rumor has it that Fred Thompson may endorse John McCain but will not do so before Super Tuesday. For that I applaud him.

Prior to Fred Thompson finally joining the race all too late last fall, you Rudy had been my first choice but you never showed up. You seemed to be running from the race for President instead of in it. In the post game analysis I heard you were frightened by Romney's money in Iowa. Then frightened once again by the bogus media scandal over your prior accounting & security practices and with Bernie Kerik back in the headlines you ran from New Hampshire. You did campaign hard in Florida but it was evident long before the vote that your eggs in one basket strategy had failed. I want to know Rudy what did John promise you and more importantly when? Some say it's a VP nod. I'm thinking more Attorney General. So yes, Rudy, I'm annoyed with you. Your performance as Mayor of New York City was commendable and you were, are, and always shall be an American hero; nevertheless, I am now really for the first time ever disappointed in you. You have said your supporters were overlapping with Senator McCain's and so it seems you were right as current polls indicate your support has shifted mostly to McCain.

And then there's also ran Mike Huckabee. Mr. Huckabee, you refuse to let these republican primaries be a two-man race knowing that you cannot win. Even John Edwards had the grace to let the democrats have same on the other side of the aisle. Too bad Mr Huckabee you don't have that same sense of grace. And so I have to wonder again Mr. Huckabee what it was that John McCain has promised you since it's clear you are remaining in this race solely as spoiler to Mitt Romney. Looking just today at the state by state polls, there is no doubt Romney would have a better chance of pulling it out on Super Tuesday were it not for the persistent presence of Mike Huckabee. Mr. Hucakbee, the time is now to let your party have a clear choice. The times are just too critical and it has become obvious that were there no Mike Huckabee in this race we would already have had very different outcomes in South Carolina and Florida.

So Rudy when you didn't show up in the race and when Fred Thompson dropped out I embraced Mitt Romney. Romney was doing better and better in debates finally feeling comfortable in his own skin. And as the economy moved to the forefront (since yes the surge is working) I believed this too had to help Romney over the self described weak on economy John McCain. It didn't. So here we are one day before Super Tuesday and what we have is a GOP frontrunner who seemingly earned that status by dividing and conquering his own party. How did he do it? The answer is quite simple really. He did it with the help of his good buds Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.

And so on Super Tuesday, I am hoping against hope that Romney will benefit from the wrath of conservatives like me. Mark my words Senator McCain may have found a way to win my party's nomination without conservative voters, but I dare him to try to win without us in November. My liberal friend jfxgillis has coined the phrase that names a new movement – "ABM!" – Anyone But Mccain! And with that drumbeat ringing in my ears this Tuesday, Super Tuesday, I will walk into that voting booth and proudly pull the lever for the former Governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Mitt Romney.

Sincerely,

LISAED
The Charming Conservative

According to Yahoo News (a breaking story it won't allow me to seed), Rudy Giuliani is in talks to possibly endorse John McCain.

And so we come to Florida for the ultimate clarification, much as Rudy Giuliani predicted. Can John McCain win a race that includes only Republican voters? Can Mike Huckabee win another state at all? Can Mitt Romney parlay his financial advantage to victory in a state not predisposed to support him? Will Fred Thompson even bother to campaign?

Fred Thompson supporters are being asked to register their opinions on who they'll support if Fred drops out. As of this posting, Romney is way ahead.

This blog posting asks Fred supporters where they will go if, as it appears, he withdraws from the race following his weak third place finish in SC. . Interesting reading. This, of course, is not a scientific survey, but it's obvious that for many of them, Mitt is the obvious choice, even if Thompson endorses McCain.

Huckabee has been complaining for two weeks about negative attacks from Romney, Thompson, the Club for Growth, etc. Now his supporters are using dirty tricks to attack Romney and Thompson and the SC prosecutor has been asked to prosecute the robo-calls, which are against the law in SC.

Mike Huckabee will be the GOP candidate. Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. Ron Paul will not run as a Constitutionalist or Libertarian. These are just some of the radical predictions I have in store for you.

Republican Nomination

Huckabee - Most probable nominee

Mike Huckabee will be the 2008 GOP nominee. He's got the momentum. He's got Iowa, and a strong showing in New Hampshire for what he did there. He'll easily win South Carolina unless Thompson turns on the steam. And his folksy, down-to-earth style will destroy any opposition. Even if he doesn't win, he has a good chance at getting the VP nod from Giuliani, McCain, or Romney (they need an aw shucks guy to help win the rural vote).

Giuliani - Sick, dying, dead

Giuliani meanwhile has adopted the wrong strategy. He thinks that winning everything on Super Duper Tuesday will be enough. But it won't. Because he'll have to win it first. And since he's been ranking next to Ron Paul in the early debates, he has zero momentum. Maybe even negative. Add that to the fact that he's starting to get boring (while Huckabee is all fresh) and all the scandals are coming out, and he's almost dead. So because everyone thinks he'll lose, the city will vote Romney or McCain and the country will vote Huckabee. Giuliani's only hope is in a strong Florida victory, after which he'll have a small chance to win Super Duper Tuesday.

Thompson - Done for

Fred Thompson did better when he wasn't running than he is now. Simple fact. All the conservative bloggers and journalists in the world can't help him. He's out and out boring. Look, I think he's the best candidate on the issues. But he's got no chance convincing anyone that he's the right man, unless he picks up real steam. And I know he did a "good" job last night, but that's not what I'm talking about. He needs real charisma (and maybe some anti-monotone lessons).

Romney - Longshot

Romney is almost completely done for. His flip flopping (whether true or not), health care, and immigration got him into trouble. See, he thinks money can buy everything. But it can't buy him first place in Iowa (especially when Mike Huckabee, penniless a few months ago, won) or New Hampshire (anyone remember the Newsvine story about John McCain's near-bankruptcy?). He won "silver" both times. But for the amount of work he put in, he should have gotten first. Except that the voters didn't like him. And he can't campaign like that on Super Duper Tuesday. Simply put, Romney is next to dead.

McCain - Longshot getting shorter

John McCain. He was almost bankrupt six months ago. Yet when he won New Hampshire a few days ago, he suddenly looked like he could come out of the McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy "scandals" that hurt him so badly early on. Now McCain needs to immediately capitalize on his New Hampshire win with a couple more. If he can, we may see him in the White House after all.

Paul - Dead on arrival

Look, we all know Ron Paul has a huge internet following. But you can't turn that into a huge electoral following. Especially if you're a libertarian running for a conservative (moving left) party. So Ron Paul will lose.

Democratic Nomination

Hillary - Most probably nominee

Yes, we all know Obama is coming on strong. But as the Economist pointed out, Obama needed everything to go right. That includes New Hampshire. And everything didn't go right. So while Obama is still in the race, I'll put my money that the gender card will trump the race card in 2008.

Obama - Chance, but lost NH

Obama won Iowa and everyone thought he'd take off from there. He was expected to win New Hampshire easily, and with those two in the bag, sweep on to take the rest of the primaries. But Hillary started sobbing, and Obama lost New Hampshire. This will set him back quite a lot.

Edwards - Super longshot

Look Mr. I-hate-all-corporations-in-the-world. We know you want to become president. But even your wife admitted that "We can't make [him] black, we can't make him a woman". And that's why you won't be accepting the Democrat nomination.

Third-party nominations

OK, no one really cares about the Constitutionalist, Libertarian, or Green Parties. There are only three candidates anyone cares about. Ron Paul will decide very carefully about running. In the end, I think he'll decide that a moderate conservative is better than letting a socialist get into office. It will also depend on who it is. If it's Huckabee, he might consider it. If it's Giuliani or Romney, I think he'll definitely not run.

Mike Bloomberg is different. He's an Independent, which means he doesn't really love the Republican Party that much. But since he's been pretty mum about it, there's not a huge chance he'll run.

Lastly, Ralph Nader will run. He called Hillary "a panderer and a flatterer." He never said no. He'll be in the Green Party Presidential Debates. And the Green Party is trying to draft him.

Presidential Run-off

Huckabee and Hillary will square off with a bang. Hillary will take the urban vote, Huckabee the rural vote. But Huckabee's honesty (whether real or feigned) will triumph over Hillary's political maneuvering. If it was Giuliani who ran against Hillary, it would be a whole different story. Both would fight to see whether Giuliani was corrupt or if Hillary was a maneuvering politician. If Obama won, he'd probably win the presidency against Giuliani. Against Huckabee... I couldn't make a prediction. Ralph Nader will receive less than 1% of the vote. Ron Paul will also receive a few write-ins if he doesn't run, and a small percentage of the vote if he does.

Oh, and look for Newt Gingrich as a vice-presidential candidate. Especially if Mike Huckabee is elected.

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C., Jan. 10 -- The leading Republican presidential candidates used a Fox News debate Thursday night to draw contrasts with their rivals on the economy, U.S. relations with Iran, immigration and political change in advance of two primaries next week that are expected to winnow the field.

In their last televised meeting before critical contests in Michigan and South Carolina, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) of pessimism about the nation's economy for saying that some outsourced jobs are never coming back to hard-hit communities. "I'm going to fight for every single job," Romney said in the opening moments of the debate.

McCain responded by saying that he was offering the kind of "straight talk" that voters appreciate, and that the government is obligated to help laid-off workers through a "rough patch" by offering training and other programs. But he did not back off, saying that "there are some jobs that aren't coming back to Michigan. There are some jobs that won't come back here to South Carolina."

Moments later, former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) lashed out at former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, charging the winner of the Iowa caucuses with a litany of conservative heresies, including supporting taxpayer-funded programs for illegal immigrants, a smoking ban and liberal economic policies, as well as opposing school vouchers.

"So much for federalism," an animated Thompson said. "So much for states' rights. So much for individual rights."

Huckabee, who is jousting with Thompson and McCain in South Carolina for a victory in the nation's first Southern primary on Jan. 19, dismissed the accusations. "If you're not catching flak, you're not over the target," he said. "I'm catching flak; I must be over the target

It is pretty much the general consensus that Fred Thompson won the debate in South Carolina last night.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters:

"Who put the vitamins in Fred Thompson's oatmeal? We have waited for Thompson to show up on the campaign trail, and tonight he finally did. He had energy, focus, a command of detail, and a willingness to finally engage with the other candidates on the stage. He took almost everyone else aback, and seized momentum that he only occasionally relinquished."

NBC's Chuck Todd writes:

Fred Thompson was funny, biting and energetic. Easily, his smoothest performance...

From The Moderate Voice:

THOMPSON lived up to his advance hype in this one. Finally. Endearing, witty and sharp.

The New York Times:

But it was Mr. Thompson's performance, in which he shook off the laid-back style that has defined his candidacy, that provided some of the liveliest moments of the debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C..

Peter Robinson at National review Online said:

Thompson need only sustain this performance for a couple of days before votes, and money, start moving in his direction. But tonight the one consistent and authentic conservative in this race made himself the man to watch. When Fred roars, he roars."

The question is: will Fred's performance result in a bounce for him or a win for McCain? There is a few that think it is the latter.

The idea goes, if Fred can peel a some voters away from Huckabee to him, it doesn't hurt McCain, who is leading in South Carolina. Fred would have to really make up some ground to catch, let alone pass McCain in South Carolina primary. But it is possible this debate could lead to just that result.

It was not that long ago that Fred was the leader in the Palmetto state. And considering the polling debacle that happened in New Hampshire, I wouldn't be surprised to see Fred win there.

If Fred is going to pull this off, he has got to not only tear Huckabee down for his liberal tendencies, but attack McCain for his. Go after the McCain/Kennedy amnesty plan. Go after McCain/Feingold. Go after the fact that McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, not because of a lack of spending cuts, but because of the same class warfare reasons the liberals did.

Thompson's campaign is far from dead. He has picked up a lot of endorsements recently, and is supposedly getting a big endorsement today. Fred's performance in last night's debate is just what he needed to do to revive the energy people had when they drafted him I think Fred's performance helped him more than it helped McCain, but that is dependent on how he builds on it.

Voters say they want a substantial debate of the issues and the candidate's proposed solutions. Yet, the minute a serious discussion commences, eyes glaze over and the subject is changed. Many people apply about as much thought to their vote for President as they do to selecting their favorite breakfast cereal. Fred Thompson, despite the fact that he is an accomplished actor, and could simply try to parlay that fact into a successful campaign in this star-struck culture, trusts the average American to engage his or her brain in tackling the issues facing our country.

When Fred's frank, intelligent, common-sense approach is allowed to actually filter down to the people, a level of respect is instantly earned and a bond is formed. Unfortunately, the media believes that candidates should come kowtowing to them for the mere privilege of having access to the airwaves and print media.

Fred Thompson's political views are firmly rooted in his conservative "core principles". During a recent interview, this fact completely baffled PBS's Charlie Rose when he posed a question as to what being a conservative means today. Fred answered, "It means things that are consistent with God's design for man, it's consistent with human nature, it's consistent with the lessons of history, the lessons of ages. They found form in the Constitution I think and what our Founding Fathers believed. They understood that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing."

An excellent presentation of Fred Thompson's strengths, conservative principles, and issue positions with a one-paragraph summary on each of these GOP candidates: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudolph Guiliani.

I've finally come up with a tentative endorsement for the next president of the United States.  If you would have asked me a year ago if I thought I would still be undecided just days away from the Iowa Caucus I would have probably laughed.  We had good candidates testing the waters and other good candidates waiting in the back drop.  But here we are.

If there is time to 'vote your conscience' then obviously it's during a primary match-up.  It requires a combination of selecting a candidate who can change the Party in the direction you want it to go and win in the general election.

And there is a third facet which so many adhere to above all others:  selecting the person who you personally like the most, who shares most of your views or who makes you feel good, with no regard to the Party, the election, the office or the potential of the candidate.

One of my trademark sayings is "idealism is fine until it butts heads with reality".  If you aren't prepared to deal with reality when conducting this sacred exercise than what are you really expecting to accomplish?

There were over 120 million votes cast in the 2004 presidential election.  You are not casting a vote for your own little island, even if somewhere in your childhood you were convinced that this were so.  Supporting a candidate is of course done with some element of the personal involved; however, it shouldn't be all personal.  There is a difference between voting with your heart and voting with your head.

One of the more tiring buzz-terms that gets recycled every election year is the adage of voting for the lesser of two evils.  It's an ignorant claim made by hyper-cynical people who think the path to enlightenment requires an outsider mentality.  That argument could be made when there are no good choices or contrasting choices but the reality is that both sides (and especially the Republicans) aren't suffering from not enough good choices but rather from too many good choices.   That doesn't relegate me to making a painful choice between two evils.  And when the Republican takes on the Democrat in November, I will have a clear choice between a candidate who will move the country in the direction I want it to go and a candidate who will move the country in the opposite direction.  

It's not about choosing the lesser of two evils; it's about making the best choice. 

And here is my rundown, my countdown if you will:

8. Alan Keyes:  out of the question.  I don't have much more to say.  The guy is certifiable and an embarrassment to the Party.

7. Ron Paul:  out of the question.  A likable guy?  Yes.  Do I share some of his political philosophy? Yes.  But nutty as a fruitcake and supported by many of the worst elements in society.  He has been an ineffective political leader and has no chance of winning the primary or the general election.  If he miraculously accomplished both, he would face obstruction from both parties.  He is a disaster in every sense of the word.  I most likely would not support Ron Paul in the general election.

6. Duncan Hunter:  I like Duncan Hunter.  A lot.  But he was never a real candidate and I'm not going to give my support to someone who is not in to win.

5. Mike Huckabee:  doesn't excite me.  I have problems with some of his platform but in the general election, I would see him as the candidate that keeps the country on track.  I wouldn't support him in the primary however because I don't think he could win in November.

4. Mitt Romney:  I was very interested in Romney in the beginning.  He never really connected with me and his campaign has unfortunately been held hostage under the shadow of his religion.   I do like him however and think that he has a knack for getting things done.  I would be happy to support him in November.  But again, I think winning in November would be a steep uphill climb for him.

3. Fred Thompson:  I like Fred, I think he would make a good president.  I'm sorry that his campaign didn't catch fire like some of us thought it might when he joined in the race.  He is great when he is on target and when he exercised that charming and sharp, no-nonsense Southern wit of his.   He is a solid conservative.  But he has to campaign like he wants it and I don't think he's convinced enough voters that he does.  I would enthusiastically support him in the general, but his campaign would have to light a fire under him if he would expect to beat any of the Big Three Democrats.

And finally, the problem I face:  who am I going to back for the Republican nomination in the weeks to come?  I'm split almost 50-50 between these two guys and I'm truly torn.

Both of them have solid and patriotic political backgrounds.   Both have records they can boast.  Both are icons in the post-911 conflict.  Both support winning.  Both have the right economic vision.  Both have run good campaigns.  And either of them could very realistically win in November.  

2. Rudy Giuliani:  I've always liked Giuliani.  I think he deserves the Republican nomination.  As recently as last week I have been telling people that he would be my guy.  He's an effective politician and I have yet to see any real counter against the miraculous turn around of New York City, the nation's largest and at the time, more troubling cities.  He left an undeniable positive impact on the city.  He boasts his accomplishments as he should.  While a Hillary Clinton slogan is that she has always cared about children, Giuliani's slogan is that abortions decreased and adoptions increased under his leadership.  He, unlike some his Republican rivals and virtually all of his Democratic rivals, has real and undeniable results he can point to.  And yes, despite opponents to Giuliani's insistence that it's limited or inconsequential, his leadership on 9/11 is a valuable asset to his campaign.  How a leader acts in the face of the unfathomable should have an immeasurable weight on how we assess that candidate.

1. And finally, my support for the next president goes to John McCain.  A year ago McCain would have been near my 'out of the question' level because the man has done some things to infuriate me.  But in hindsight I have to give him credit:  some of the things I thought he was wrong on...he proved himself right.  He was wrong on opposing the Bush tax cuts but he was right on opposing them on the grounds that they didn't include spending cuts.  That should be reassuring to conservatives.

I was angry over the 'Gang of 14' stunt - but in the end, he was proven right.  He got the Democrats to back off while preserving the filibuster.

I thought he was wrong on his insistence that greater force was the answer in Iraq.  This summer's troop surge in the war that Harry Reid dubbed "lost" nine months ago proves McCain right.

Despite the rhetoric surrounding Ron Paul, John McCain is the true fiscal conservative.  He has been a fighter against government waste, rejects earmarks and opposes agricultural subsidies.

McCain was obviously wrong on campaign finance reform and I believe him when he acknowledges it as a mistake. 

The biggest problem I have with McCain is his position on interrogations.  I'm not going to even try to question or challenge his perspective on torture (and very of us should) - though I don't agree with his view on waterboarding.   But I don't think any leader in Washington at a time like this should be advertising our intelligence gathering techniques or limitations.   

To put the icing on the cake, McCain is the only Republican candidate who polls with the best chance of defeating each of the Democratic candidates.  RealClearPolitics national poll averages shows that he is the only candidate who beats Hillary.  He ties Obama and he is within a few points of Edwards.  He would be a more legitimate Commander-in-Chief in that he has served (and then some) and has two sons currently serving overseas.  I say legitimate in that it would end the 'chickenhawk' rants once and for all.  He has name recognition and has run the cleanest and most stately campaigns of all of the candidates - he is often the straightest talker on divisive issues and has been a gentleman throughout the campaign.

John McCain walks softly and carries a big stick.

So there you have it.  It's not to say that I may be swept with an urge to pull for Giuliani as I'm approaching the polling booth, but as of now, my support and my money are with John McCain, the next president of the United States. 

12) Mike Huckabee attacks Romney's religion: In an interview with the New York Times magazine, Mike Huckabee asked, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

Why Huckabee chose to give Romney's supporters a chance to bash him for being "anti-Mormon" just for asking the question is unknown, but the comment, which Huckabee later apologized for, helped enable his detractors to paint him as a man exploiting his faith to help win an election.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has fallen 13 points since November and is now tied with Mitt Romney nationally in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

According to the poll, Giuliani and the former Massachusetts governor are tied with 20 percent support among Republican primary voters.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was in third place with 17 percent support, followed by Arizona Sen. John McCain at 14 percent and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at 11 percent, the poll found.

Giuliani had been the clear leader in all previous NBC/Journal polls and led the field with 33 percent support in the survey last month.

And your top concern is that he is "lazy" enough to drive around in a golf cart?

Thompson's plan emphasizing border security and opposition to amnesty also stands in stark contrast to McCain and Huckabee's weaknesses on illegal immigration. And unlike the other candidates, most notably Huckabee, Thompson reassuringly has extensive foreign policy experience, and identifies national security as his top priority in light of the greater war against expansionist Islamic radicalism.

I've been wanting to do a sort of guide to the candidates, especially since the primaries are coming up soon. So, I've now finally stopped procrastinating and have started a little series (which you can follow at the 2008-election-predictions tag). Up this week: a conclusion with some thoughts.

The candidates: What sets 'em apart and what doesn't

Many of the candidates are pretty similar on their overall views. Most (claim to) favor keeping the troops in Iraq, making sure Iran doesn't get nukes, privatizing Social Security, wealthcare, and healthcare, securing the border, Second Amendment rights, and lowering taxes. However, there's certainly things that set them apart. Mike Huckabee favors personalization over privatization for Social Security. Mitt Romney believes in private accounts. Rudy Giuliani favors private and homeschooled options as well as public. Mitt Romney believes that we should just reform our public schools. Ron Paul completely opposes the Iraq War, while almost every other candidate supports it. Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee both were lenient for illegal immigrants already in their territories, while Fred Thompson would like to end sanctuary cities forever. And so forth and so on.

One issue candidates?

Each of the six candidate mentioned have their own specific issues that they like to focus on. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani would like you to look past their liberal leanings on social issues and instead concentrate on their fiscal record. Mike Huckabee on the other hand plays up his Southern Baptist side on abortion. Fred Thompson wants to cut government programs. John McCain points to his strong foreign policy experience. And Ron Paul... is a libertarian. There's a reason why most Christians are voting Huckabee 2008, Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney have equally divided the fiscal vote, and Ron Paul has all the constitutionalists, libertarians, and a lot of the right-wing independents on his side.

My Predictions

Right now, Rudy Giuliani is the main guy to beat. But Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney aren't far behind. Both are competing madly for Iowa. The winner in Iowa will most likely become Giuliani's main competitor. That race is currently too hard to call at this point. Romney just made a huge Mormonism speech, but Mike Huckabee is on fire. Right now, John McCain and Fred Thompson are basically out unless they make some phenomenal speech or win a crucial debate (neither of which is likely to happen). And Ron Paul? The thing with him is that he's a libertarian running as a Republican. I know a lot of people on the web think he can win the presidential election, but he won't even have a chance in the primaries. He's too libertarian and gets a little over-excited (enough to be termed radical, which will drive away voters).

The top White House contenders are a lot richer than the rest of us. Here's where they got it...and where it goes.

And so ends in embarrassing failure the great YouTube Debate Experiment of Election 2008. Which is not to say that it wasn't entertaining, in the same way that David Letterman's "Stupid Human Tricks" sketch is a riot. But as far as revolutionizing the way presidential debates are conducted, taking a question from a Dick Cheney cartoon doesn't exactly measure up to the advent of television.

As a political medium, the YouTube technology is useful for pretty much two things anyway: 1.) Capturing candidates' more telling moments for endless replay to a universal audience; and 2.) giving candidates the ability to speak directly to voters, without the hassle of buying airtime. Those are two very significant developments, and because of them, we can correctly say that politics has entered a "YouTube Age."

The GOP CNN/YouTube debate is now over. Did it change your thoughts? Because it sure changed mine. Personally, I'm going to think more about Giuliani and Thompson and less about Huckabee (though he's still my guy).

In a nutshell: Giuliani shone if he stayed away from social policies like gay marriage and abortion (he did). Huckabee shone if he stayed away from his tax increases as governor (he sorta did). Thompson shone when he got passionate about fiscalism (he sometimes did). McCain... what did he do? Paul may have scared a lotta normal Americans. Romney showed the world that he would have to ask a council before he decided on anything. Anderson Cooper likes to say "time".

NOTE: I didn't include Tancredo or Hunter. If they had done an outstanding job, I would have. But right now, it looks like they have no chance. Sorry. I like both of them. But that's my feeling right now.

NOTE2: This is an opinion article written by a conservative Christian. Please treat as such. No one can be truly unbiased.

Giuliani: I'm taking another look

To me, Giuliani came out the best. And if you don't know me, you have no idea how different that idea is from the ideas I had two days ago. Not that I'd vote for him. Yet. But the man really seems like a strong fiscal conservative. He repeatedly points to the lower taxes New Yorkers saw. In fact he points to a lot of things about New York. Not to mention he's a strong guy on foreign policy.

Even socially, he's not as bad as it sounds (at least he doesn't want to sign an amendment promoting abortion). He's tough on crime. He wants the states to decide on abortion (not as bad as I thought). Of course, he's still going to lose Christian votes. Especially after he said:

Giuliani: I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive. I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical. I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context.

So, yes, I believe it. I think it's the great book ever written. I read it every... frequently. I read it very frequently when I've gone through the bigger crises in my life, and I find great wisdom in it, and it does define to a very large extent my faith. But I don't believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, or, you know, there are some things in it that I think were put there as allegorical.

Hey Rudy, guess what? Some of us Christians actually believe Jonah was in the belly of the whale! That was NOT a good example to pick. He should have done an example like Huckabee ("Go and pluck out your eye"). Despite this, the fact he's not a Christian doesn't bother me as much as other Christians I know.

Still, he does quite a few scandals hanging around (as Romney helpfully pointed out). And on immigration, most of the conservatives are upset with him. Even so, I'm taking another look at my former mayor.

Romney: Say good-bye to Iowa

On the other hand, Romney may have lost his shot at the presidency. Why? The guy dodged questions! A few succinct quotes:

Question: Do you believe every word of this book [HOLDS UP BIBLE]? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?

Romney: I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. And I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it's a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible.

Cooper: Does that mean you believe every word?

Romney: You know -- yes, I believe it's the word of God, the Bible is the word of God.

The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it.

So he said... what? If you can understand what he just said, you're a genius. And then of course, Huckabee gets to answer next. But even worse was a question about gays in the military:

Cooper: Governor Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, and I quote, "openly and honestly in our nation's military." Do you stand by that?

Romney: This isn't that time. This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have...

Cooper: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?

Romney: I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like. And my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of...

Cooper: Is that a change in your position...

Romney: Yes, I didn't think it would work. I didn't think "don't ask/don't tell" would work. That was my -- I didn't think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn't make any sense to me.

And you know what? It's been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked.

Cooper: So, just so I'm clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?

Romney: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say.

I couldn't see him, but I'll bet a lot that Romney's campaign advisor was hanging his head. Romney did not answer the question. If that wasn't bad enough, they then asked his opinion on waterboarding:

Question: Is waterboarding torture?

Romney: And as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use.

And that is something which I would want to receive the counsel not only of Senator McCain, but of a lot of other people.

And there are people who, for many, many years get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country.

Those three questions may have ended Romney's campaign in Iowa. As for me, I used to like Romney more than Giuliani or McCain. Now, I definitely don't. Oh yeah, and he's a Red Sox fan too.

Huckabee: A huge beneficiary

For the first time, the people actually looked at Huckabee as a contender. And he shone. He did struggle a little on the fiscal questions (attacked by Thompson as a taxer). And he stated that he hadn't raised the overall taxes, but hadn't lowered them. But... I thought Republicans were trying to LOWER taxes? How does leaving the taxes as they are help us? I think that would have been a great chance to jump in with his support for the Fair Tax (he did mention that "Most people in this country are more afraid of an audit than they are of a mugging, and there's a reason why").

But on social issues, he garnered tons of applause. His ad says:

Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me. I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe?

Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now, not ever.

I believe life begins at conception.

We believe in some things. We stand by those things. We live or die by those things.

He also handled a death penalty question (you're a follower of Jesus, but would Jesus support the death penalty?) extremely well, stating that:

Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible that the only response that we, as a civilized nation, have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix.

He also was able to make a great contrast against Romney and Giuliani about his faith. And since Romney flopped and will probably lose points in Iowa, you can expect Huckabee to bounce higher and higher.

Thompson: Proved that I should vote for him and that few other Americans will

I was one of the most excited people in America when Thompson jumped in. He just sounded like a breath of fresh air. Then, he started going down hill. But at that CNN debate, he showed me that he could be my candidate again. When asked what government programs to cut, he said:

The OMB has come out with a list of over 100 programs. I would take all 100 of them, the ones that are full of waste, fraud and duplication. I filed a report in 2001, when I was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and identified billions of dollars that we should be saving.

But Thompson suffers one big problem: lack of appeal. Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani use their skills as an orator to woo the crowd. Ron Paul gets all excited. But Thompson drones in a monotone. He's got the solution, but not the appeal. And unfortunately, that's not going to impress the average American. Maybe the intellectual, but not the average American. Quite frankly, he seems... boring. When was the last time a boring speaker was elected president?

Ron Paul: Scared the pants off of everyone

Most in America have never heard Ron Paul speak before. But that night might have scared them all. Because while Thompson had a dry monotone, Ron Paul was almost literally jumping up and down in excitement. Add to that the other candidates' attacks at isolationism and the fact that Paul wants to remove every single government program (which scares most Americans), I just can't see him as our next president. Personally, I'm a supporter of his fiscal policies, but completely against his foreign policies. But although he scared America, he definitely relieved all the other Republicans:

Question: Mr. Paul, I think we both know that the Republican party is never going to give you the nomination. But I'm hoping that you're crazy like a fox like that and you're using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run.

My question is for Ron Paul: Mr. Paul, are you going to let America down by not running as an independent?

Thank you.

Paul: Now that's what I call a tough question, because I have no intention of doing this.

I am a Republican. I have won 10 times as a Republican and we're doing quite well. We had 5,000 people show up at a rally in front of the Independence Hall with blacks and Hispanics and a cross-section of this country.

John McCain: ?

McCain certainly did not come out well from this debate. Immigration has killed him before and killed him that night. He claimed that he would veto any bill regarding amnesty, then said:

But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. And we need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well. And they need some protection under the law. And they need some of our love and compassion.

McCain's fiscal speeches aren't great either. He rejects the Fair Tax and agrees we need a new tax code, but has no idea what it should be. And on the 2nd Amendment, he noted that he had used guns (in Vietnam) but didn't say anything about whether we should use them in peacetime (he doesn't own one). His biggest moment was when he explained:

Well, I would do a lot of things, but the first and most important and vital element is to continue this surge which is succeeding and we are winning the war in Iraq.

(Applause)

That's the first thing I would do. I would make sure that we do what we can to help reconstruct the country, to help the Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible to train the police.

But I'll tell you one other thing we're -- I'm going to do, is we're going to fight back the Democrats' efforts to set a date for withdrawal which is a date for surrender.

(Applause)

Now, my friends, I'm the only one on this stage -- I'm the only one on this stage -- that said that the Rumsfeld strategy was failing and was doomed to failure. I'm the only one on this stage that said we've got to have a new strategy, and that's the strategy we're employing now.

And I got a lot of heat when I said that that strategy was failing and it had to be changed, because I've had the experience and the background and the knowledge of every national security issue we've faced in the last 20 years.

And I'm telling you, that if we continue this strategy, we can succeed. And if we had done what the Democrats said to do six months ago, Al Qaida would be telling the word they beat America.

Conclusion (IMHO)

The end result? My feelings have been changed about the candidates. Below, I've ranked how I used to feel about them:

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. Thompson
4. McCain
5. Giuliani
6. Paul

... and what I feel about them now:

1. Huckabee
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
4. McCain
5. Paul
6. Romney

I've been wanting to do a sort of guide to the candidates, especially since the primaries are coming up soon. So, I've now finally stopped procrastinating and have started a little series (which you can follow at the 2008-election-predictions tag). But first, here's a little introduction to the top six Republican candidates.

NOTE: I have not included several candidates in here. I love guys like Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, but let's be reasonable: they have no chance of election. If they start showing signs of recovering, I'll modify this article. I will not do an article on Democrats since I'm not a Democrat and therefore will probably be biased towards the conservative Democrats. I am trying my best to be unbiased, but no one is impartial. If you're wondering, I'm a conservative Christian who supports the Iraqi War. Mike Huckabee impresses me the most so far.

Much of this data has been found via OnTheIssues.org, an excellent site for any student of politics.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, New York

Economically, he's the Republican dream. He's reduced taxes twenty-three times, cut spending by 7%, and loves the free market. He's got his own firm (Giuliani Partners). He wants to privatize healthcare, but give vouchers to those who can't afford it. He hasn't really said much on Social Security, but he has wanted to privatize it to a certain degree as well. He doesn't like the Fair Tax, but supports removing taxes such as the Death Tax. On foreign policy, the man is also outstanding from the Republican point of view. He's worried about Iran's nuclear capabilities down the road. He also dislikes the Democrat timetable for withdraw (it's "fundamentally irresponsible"). However, he's managed to alienate one of the most critical parts of the Republican Party: the conservative Christians. He's pro-gay unions, pro-choice, There are a few good social things about him according to the Republicans (pro-school voucher, anti-drugs, anti-porn, and has dropped crime in NYC), but the Christian vote is going to impact him hugely (several Christian leaders including James Dobson have threatened to back a third party if he is elected). And his pro-illegal alien stance has not helped either.

Former Governor Mike Huckabee, Arkansas

The conservative Christian's dream. A Southern Baptist preacher who decided to get into politics. Totally anti-abortion and fairly anti-gay. The foreign policy Republicans are fairly happy too. He's not afraid of the UN, thinks that if Iran has nukes that we should take them out, and that Iraq is our responsibility (we broke it, we fix it). Even the environmentalists are fairly happy (here's a candidate who actually supports fighting global warming). But the fiscal conservatives are divided. He claims he wants to rein in spending and is pro-corporation. But he wants to fix health care, not by privatizing it but by adding new measures (though not as drastic as our current system). He won't privatize Social Security either. On the other hand, he is probably the biggest proponent of replacing the current income tax with the Fair Tax.

Senator John McCain, Arizona

Remember this guy? Well, he hasn't changed a lot from what he was like eight years ago. Right now, his biggest problem is that he's fighting basically every section of the party. He is pretty much indifferent to abortion and gay marriage, alienating the Christians (though Sam Brownback has recently come out with an endorsement). He supports amnesty for illegal aliens, hurting him in the Republican Party. He's got no clear stance on corporations, wants to reform Social Security (but has little idea how to), likes the "tax the wealthy" format of our current tax system, and wants to make welfare harder to get (but still wants to keep it around). This has basically gotten the fiscals into another camp. And on foreign policy... your guess is as good as mine. All we know is that he deplores the Iraq War, but needs it to keep going.

Representative Ron Paul, Texas

This guy isn't really a conservative. He's a libertarian (if you remember, he ran twenty years ago for president as a libertarian). So he's doesn't have support from the entire Republican Party. However, he's got a HUGE fan base among the independents and even liberals. Socially, the Republicans are mixed. He's anti-abortion, neutral on gay marriage, dislikes the war on drugs, and is anti-death penalty. His biggest strength is his fiscal policies: he's anti-government-sponsored health care, wants to start privatizing (but not necessarily get rid of) social security, wants to remove the IRS, has a 89% NTU rating, and wants to abolish federal welfare. But on his foreign policy, many Republicans think he's cracked. Sure, he doesn't care about oil profits. But he basically doesn't want the US to interfere with any other country. Which means that the Iraqi War is illegal, Darfur isn't our responsibility, and Iran should be treated friendly and not as a potential threat. This isn't sitting great with the Republicans right now.

Former Governor Mitt Romney, Massachusetts

The wildcard right now. His biggest problem: convincing the voters he means what he says. On abortion, he's changed his mind several times. Same with gay marriage. But if his current stances are really what he means, the conservatives should love him. He talks about how he only raised taxes a little bit (compared to Giuliani), thinks businesses (not governments) should dictate trade, wants privatization of Social Security, pledges not to raise taxes (though dislikes the Fair Tax), and doesn't seem to like to expand welfare (though hasn't said anything about getting rid of it). He thought that the Iraq War wasn't a good idea in 2006, then decided it was and that we need to stay in.

Former Senator Fred Thompson, Tennessee

Socially, he's kinda in the middle. He basically thinks abortion and gay marriage should be left up to the states. Fiscally, he's more worried about balancing the budget than lowering taxes. He's not pro-big business, but not against either. He doesn't love or hate Social Security, but wants to reform it (who doesn't?). However, he is a huge tax reformer (let's get rid of the IRS!), and think states should control welfare. He also wants to stabilize Iraq and stop Iran from getting nukes.

"[F]ormer Gov. Jeb Bush chatted with Hoover Institution's Peter Robinson on a webcast called Uncommon Knowledge...."

He wouldn't endorse anyone but he gave his two cents on the Republican candidates' greatest strengths.

Rudy Giuliani: "Direct, sees the world the way it is, and he's direct and he communicates well and he has high energy and tremendous personality."

Fred Thompson: "Committed conservative." He added that Thompson is "new at the game."

John McCain: "His courage. I was in my bed watching this with my wife and I got out of bed and started cheering," when McCain mentioned the woodstock line during the last debates.

Mitt Romney: "Intellectual curiosity. . .He's incredibly smart and asks the questions necessary to find that common ground for the next challenges we face, which politics is not very good at right now."

Mike Huckabee: "I like him. He's a great speaker and clear-minded about the importance of moral principles."

Today the movement shows signs of coming apart beneath its leaders. It is not merely that none of the 2008 Republican front-runners come close to measuring up to President Bush in the eyes of the evangelical faithful, although it would be hard to find a cast of characters more ill fit for those shoes...

The latest Iowa Poll, published Sunday in the Des Moines Register, has drawn attention largely because of what it shows about the Democratic race: Hillary Clinton is now leading in the state. What has drawn less attention, but is equally interesting, are the gyrations underway in the Republican race.

Evangelical Christians never had it so good, but they seem not to know it. Instead of supporting the candidate who most shares their values -- Mitt Romney -- they seem hell-bent for the proverbial cliff.

Meeting recently in Salt Lake City, conservative Christian leaders almost unanimously approved a resolution to support a third-party candidate if neither major party nominates someone who is pro-life.

To their credit, these leaders are unwilling to sacrifice conviction for political expediency, but they may be creating their own worst nightmare by dividing the party and making a Democratic victory more likely.

It's just October 2007 (and hurrah the Yankees are in the playoffs) and already I'm sick of this. It seems the 2008 election news coverage has been reduced to all Hillary all the time. All I hear when I turn on any of the cable news programs is about Hillary this and Hillary that. It's what I like to call the "Hillary 24/7 Show." There has never been any doubt in my mind that she will be the next democratic nominee for President which makes the whole Democratic primary news cycle and the endless debates all so predictable. Yes – she won the debate again. And yes - she wore something from the orange family again. I do confess that at this stage I could never have predicted the strength of her lead over Obama. John Edwards was a dud nominee from the start. Not too long ago Iowa was his to lose and last I heard Edwards is in third place in Iowa still hiding behind Elizabeth's apron strings. He's done. I would wager that Obama was done too oh some time back when he said he wanted to make nice nice with Iran and then bomb Pockey-stan. Obama also, as others have said, made a fatal error putting himself up onto the "I'm the nice candidate" pedestal from which it seems he cannot climb down to effectively punch Hillary. Ho Hum.

When I watch the Hillary 24/7 Show, I hear about how she will win based on the strength of her healthcare program. What? Perhaps there is something to what Ann Coulter says about the female vote in her new book. Soccer moms and unwed mothers are supporting Hillary in droves. I can't decide if Hillary is like the serpent in the Garden of Eden offering up the HillaryCare apple or if perhaps she is the evil witch in Snow White (heck she has the cackle down, right?) offering up a poisonous apple to the innocent female.

But still I have to give Hillary credit. We're told over and over again on the Hillary 24/7 Show that she has skipped the primaries and is running a general election thumbing her nose at the left and holding on as tight as she can to the center. Her numbers would indicate that this is indeed a winning strategy. Some others on the Hillary 24/7 Show wonder if she has she peaked to soon. Nah. Being a Clinton she has a very well oiled, very efficient election machine that protects her in a bubble from any hard questions from the people or the press. And let's face it. She's too smart to have a Howard Dean-style melt down which is the only way Obama could ever really had a shot. And like they gleefully point out over and over again ad nauseam on the Hillary 24/7 Show she just seems so "Presidential!"

But what about the GOP? With Hillary a foregone conclusion, this is where the true race for the presidency lies. Nevertheless, news coverage of the GOP presidential nominees is just a footnote to the Hillary 24/7 Show. Where oh where is Fred Thompson? A late entry to this race, I yearn to hear more from him. Will Fred be the Reaganesque conservative that can rally the GOP base and save us from Hillary? Or will Rudy Giuliani truly be as he has positioned himself the only candidate who can beat her reminiscent of the Nixon-Reagan race for in '68? Last I heard McCain (who in my humble opinion like Edwards never had a chance to win his party's nomination) was in third place with Romney slipping post Thompson's entry to fourth. And though it seems the GOP race will be between Giuliani and Thompson, it remains to be seen how much more momentum Thompson will gain. Assuming Thompson continues to climb in the polls will those percentage points come from Giuliani, McCain, Romney, the rest of the non-contender field? This indeed will be very interesting to watch, and let's hope the media gives it some coverage!

And when the GOP finally has a nominee – it will be game on. Will it be Rudy? Will it be Fred? To me at this point it's a toss up. If Fred cannot pull ahead in great strength against Rudy then Rudy it shall be. In my opinion, the GOP will need to balance a Rudy for President ticket very carefully with a more traditionally conservative voice. Perhaps Fred Thompson? Being conservative, my vote of course is for a Thompson-Guiliani ticket as the winning combination to beat Hillary. But if Rudy cannot be surpassed, I will settle for Guiliani-Thompson and then dear Hillary, the Hillary 24/7 Show will be pre-empted and the subway series will begin.

Rudolph W. Giuliani leads the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Republican voters describing him as the field's strongest leader and most electable candidate in the 2008 general election, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Giuliani topped the Republican field with 34 percent, with Thompson at 17 percent and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at 12 percent in the new poll. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was in fourth with 11 percent but has continued to make strong showings in polls testing the crucial early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee took 8 percent, his best showing in a Post-ABC poll. Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) had 3 percent; Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), 2 percent; and Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), 1 percent.

Duncan Hunter has a wealth of experience with of over a quarter of a century in Congress and as a Vietnam veteran to be a real force in the Republican primaries. While Hunter is just an outsider in this early stage of the campaign race, with a well-organised and shrewd campaign, Hunter could really ruffle some feathers of his fellow candidates. He won his Congressional seat in California against the odds in a district where registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans two to one, Congressman Hunter is capable of winning against the odds.

The front-runners for the GOP nomination all have some issues that hinder their electability from the average Republican's point of view; Giuliani has several failed marriages and a proposed national ID card scheme that some may find too intrusive; Romney has been portrayed as a flip-flopper on abortion; McCain appears weak on immigration. Even Fred Thompson has a history in lobbying that could come back to haunt him. While it's nigh on impossible to find a candidate with whom you can agree on everything, Duncan Hunter offers as close to it gets for many traditional conservatives.

On the issues that matter to most Americans Duncan Hunter has an impressive track record. Hunter is a staunch pro-lifer voting in favour of the prohibition of farming embryos and the National Right to Life Committee always gives Hunter a 100% score. Congressman Hunter believes in a balanced budget with extra revenue obtained through economic growth and not punitive taxes as well as reigning in unnecessary spending giving US taxpayers more value for money. Hunter believes in free trade but also fair trade for American companies to compete on a level playing field with their foreign competitors. He proposes removing tax on companies who choose to keep their manufacturing facilities in the US because the additional jobs created will provide a revenue through payroll taxes; revenue would increase despite dropping it to zero for manufacturers. Hunter has consistently supported efforts to reform the tax code, making it simpler, fairer, and more growth oriented. A social and fiscal conservative, Hunter can be the candidate to restore faith in the GOP.

As Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Hunter has a wealth of foriegn policy experience that far outweighs many of his fellow candidates. Hunter voted for the Iraq war and is against a timetabled withdrawel of troops. Hunter is one of a few members of Congress with a vested interest in Iraq, his son has served two tours of duty with the Marine Corps. Hunter is a firm believer in the right of Israel to exist as a peaceful nation-state, to have a more accountable United Nations as well as the belief that the US should only sign international treaties that benefit the USA.

Hunter is strong on immigration; he was responsible for building the border fence in San Diego and wrote the legislation that made it the law that a 700 mile fence across the Mexican border must be built. Controlling illegal immigration not only solves illegal workers you solve a crime problem and a terrorism problem. Hunter will make sure that the boarder fence will be built, something that legislation exists for but so far has not been acted upon. Hunter also opposes amnesty/permanent legalization for illegal aliens and temporary legalization for illegal aliens as guestworkers.

Hunter is a strong candidate for the Republican nomination and a strong candidate to take the White House in 2008. There is still a lot of work left to do to get his voice heard but Hunter is no stranger to a tough election campaign.

President Bush thinks New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to win the Democratic presidential nomination. But who's his choice for the Republican side?

The Republicans have been ridiculed for not wanting to participate in a YouTube-CNN debate, which incorporates user-submitted questions on the video-sharing site. The Democrats have already had a successful debate, which was hosted and promoted by YouTube and CNN. Well, the Republicans have finally agreed to hold a debate on YouTube, but it has already been postponed by more than a couple of months. This is not a huge surprise, considering that a date had been chosen prior to any lead candidates being approached for planning the event.

On Friday evening at Huckabee's small headquarters in downtown Des Moines, I interviewed his Iowa campaign manager Eric Woolson, who was Bush's Iowa press spokesman in 1999. He told me that Huckabee had only two staffers in Iowa up through July 1; Woolson himself drove Huckabee around the state. He spent less money and had far less staff than Sam Brownback, his obvious competitor for the votes of religious conservatives. But his theme was pitched against Romney: message not money. Huckabee's speech at the straw poll made the same point. He is an excellent and ingratiating speaker, optimistic and upbeat, weaving biblical phrases into his speech. He told me afterward that he doesn't have a text but speaks extemporaneously, with an outline in mind and while keeping a careful eye on the clock.

Given the problems and U.S. casualties in Iraq, polls show a large majority of the American people believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Yet if we imagine what the world would look like today if Saddam Hussein had not been deposed, it seems clear that almost no outcome in Iraq would be as adverse to the interests of the United States as today's world with Saddam still in power.

Today I read an outstanding seed from Killfile concerning Sean Hannity quitting the Republican party. I recommend that everyone read it here. While many responding in that thread may espouse a more liberal or Democratic point of view, and may be focused on their dislike for Republicans, Hannity, or Conservatism in general, I thought it would be helpful to look at this story from another angle.

Let it be said that I have read Sean Hannity's official website today, Hannity forums, and the Fox News site for "Hannity and Colmes" and found no mention of Hannity quitting the party and registering as an independant. Several have said they heard him make the comment, so let us assume for the moment that the rumours may be true. Regardless, there is a bigger and broader question that needs to be asked:

Why are so many conservatives angry with - even disgusted with - the Republican Party? And, since conservatives are not only the core of the party, but the majority of the rank-and-file members of the party, what does this mean for Republicans as they head into the exceptionally important 2008 elections?

It strikes me, as an unhappy Republican, that in taking the action that he has taken and making the statements that he has recently, Sean Hannity is trying to make the most visible point that he can about the dismay many Republicans feel about the direction of the party. Republican Party bosses ignore this trend at their own peril.

I am not attempting to win over anyone here on Newsvine to conservatism or to become a fan of Sean Hannity. But, I would like to present, from a conservative point of view, some of the critical problems facing the Republicans at this time:

* Corruption - most of us who voted Republican did so out of an understanding that they wanted to run government cleanly and efficiently, that they wanted to stop the hogs from running amok in the public trough. As time went on, we've realized that some of the Republicans were the biggest hogs.

* Irresponsibility - while there are some surface indicators that the American economy is robust, there are some more subtle signs that we have major problems and we're going to have more serious ones in the future, thanks to the grossly irresponsible way that our government, led by Republicans, has spent our money.

* Arrogance - sadly, many Republican leaders have shown that they can be every bit as power mad, if not moreso, than the Democrats. And, they have seemingly focused more on maintaining their power than on maintaining their integrity.

* Incompetence - it seems that Brownie was not the only one doing a "heckuva job." All across the halls of power, led by Republicans, our government has been riddled with people who are either unqualified to do their jobs or simply hapless, hopeless, and clueless. Every week seems to bring some humiliating new development of someone who miscalculated, mispoke, misjudged, or missed the mark by a mile.

* Confusion - the Republican party no longer articulates a clear and steady vision. It may be because they don't see one. Basic ideas such as limited government, low taxes, strong defense and national security, support for traditional moral values, reverence for and adherance to the Costitution all seem to be muddled by bad behavior or - worse - a "falling away" from these values and standards. Conflicting or nonsensical statements from public officials only add to the confusion. So many times, it seems that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. Lack of clear and sound leadership - and basic communication skills - has greatly muddled the Republican message.

Lest you think that Hannity's words are a cheap political stunt, you should be reminded that his recent stinging criticism of Republicans concerning the illegal alien amnesty bill helped to prompt Republican Senator Trent Lott to mutter bitterly that something "needed to be done" to control talk radio. Hannity has deeply angered some very powerful people - some of whom have been his friends for many years. What he has said, he has said out of principle. And, while I don't always agree with Hannity, and I don't know that I agree with his leaving the GOP at this time, I understand his frustration.

You may disagree with every single value that I have espoused here, you may hate Republicans, Conservatives, and Sean Hannity. You may not even be overly fond of me, heheheh, but I wrote this simply to provide some understanding to my more liberal friends why many in the Republican Party are angry with their leaders at this time. We expect remedies in the areas I mentioned, and in others, and we expect them soon, or more will follow Hannity's example.

Among Conservatives, some might see that what Hannity is doing is an act of love for the country and for conservative values, speaking to the Republicans as a voice of conscience, in much the same way that sincere traditional liberals have rebuked the Democratic party in times past.

Thompson's Backers Check His `Fire in the Belly' for 2008 Race

By Kim Chipman and Julianna Goldman
June 28 (Bloomberg) -- Fred Thompson looks the part, and usually gets it.

Long before he became a Hollywood actor, people offered him roles tailor-made for his imposing stature, his rich baritone and his homespun dignity. Throughout his life, he said in a television interview in March, ``doors have opened for me and I had the sense to walk through them.'' He has ascended without much apparent effort from country lawyer to prosecutor to U.S. senator while building a parallel career as a film and TV actor, notably in the NBC series ``Law & Order.''

Now, the powerful Tennessee Republicans who propelled Thompson, 64, into politics three decades ago want to cast him in the role of a lifetime: president of the United States. The question, some of them say, is whether he wants it badly enough to endure the rigors of a campaign.

``Does he really have the passion, the energy, the fire in the belly to run?'' said former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is advising his fellow Tennessean. ``I believe he does, but we will only know as he gets on the campaign trail.''

A White House run would be the crowning achievement of a life marked by almost uncanny timing, an ability to leverage his working-class roots in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, and his formidable presence both in politics and show business.

THE former presidential front-runner, John McCain, may drop out of the 2008 race by September if his fundraising dries up and his poll ratings continue to drop, according to Republican insiders.

Lately it seems all the leading presidential candidates are discussing their religious and moral beliefs -- even when they'd rather not.

Indeed, seven years after George W. Bush won the presidency in part with a direct appeal to conservative religious voters -- even saying during a debate that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher -- the personal faith of candidates has become a very public part of the presidential campaign.

Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have hired strategists to focus on reaching religious voters. Obama's campaign holds a weekly conference call with key supporters in early primary and caucus states whose role is to spread the candidate's message to religious leaders and opinionmakers and report their concerns to the campaign.

Democrats in general are targeting moderate Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants and even evangelicals, hoping to enlist enough voters for whom religious and moral issues are a priority to put together a winning coalition.

With former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson creeping ever closer to a formal announcement that he will run for president, it is worth asking whether he is the genuine small-government conservative that has been missing from the top tier of the Republican field (with all due apologies to Ron Paul). A preliminary look at his record suggests that while he is not quite the second coming of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, he may be much better on most issues than the alternatives.

The war over the war in Washington is quiet for the moment. Congress has finally appropriated funds for America's warriors without setting a deadline for their defeat. Now the president can turn his undivided attention to fighting the enemies who are attacking our soldiers.

Op-ed writers (and presidential candidates) will of course continue in the coming months to deny the obvious: That we are fighting (pace John Edwards) a real war on terror; that Iraq is, as al Qaeda says it is, the war's central front; and that the Iranians and Syrians are actively supporting our enemies. But the Bush administration, with congressional obstruction on hold, can move ahead with policies that deal with reality.

The reality is that foreign fighters are flowing into Iraq to kill Iraqis and Americans. Almost all suicide bombers in Iraq are foreign fighters, for whom this is the crucial battle. This means that our victory there will be an important victory in the larger struggle against terrorism--and our defeat there would embolden and empower our enemies. And the reality is that Iran and Syria are enemies. Most foreign fighters join al Qaeda in Iraq via Syria. And Iran has been sending advanced weapons and advisers into Iraq. These weapons and insurgents supported by Iran are killing our soldiers on a daily basis. There should be no doubt about the hostile role Iran and Syria are playing in Iraq today.

Political junkies have been awaiting the new memoir by Bob Shrum, the famed consultant to a string of Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. After compiling an 0-8 record in presidential campaigns, Shrum has taken something of a beating from the political and media establishment of late, and he has been conspicuously absent from the 2008 campaign thus far. But it seems he's determined to play a role after all, as is clear from his forthcoming book, No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner.

As befits a canny campaign veteran, the book is self-serving in some places and remarkably tough in others.

No one comes in for rougher treatment in this book than Shrum's former client, John Edwards.

This is a nice companion piece to my earlier article: Toast: Edwards and McCain See link:
http://tombombadil.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/24/738189-toast-edwards-and-mccain

Obviously, this is just my opinion, but I believe this has been a very bad two weeks for John Edwards and John McCain. So bad, in fact, that I believe their respective candidacies are essentially over, finished, kaput, toast. Stick a fork in 'em, they're done.

For McCain, who has had a love/hate relationship with GOP Conservatives, his attachment to the Kennedy immigration bill is definitely the final straw. Many who admire him for his courageous military service, his strong pro-life record, and his commitment to victory in Iraq are nonetheless outraged by his puzzling refusal to secure our American borders and his confusing stands on amnesty for illegal aliens and the process for citizenship. Everytime one hears the phrase, "McCain-Kennedy," it is the sound of one more nail being driven into the coffin of a once promising campaign.

John Edwards has had it even worse. His earlier embrace of virulently anti-Christian bloggers and his recent $400 haircut have been hot topics, but he jumped the shark when he ridiculed the war on terror and suggested that it is a figment of the Administration's imagination...a "bumper sticker." How grossly offensive that suggestion must be to every very real victim of terror, every military family, and anyone who understands the stakes in this life-and-death struggle. And today, it was announced that Democratic strategist and Kerry/Edwards campaign insider Bob Shrum has written a book that is highly unflattering to Edwards. He paints a picture of a shallow man, obsessed with style, lacking substance and knowledge. He also paints Edwards as anti-gay, which might be good if Edwards was running for President of the Southern Baptist Convention, but not so good when running for the nomination of the MoveOn.org Party.

Then, of course, there is Edwards' appalling plan to politicize and desecrate Memorial Day observances by attempting to launch massive anti-war demonstrations at that time. The Breck Girl has taken yet another hard left, and will soon find himself left far behind Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama...with al-Gore waiting in the wings.

So, what do you think? Are Edwards and McCain finished? Will they both be highly paid political correspondents by this time next year? It's sort of like "dead man walking." They still appear to be credible candidates, but I suspect that things are getting a little shaky behind the scenes for each.

"The Immigration Bill: Comprehensive or Incomprehensible?"
By Fred Thompson

Most Americans know that we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, with perhaps as many as 20 million people residing here unlawfully. And I think most Americans have a pretty good idea about how to at least start solving the problem - secure our nation's borders.

But there's an old saying in Washington that, in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don't understand it while the other half fear that people actually do. This kind of thinking was apparent with the "comprehensive" immigration reform bill that the U.S. Senate and the White House negotiated yesterday.

With the White House's blessing, the Senate has reached a deal on immigration. And Sen. John McCain has handed his opponents for the Republican nomination a mighty club to wield against him -- if they choose to use it.

The controversy over the proposed immigration legislation heats up. Has the Senate just offered amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants, and their families? What will be the fallout for the current Presidential candidates and their campaigns?

What do you think?

WASHINGTON - Fred Thompson fervently backed the Iraq war, railed against an expanding federal government, took stands that occasionally annoyed his party and rarely spoke about his views on social issues during his tenure as a senator from Tennessee or in his writings and speeches since leaving office.

In short, the man some in the GOP are touting as a dream candidate has often sounded like the presidential hopeful many of them seem ready to dismiss: Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

'I think America is ready for a multilingual president," said Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Bill) last week, responding to pesky critics who don't like the fact she uses various Southern accents, including Daisy Duke. And now they're pecking at her, mercilessly, the way chickens peck on a hen with a head sore.

I happen to think she's correct. America is ready for a president of multiple accents. President Bush talks cowboy when he wants. So why can't Hillary channel multiple Southern women if she so desires?

And if she wants to slip in and out of Southern and Northern accents like a Long Island mom playing Blanche DuBois at the community theater while her thumb is on the nuclear trigger, well, that's her business.

America might finally be ready for a white Yale Law School graduate from Park Ridge who is fluent in Southern Woman and various dialects, including Granny Clampett and Black Female Preacher. She commands many different voices -- and uses them without blushing -- as you may see for yourself on YouTube.

Years ago, she spoke excellent Tammy Wynette, in defending her Bill from the clutches of Yankee females who tried to take advantage of her man.

Recently, she's been using Black Female Preacher to appeal to black voters, first in Selma, and the other day in Manhattan, speaking to supporters of Rev. Al Sharpton.

"Kentucky Fried Hillary!" yowled the Drudge Report. Clinton was "adopting the Southern-fried lilt of a preacher at times," sniffed The New York Times, not generally the Bible of conservative opinion.