My prayers are that the Republican 2008 candidate is the very young, well spoken and intelligent Sen. Sam Brownback. If ANY democrat candidate listed here runs against him...it's going to be a LANDSLIDE not unlike the Reagan landslide. ESPECIALLY if the democrat party runs Sen. Kerry again, or John Edwards or Sen. Hillary Clinton. LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE!!!

AMERICA wants a return to conservativism.

Sen. Brownback running for the Presidency in 2008, let me write that on my list of wants to Santa.

Brownback has my primary vote as well.

ba--you hit the nail right on the head--America wants conservatism!!

America said, "Rick Santorum, you're not conservative enough. Give us Bob Casey."

America said, "George Allen, you're not conservative enough. Give us Jim Webb."

America said, "Jim Talent, you're not conservative enough. Give us Claire McCaskill."

America said, "Conrad Burns, you're not conservative enough. Give us Jon Tester."

America said, "Ken Blackwell, you're not conservative enough. Give us Ted Strickland."

America said, "JD Hayworth, you're not conservative enough. Give us Harry Mitchell."

America said, "Randy Graf, you're not conservative enough. Give us Gabby Giffords."

America said, "Jim Ryun, you're not conservative enough. Give us Nancy Boyda."

America said, "Asa Hutchinson, you're not conservative enough. Give us Mike Beebe."

Glad that you got that message loud and clear.

I was actually worried that after the mid-terms, some people might think that we're actually a centrist nation and try to govern that way. Thankfully they realize that as long as we stop gays from marrying, put an end to all the flag-burings, and set out a smooth path towards a theocracy, the republicans will stay as the permanent majority party.

Why is everyone getting so worked up about the 2008 race?

It is McCain/Lieberman (either as Republican or Independent ticket) vs Clinton/Obama (Democrat ticket). Everything else is a waste of time and energy.

(Though I do like to see all the above running, the campaign expenditures add to the economy.)

Nonsense to all of you.

Rudy G. will be the next POTUS.

sam--why don't you just tell us who will win so we can save the time, money, and energy of actually having the election.

Jeremy, can you say President McCain?

RAT has it right--Rudy Giuliani will win the Presidency in an easy electoral victory.

Rudy can't even win his home state.

Guiliani won two elections as Mayor of NYC - the place which usually provides the margin for Democrats in statewide races. He'll win New York state against any Democrat now being mentioned.

The Dims own the media. It will be very difficult for any Republican to win.
I read this AM that Obama is meeting with Soros. Soros is a very evil man. But, with the media behind you this will be glossed over.

JA: By your reckoning, since Pataki won 2 (or is it 3) terms as NY governor, he can win NY state against Hillary.

Time to get real. Giuliani has been ducking statewide races since 2000, since he knows he can't win. The latest Gallup poll shows him losing to Hillary in NY by a margin worse than Kerry vs. Bush. If he can't do better than Bush in his home state, he has no chance in the race.

Gov. Mike Huckabee is emerging as the conservative choice. Strong social conservative. Pragmatic fiscal conservative. Former Southern Baptist Minister. A highly successful Governor. Highly acclaimed leader. Astoundingly gifted public speaker. The only candidate who can keep the southern bloc together -- without whice the GOP cannot win the White House.
BSR

To Jeremy Wein; who gave that sarcasm on Conservativism and True Conservatives losing in Pennsylvania.

Jeremy; your post was very subjective. The people of Pennsylvania chose Bob Casey under the misguided notion he is 'pro-life'; as soon as Bob Casey casts his vote for any abortion measure; or never raises the issue or votes against any conservative judge to the Supreme Court or appellate courts; Pennsylvania is going to 'drop'
Casey solidly. And that goes for the other subjects you name; When the people see these so called 'conservatives' leaning in Pelosi's direction - these Dems are going to go out.

Also, While Sherrod Brown won in Ohio, so did TWO Republicans get voted into the HOUSE. (like telling Brown - watch how you vote, we just gave a balance to it) Conrad Burns and Allen of Montana and Virginia respectively...near 50/50 voting. (trust me, Montana is CONSERVATIVE and Republican) So is Virgina. And Missouri, another very close win.

When push comes to shove Jeremy, all your subjective analysis aside. OBJECTIVELY, America will become MORE not less CONSERVATIVE.

And if the Dems don't vote as such in Virginia, Montana, Missouri, Pennsylvania - the dems are out.

YES, Jeremy...there is a conservative spirit coming back to America.

You could be right, ba. There could be a conservative spirit coming back to America, and this election could be an abherration created by scandals, war and weakened incumbents. But you could be wrong too. The truth is, neither of us knows for sure, and you seem to be basing your judgement on faith alone.

Bob Casey? He's pro-life, so is Santorum. Will he toe the line with his mainly pro-choice party? Perhaps. But he is a better match for his moderate, Dem leaning state than Santorum was, a state which, I might add, seems to tolerate the pro-choice Specter quite well.

Montana is indeed conservative, although I'd question Republican seeing as there is a Dem governor, two Dem senators and a Dem majority in both state houses. Missouri and Virginia only lean Republican, and Virginia seems to be trending left.

I have no doubt that McCaskill, Webb, Tester and Brown at the very least will have big targets on their backs, and I'd be very surprised to see all of them still in their seats come 2013. But absent a red wave, I'd be equally surprised to see none of them there either.

Guiliani is a good guy and did well as mayor but he has no chance whatsoever to be elected president. He is far too liberal on social issues for Republicans and he wants us to win the war on terror which would cost him the far left.

Nice commenting rb, but with regards your statement 'The truth is, neither of us knows for sure' [whether America is becoming more conservative] As I tried to point out to Jeremy, one needs to begin looking at objective truth not subjective truth. Not truth is according to "me."

So, when I say America is coming back to a conservative spirit, I do not speak about how any representative thinks, I look at 'the whole picture' - Thank you for confirming Montana is conservative but with dem reps...to be sure, a conservative state is not going to elect a liberal dem. So who is collectively in charge of America? "we the people"

Now, think - if 'we the people' are in charge, can a nation run effectively with everyone 'doing whatever they feel like according to their subjective truths on how to behave?' No. Impossible. Such is called chaos. Objectively, the strength of America is a unified SPIRIT of GOOD. That means all actions are not equal actions. There are actions that don't uplift the human condition but merely satisfy some individual 'feelings.' The more this nation grows old, the more America will awake to this objective truth. In short, America will grow up and so America will come back to an objective understanding of right action and wrong action and common good. America will become more conservative (No matter where Pelosi, Kennedy, Tester or Webb, or McCaskill or Brown remain)

Maturity and thus conservativism will come as assuredly as growing older is a truth. When the do your own thing liberal mind gets very hurt by thier own ideas and choices, they will grow in wisdom (or get burnt again and again)

Of course, we who know good from bad; can in FAITH speak the truth in love (love aka God) which is far different than the 'tell it like it is' phrase of the 60's which merely pointed at others wrongs so as not to have to look introspectively at one's own attitudes and morals.
When one actually looks within to one's own wrong ways and changes those ways (which is only possible by the SPIRIT of GOD guiding) one rises
above the earthly, petty, childish ways of doing and becomes of a mature spirit. (or one can remain as a child with all emotionalism yell, I did it 'CAUSE OF ...' it ain't my fault...
(and they remain a child and never really gain the self worth and respect they are looking for)
They could have 'of their own free will) but there are some who remain forever in Peter Pan land. THE MAJORITY however, will grow and mature
and so will America.

Tell it like it is was of the opposite spirit of good, artificially upping one's own self esteem by looking everywhere else but within when bad happened to the one.

>There are actions that don't UPLIFT the human SPIRIT but merely satisfy some individual 'feelings'

Some examples of that statement:
> sexual promiscuity; is not love. Due to the lack of human self control (self control a virtue of the good spirit aka GOD) man-kind who cannot control passions is 'out of control' of the enjoyment of ALL of life; work, play, study.
(it brings tensions and problems unnecessary
if self control was practiced)

> 'gay' unions - are just one other aspect of
the 'free love' notion of the 60's to extreme.
such persons incorrectly define love as 'an action of sex' rather than an outgoing concern for others (charity is another term for love)
seeking the other's best interest and not one's
one 'passions satisfied.' Love of 2 PERSONS is a relationship where each looks out for the other.
MARRIAGE UNIONS are those unions of 2 persons of opposite gender who by the love within each develop an special intimacy (which also must use self control) which enables them to become CO-CREATORS with LIFE itself. Thus, civilized society recognizes such unions as
MARRIAGE UNIONS for the benefit of societal creation. (civil or religious unions) other unions of love; are union of persons (mother/daughter, father/son, aunt/nephew or niece, 2 close friends, even charitable groups who aid those in need -- are unions of persons with other persons with love of the other core
to the action. - civilized, reasoned society respects persons who look out for other persons, with LOVE - but they don't give EVERY LOVE UNION marriage 'rights')

What other actions do not uplift the
human spirit to the COMMON GOOD.

addictions to drugs, alcohol, gambling. Good and reasoned society DOES NOT have to condone any of these INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS in order to, as liberal minds put it, give equal treatment to all. We
equally respect ALL PERSONS as PERSONS with the
understanding PERSONS are weak in character in some areas...REAL LOVE doesn't condone the person in thier weakness but helps the person to OVERCOME their weakness. To submit thier WILL for a HIGHER GOOD...AND COMMON GO(O)D...and in the
submitting of that human will for His Will...the mere weak mortal grows and is transformed from the mere 'fleshly' existence to a SPIRIT filled love and existence. (and peace is the result for
all who live around that weak one; and all are weak) We help build each other UP not keep each other 'down' amidst the earthly ways.

Such is faith based understanding of what achieves a peaceful nation.

I pray many read this several times if need be and seriously reflect on it.

"Thank you for confirming Montana is conservative but with dem reps...to be sure, a conservative state is not going to elect a liberal dem. So who is collectively in charge of America? "we the people""

Well, it just did. Jon Tester is pretty liberal, and yes, he did win largely because of of Conrad Burns' unpopularity and his missteps, but when a third of conservatives are willing to vote for a liberal Democrat, it says to me that people aren't quite as polarized one way or the other.

You make the mistake that political junkies of all stripes make, and that is assuming that the rest of the country is as motivated and polarized as they are. For example: In 1984, Reagan carried Massuchussetts over Mondale, 51% to 48%. Does that mean that 51% of MA residents were more in agreement with Reagan's worldview than Mondale's? Unlikely. What it does mean was that Reagan was popular and Mondale was an incompetent opponent. The Democrats do not have a country 100% united behind their agenda any more than the Republicans did in 2004.

"Neither of us knows for sure" regarding conservatism sounds a pretty objective truth to me, ba. Of course, all truth is subjective in that it is each person's interpretation of what is true. I personally don't buy the whole "liberalism is based on feelings and conservatism is based on logic", given how many conservative responses to things such Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" gaffe, Hillary's "plantation" gaffe, and so on, looked quite emotional. Liberalism isn't a marginalized group of stuck-in-the-60s beatnicks, it is a living, breathing movement, much like conservatism.

rb, Montana is a conservative state; and if Jon Tester votes with Pelosi, Jon Tester is OUT. By the way, Jon Tester did not LARGELY win Montana, he won by 1 percent. A one percent lead is not a big win by all the people of a state.

With regards your comment: 'all truth is subjective in that it is each person's interpretation of what is true.' I personally don't buy the whole "liberalism is based on feelings and conservatism is based on logic"

rb, how can TRUTH - REAL TRUTH, be subjectively based? Children view truth by how something benefits them but not thinking adults. How could
any law be enforced if TRUTH was subjective? Imagine a law that posted a speed limit of 55 mph on a highway. A driver decides to drive 70 mph on that highway and gets pulled over and ticketed.
The driver goes to court, and says "your honor, I am a professional race car driver who fully knows how to handle automobiles, I was fully in control of my vehicle; your speed limit was more a detriment to my driving than not. Another driver
also in courtroom, was pulled over for going too slow on the highway (and was soberly driving) your honor - it's in my best interest to go 40 mph, that's when I am best in control of my vehicle; how can this state post any speed limit when EVERYONE is going to have a reason to give by thier own interpretation of what is reasonable speed? NO, society can't base it's laws on subjective truth. Objectively, if all road conditions are good (road conditions are subjective) but if the day is clear, the road is clear; a good driver can keep the speed of his car at a speed that is on average reasonable with the volume of traffic. If you as a driver can't go that speed, stay off the highway. If you think you can go faster; because of your subjective skills attained without thought to ALL OTHERS around you, you have not the common good in mind when you drive. YOU CAN'T DO just because to your mind, it's going to be ok.

Objective truth is based on an OBJECTIVE SOURCE(in a word - GOD) Moral Relativity ie do your own thing was of the 60's movement. If it 'feels good' do it - that was the culture of the day. It is basically 'self centered' living rather than OTHER CENTERED. DOING so as to make life smooth for all persons. To help the weaker brother abide by a COMMON GOOD rule, for the objective of GROWTH in good character. (ie: maturity) Those who say: Hey, if that rule doesn't fit you, toss it and live as you wish, has no understanding that there will be ANOTHER life effected when that one tosses the rule of order to suit him.
ie: you have to drink, go ahead...ooops...headline story: drunk driver kills family's breadwinner to 5 children. or do the drugs, it makes you happy. ooops, now everyone around you must live in fear when you are in that 'high' and they must pay higher taxes to provide a shelter for you (when you could have been supporting yourself) or 'you don't need a piece of paper to 'love' man...just 'do it'... well, 'the action' is not 'the love' and over time, the 'passion' seeks a new 'passion'to 'love with' when one has not made a lifetime commitment to 'the one and only love.' The result is a whole lot of steps, halfs and dysfunctional (bitter maybe or angry) families.

Subjective truths have no staying power. Objective truth is always the same. (like in God, Spirit always the same, yesterday, today and forever. God IS objective truth to right and successful living) Subjective truth gets tossed about with every new 'wave' or 'fad' or 'gimmick' of the day. Real personal growth never occurs.
The soul remains always a whining child who reasons the louder I whine in my 'pain' - then they will 'let me do' ... 'they' might 'let you'
but don't think the allowing...is FOR YOU...it
is merely for their own subjective peace for the moment. Objectively: as that whiner, 'they' watch
aka supervise you all the more closely. You haven't shown yourself to be able to take responsibility for yourself and be an independent adult.