Rudy has one quality, leadership on WOT, that recommends him for the Republican nominee, and many that disqualify him.

Even his leadership on WOT is increasingly becoming marginal, as more and more people are losing interest in the war, and it is increasingly becoming a secondary issue (especially when combined with the Iraq war).

The ones that disqualify him are huge:
1) Pro-abortion
2) Pro-gun control
3) Pro illegal immigration
4) Messy personal life
5) Electoral college reality - cannot defeat Hillary even in his own state, cannot wrest any of the "blue" states, liable to lose any number of "red" states (Arkansaa, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and Ohio come to mind)

Another point: All this talk of Barack Obama, or any other dem candidate, is just baloney. Might be useful for media and pundits to talk about it, given that their livelihood depends on keeping the races interesting. But, in reality, the Dem nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton. And we need to have a candidate who can defeat her, not someone who is competitive against anyone else.

And, in the earlier posts, I totally missed Giuliani's pro gay-marriage stance.

If Rudy comes close to nomination, you'll see the media pull all stops and devote, in series, at least 3 weeks each on each of his liberal inclinations, with endless stories about his anti-2nd amendment stand, his sharing of the mayor's residence with gay couple, his stand on illegal immigration, his strong support for Bernie Kerik. The macaca incident that sank Allen, or the Foleygate that sank the Republicans, will seem like child's play in comparison.

Totally agree with Sam, if the Republican Party as a whole endorses Rudy Giuliani as the nominee for President of the USA, knowing thier STRONGEST BASE is with Social (Faithful to God) Conservatives; I shall tear up my Republican membership card.

If Mr. Giuliani TRULY cares about America, he will step down from any nomination for President.
Personally, I don't think Mr. Giuliani is well enough for the job, didn't he fight a battle with cancer? And then too, if he were the nominee - can you see the media flocking around his ex-wife to get the dirt on why it ended? REPUBLICAN PARTY
WISE UP from the election of 2006 - GET CONSERVATIVE. TRUE CONSERVATIVE and you will win by a landslide. ("we the people" are tired of liberalism)

I agree with you Sam, Barack Obama will not be the dem's candidate. I've read that Barack Obama's father is a muslim; practicing the Islam religion. I don't know what faith Obama is of, or if he has any specific faith practice he adheres to strongly - but somehow I don't think the people of this nation are going to see that as
being a positive for leading America.

Republican Party; choose a socially conservative candidate (fiscally also) and you will win easily.
No Giuliani and No Moderates need apply. Learn Republican Party - Learn. BE CONSERVATIVE and mean it.

ba, McCain has also "fought a battle with cancer," malignant melanoma. McCain was implicated in the Keating Five finance scandal, but claimed that his wife and father-in-law were
really involved (great move there hero, hiding behind a woman's skirts). McCain's first marriage also ended because of his many infidelities.

This leaves us with Romney, as the frontrunner. He has flip flopped on abortion: pro-life, then pro-choice (to get elected governor in Mass), now pro-life. And he is identified with Mass' Romneycare, which is quickly exceeding all cost estimates.

All current frontrunners have baggage.

Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. Really. Dad might have been carrying on some tradition there.

What's your point Wethal? I agree with Sam, Mr. Giuliani would not be the candidate for President, and I don't think Mr. McCain would be either. (My reference to Mr. Giuliani's bout with cancer, forgot what type of cancer; but I read it was serious was only to say; I didn't think Mr. Giuliani would be fully up for the stress President of the USA brings) I was thinking of him. Maybe he's 100 percent well now, great. (all health matters aside, my not voting for Giuliani would be for where he stands on the issues Sam wrote of, not health) I don't see McCain as a
great candidate for this highest office in the land either.

My choice (and prayers) are for Sen. Sam Brownback. A clear candidate, father of 5, a young 50 years of ago who knows why he believes what he believes. He also has much experience in
the legislature.

Barack Obama is a very young senator. Not sure I know what you mean by mentioning his middle name.
The king of Jordan also has the name Hussein.
But that's irrelevant. I would vote for Michael Steele for President. (also a good conservative spirit)

America is becoming conservative, more and more.

and I believe we will have another Republican President in 2008. (and in 2010 Republicans will gain back a few house and Senate seats)

America is 'growing up.' (With the help of prayers to God)

CONSERVATIVE.

Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no and be able to explain reason for one's beliefs. Objective reasoning. (not subjective)

Objective reasoning:
1 + 1 = 2. That's objective truth, and while some individuals might subjectively like to 'twist' that truth (like to get through the express line at a supermarket, calling 2 tomatoes 1 item) it wouldn't hold water if one goes by the objective truth
1 + 1 = 2. Objective truth is universal independent of subjective opinion.

Objectively, a human embryo becomes a human being. (ask any mother who watches by ultrasound the development of that life by ultrasound. objectively, some can say it's not for their own purposes, but that's subjective opinion. Objective truth understands life has to start somewhere; and every scientist knows it starts with the tiniest cell called an embryo. (anyone with morals, will not use the beginnings of new life to save their own)

Objectively, love is spirit. love is good. God is good. Thus, when good society recognizes a marital union of man and woman CAPABLE of pro-creation, that good society is recognizing the sacredness of that man and woman union for the value it brings. Pagan society will subjectively call love a physical action only and any who do the action can be called a marriage union. (with such thinking, next door neighbors can get their pets married to each other)Marriage: one man and one woman.

WE Republicans desperately need someone who can win us some votes up in the Northeast and the New England states. We're getting our asses kicked up there. That's why yesterday I formally declared for Giuliani. He's our best hope.

Plus, the guy's got pizzaz, celebrity and chutzpa.

We Republicans look down on celebrity. We shouldn't. Americans don't want boring candidates, especially for President of the United States.

I say Giuliani's "messy personal life" will actually work in his favor. Can you imagine all the Oprah appearances he'll have with it? Dr. Phil?

If there's one message that came out screaming at us from this election it's that WE REPUBLICANS ARE LOUSY AT REACHING OUT TO MOSTLY FEMALE YOUNGER MORE SUPERFICIAL VOTERS.

We MUST "celebrity-ize" our Party. More Fred Thompsons. More Arnold Schwarzeneggers. Less Sam Brownbacks, and less Heritage Foundation policy wonks with wired rim glasses.

Eric at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

My point? Choose your baggage. If you don't like Guiliani, that's fine. but the other two frontrunners aren't necessarily any better.

Brownback is an amnesty-for-illegals supporter, although he may be reconsidering that. I doubt he has the time to make himself nationally known so that people would prefer him to Hillary (ok that might not take much).

Brownback is a fine man. I just don't think 2008 is his year. Of course, no one thought that about an Arkansas governor in 1992.

Too strict a pro-life platform will not win independents. And the GOP needs them to win. The Rove model won't work in 2006.

Ba: Brownback, or any other 2nd tier candidate (Romney, Gingrich et al), is not going to to get the Republican nomination. And even if he does, Hillary is not going to lose to a 2nd or 3rd tier candidate.

In a normal election, a winning candidate will need to have a lot of positives going for him/her, for either party, and in primary as well as general election. These include:

1) Name recognition, or political "star" power
2) Compelling vision, including embodying party principles
3) Leadership
4) Enormous fund-raising
5) National political organization
6) Ability to ride the national mood of the election (by which I mean that every election is driven by a few over-riding concerns, and the candidate who satnds on the right side of those concerns will have the advantage - corruption in 2006, WOT in 2004 and 2002, Clinton Fatigue in 2000, Satisfied in 1998 and 1996, Clinton Missteps in 1994, Bush Missteps in 1992, etc.)

Apart from the last point (which is uncontrollable by any candidate), only a few candidates on both sides possess all these, and that is why only a few have a realistic chance to compete.

Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side has all the qualities, and that is why she will be the nominee. Obama has only political star power and lacks all other qualities, and that is why he will not get the nomination. McCain and Giuliani have most of the qualities, but Giuliani is way out of step with his party principles (and probably does not have the national network), to be able to get the nomination.

Ultimately, the most likely matchup in 2008 is McCain (with Lieberman or Giuliani as his running mate) against Hillary (with Obama or a Southern governor as her running mate).

Obama will get decimated in the debates. He is definitely a charismatic guy but what about policy and positions on issues? Sorry but I think we have learned from this latest President, that on the job training cannot be allowed anymore. At least W had experience managing people and organizations. What has Obama ever managed? His Senate staff? Please.

As for the Republicans, I think Romney will be exposed as a phony. He was so pro-gay rights back in the 1990's and now he is so far right on this issue that he could tip over at any moment. Talk about pandering... People are sick of the right wing of this party telling them how to live their lives and thinking only they know what God wants for America. I am registered Republican and voted for W twice. But I cannot stand this moral elitist attitude. It's no different from the Democrat's intellectual elitism. Just my 2 cents.

There's no reason to try to bring Osama bin-Obama's (well, that's what Teddy calls him) father into the debate at all, he abandoned him as a kid, leaving him to be raised by his white mother and white grandparents amongst all white people (if I have my 5 cent biography correct - correct me if I'm wrong). Trying to dig at him via his father is a waste of time and beneath most of us - especially after watching liberals manage to get a democrat elected in Virginia while going around calling the incumbant George FELIX Allen. Osama bin-Obama didn't spend his early years being dragged to hate speeches at the local jihad mosque or anything. That said, he has exactly no experience at just about anything. Of course Mr. Heinz didn't have any professional accomplishments at all and he got more votes than any presidential loser before him - don't underestimate someone just because they have no record.

Does anyone else agree that the #1 thing, no matter the nominee, Republicans must do in 2008 is present someone that is not Bush? I mean, I don't hate Bush or anything, even though he spent way too much money trying to appease Democrats and drunk-with-power Republicans, but in essence he's tried like hell to keep NY from glowing. So, while we need someone with his positive qualities, we have GOT to present someone that's not a lot like him, and that may mean a strong-on-defense, more socially liberal candidate.

I for one think I can live with that because:
1) we're not going to see an all-around conservative candidate going far in polls because the party thinks after 2006 America wants liberals (which is stupid, but then the party is acting pretty stupid nowadays)

2) the option would be a weak-on-defense, socially liberal democrat in office, which just scares the c-r-a-p out of me.

-

Anyone think we can get a 3rd party candidate elected by running Hillary against Jeb? "Hi, I'm Joe Blow of the Not A Clinton Or A Bush Party, and I want your vote. Isn't 20 years enough?"

-

Finally, if you get fatigued at all over the next 2 years...just picture Stevens and Ginsburg (assuming they live to 2008) and how long it'll be before we have a non-activist SCOTUS if a Democrat gets to replace them. "Well, lookee here, I think the Constitution actually says we can take whatever we want to for "public ABuse"! That's great! I'm getting a bowling alley!"

I find Rudy to be warm and likeable. Not so McCain, who is easily perceived as mean, short-tempered and cold.

If Rudy has expressed appreciation for the nominations of Roberts and Alito, THAT'S the most important indicator of who he really is, where he really stands and who HE'd appoint, not whatever position-posturring he's had to use to handle the vagaries of New York politics.

I believe a President's most crucial impact and enduring legacy is in the Supreme and appellate court nominations he's made and succeeded in getting confirmed.

Well, what a lively discussion. I have to agree with FreeKeys, that a President's impact is in
who he selects for the appellate and Supreme Court. (and Pres. Bush's selection will help the conservative voice plenty down the road.) 240 appellate court justices have been confirmed and are in (and they will not legislate from the bench)

As to some of the other comments on how to choose a President of the USA. I'm sorry but this sounds a whole lot like high school student council elections. (what guy is most popular, we'll take him) As in Eric's response, of not wanting a
'boring' President. If I want entertainment, I'll go see a play, movie or turn on the tv. In the leader of the USA, I don't care if he's boring.
I want a leader who knows objective truth. Why
certain actions are subjectively favoring certain
individual actions. There is a moral law...it's a natuaral law and it's really written on all hearts. Humanity will attempt to do whatever it
takes to get thier ways (up to a certain point when FINALLY a maturity wakes them up to thier ways which are self centered and egocentric. Not
looking out for neighbor but looking out for self.
(a law to allow abortion? for who? for the unwed mom who thinks love is found in an action, giving 2 of the same gender 'equal' rights to marriage just because the whine they want to be married.
Hey, there are some heterosexuals who live together without marriage and get along fine in society...why all of a sudden does this group need marriage? THEY DON'T. What they think such a law will give them is respect from others. It won't give them respect. Respect is earned, it comes to those who know they are weak in a certain area; and WORK at that weakness by self control EVERY SINGLE DAY. (as an example the recovering alcoholic, drug addict, or pedophile come clean.) Those who humbly acknowledge they have a weakness and use SELF CONTROL (a gift of the spirit) for the benefit of A COMMON GOOD get
respect.

So who should be President? Certainly not a liberal politician who will tell the weak anything they want to hear just to be popular.

In a way Sam hit it when he said: the candidate who stands on the right side of concerns will have the advantage. Because there is a right side and a wrong side. The right side is to have
understanding that right living brings success
to each and every individual, and not a law as to
be in place for that individual to succeed. He can do it all by himself in America, land of the free. (what one is NOT free to do is to do wrong, and think it has no effect on the peace and tranquility of neighbor)

I think Sen. Brownback has the intelligence and experience and the morals to show himself to be
for EVERY American. From what I understand, Sen.
Brownback knows who is 'over him' and that grace will help him greatly.

C'mon Sam...don't you think this is Brownback's time?

I've personally long been sceptical that Hillary is guaranteed to be the Democratic nominee. Not saying that it's not possible, but I've noticed that parties tend to nominate candidates based on the "lessons" from previous elections. From what I can tell, 2006 doesn't seem to have changed the conventional wisdom that much. The "lessons" of 2004 were that Democrats were out of touch with the mainstream, that Senators from the Northeast are fundamentally unelectable and that Democrats need to reach out to the red states. Hillary is going to have to answer question after question about why she isn't just another Northeastern liberal who will end up a few percentage points short and breaking everyone's hearts once again. That's going to ring a chord with Democratic voters who thought that 2004 should have been theirs and slipped through their fingers.

I was entirely underwhelmed with John Edwards in 2004. Barak Obama gave a great speech at the 2004 convention, but so did Ronald Reagan in 1964, and it was another 16 years before he managed to win a nomination. Tom Vilasck is a long shot. Joe Biden is past his prime. I'm personally looking at Evan Bayh with some interest at the moment. He's off everyone's radar at the moment, but he's telegenic, a moderate and has obvious red state appeal.

As for the Republicans, I have no idea. You can make a pretty convincing argument why any of the candidates can't possibly win, and an equally convincing one why they could. Only time will tell how much antipathy the Republican base really has to John McCain or how much Rudy's liberal views will damage him. I could easily see Romney winning, or even Brownback. Newt is the Republican Hillary, and is probably a long shot. But whoever is calling it right now for either party is being way too premature.

Personally, I'd like to see a Bayh versus Guiliani match, if only for the fact that it would potentially turn the electoral map upside down. Ah, the life of a political junkie.

(Incidentally, full confession: I'm an Australian with a fascination for American politics, so if I make any totally off base predictions or comments, an separating ocean and hemisphere is going to be my excuse. :)

Ba:

As I mentioned in one of the earlier posts (sorry, don't know how to link), candidates who have realistic chances of winning have to possess certain characteristics, which include, but are not limited to,

1) Name recognition, or political "star" power
2) Compelling vision, including embodying party principles
3) Leadership
4) Enormous fund-raising
5) National political organization
6) Ability to ride the national mood of the election

As with success in any walk of life, what candidates need are vision, ability to communicate that vision, ability to compel large groups of people to vote for him/her based on their affinity, and ability to execute a national primary and general campaign flawlessly.

Brownback may be a good conservative and a good man, but no one would confuse him with being a leader, or be able to raise enormous amounts of campaign (2008 primary and general campaign for president will easily cost over $500m), or have the support of national organization, or be a political rock star. There are just too many roadblocks for him.

Same is true of about 90% of the candidates, of both parties.

On the Republcan side, the race is a two-person contest between McCain and Giuliani, with both commanding formidable assets in terms of the above attributes. Though he has star power and can raise boatloads of money, Giuliani's task is harder because his vision and his positions are more in tune with Democrats than with Republican voters. He is in the game only because of his 9/11 performance, and as the war on terror becomes increasingly marginal in people's minds, so does any rationale for his candidacy.

On the Democratic side, because of her position regarding the attributes mentioned above, Hillary is the odds-on favorite. She is a star, can raise any amount of campaign cash, has the Dem national organization in her pocket, as well as the media.

Now what I am saying is nothing new, almost everyone knows the current position. Many people, especially media and pundits, have a vested interest in ignoring the obvious and promoting a closer race in the primaries. But the reality is reflected in the electronic market positions such as tradesports, where McCain and Clinton lead their respective party races by comfortable margins.

Sigh...well Sam,maybe Sen. Sam Brownback is not
at this point a 'political rock star' but he needs only to get on the road and talk show circuit from now and through 2007 to get his name out there. Let me start the process: found this bio on Wikipedia: >He was a broadcaster, teacher and attorney before becoming the Kansas secretary of agriculture in 1986. In 1990, he was called upon to be a White House Fellow for the Class of '90-91, detailed to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. After serving in that capacity for one year at the White House, Brownback returned to Kansas to resume his position as secretary of agriculture and remained in this position until 1993. He was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1994, but served there for only one term as he decided to enter into the special Senatorial election in November 1996 to replace Bob Dole, who had resigned his Senate seat during his presidential campaign. Brownback won the primary by defeating former Lieutenant Governor Sheila Frahm, who had been appointed to temporarily fill the seat. He defeated Democrat Jill Docking in the general election and was elected to a full term in the Senate in 1998. He won re-election in the 2004 Senate election with 69% of the vote, easily defeating his Democratic challenger, Lee Jones, a former Washington, D.C. lobbyist who was considered less than viable, especially after losing the Democratic Primary. Brownback is a member of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee (where he chairs the Subcommittee on District of Columbia), the Joint Economic Committee, and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Brownback has announced that he would not run for re-election in 2010, in accordance with his support of term limits for members of Congress. He is married to the former Mary Stauffer, heiress to a Topeka newspaper fortune. The couple are the parents of five children (three daughters and two sons; two of the children are adopted.

He sounds very intelligent with knowledge of many areas. He was Secretary of Agriculture for Kansas. That could make the midwest and southern farmers something to perk thier ears to, He was a teacher (that could give the NEA reason to hear him out), He was an attorney (another large interest group, and thus he knows law; which is
certainly helpful when as a President he must select competent judges) and the American Bar Association is sizable in number. He was a broadcaster (ie: he was in the media and his wife is an heiress to a Topeka newspaper fortune. (nice to have friends in the media)He was a senator for 10 years, and of his own mind won't seek re-election in support of his own words for
term limits. ie: His yes is yes and his no is no.
or in other words; what he says in words, he backs up with actions.

I'd say that Sen. Brownback could find the financial backing to run as President and it would be to the RNC's favor to support him.
I think he has a good shot at winning the nomination. This comment from his own website:
>We need a culture that encourages what is right and discourages what is wrong--and has the wisdom to understand the difference.

WOW! That sounds what I said basically. We need
a President of the USA who will bring back OBJECTIVE Truth to America; ending moral relativism (truth as individuals wish to see it for thier own self interest)

If Sen. Brownback gets to run (perhaps he could get McCain as his running mate) If Hillary is
the dem candidate - I think Sen. Brownback will
get a clean sweep in MOST states. (even the Northeast) Sounds like Mr. Brownback has vision,
fund-raising power, compelling vision - for any who understand the term COMMON GOOD. (true the self interest groups like planned parenthood, ACLU might not like him) but majority of Americans including independents would probably take to his message well as would African Americans for he >worked with Congressman John Lewis to help win placement of the African American Museum on the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Sounds to me like a VERY GOOD candidate.
AUTHENTICALLY GOOD (as human beings are good)

GOD WILLING...it shall be Brownback as Presidential candidate in 2008. There isn't a
dem candidate that could match these qualifications.

p.s. Sam - Hillary's having the media 'in her pocket' doesn't make her a LEADER. It means she
has to have an outside influence to get heard.
It's not to her credit to have the DNC in her pocket either. And don't think Hillary's scandals won't come out if she runs all over again; ie
the Whitewater affair for one. She's not 'clean'
at all.

She and her husband moved to NY state in 2000 and that only so she could run for Senate in NY. If she was interested in helping the poor, why didn't she run as a Senator from Arkansas? Maybe because she knew Arkansas would not have voted for her for Senator and there isn't as much money in Arkansas.

BROWNBACK - US President. (I like the sound of
it)

Ba:

Lots of wishful thinking in your analysis.

1) Brownback will not get RNC support during the primaries, he will need to run on his own and defeat the Republican candidates.

2) His 10-year Senate career doesn't amount to a hill of beans, he is not recognized as a leader in the Senate, a la McCain.

3) All the big money is already being committed - West Coast going to McCain (with Arnold's help), East Coast splitting between Romney, McCain and Giuliani, South (incl. Florida and Texas) already being vaccuumed up by McCain and Giuliani. 2nd and 3rd tier candidates such as Brownback are left with slim pickings. Unless he can break the Margon of Error in republican polls, why would anyone waste their financial support?

4) The assertion that minorities and the unions are going to overwhelmingly support Brownback, even over Clinton/Obama, is laughable on its face. ABA is another left-leaning organizaion. And, moreover, if ABA was ever going to support a Republican, why would they not support Rudy, who is an accomplished US Attorney, in case you forgot.

5) Hillary is not going to lose to a 3rd tier candidate. Does not matter if Hillary is not a LEADER, in your opinion, or if she is a carptebagger, or does not care for the poor, or if she is not 'clean". She has a large base of supporters, and will do at least as well as John Kerry did, if not better, in the general election. Further, Brownback is not running against Hillary, he is running against McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Gingrich and other announced and unannounced republican candidates.

6) Lastly, Republicans do not nominate relative unknowns or upstarts, that is part of their conservative nature. They usually go with whoever has the mantle of national leadership. Starting with Nixon in 1960 (I am too young to remember before that), they have nominated the front-runner, the best known republican who is running. Goldwater (1964), Nixon (1968), Ford (1976, over Reagan), Reagan (1980), Bush I (1988), Dole (1996) and Bush II (2000)

Two points about Giuliani you don't see much about yet on these blog sites:

1) He was intensely unpopular in New York during his second term having to do both with personality and policy. 9/11 happened at the very end of his term. It's highly unlikely he will do well in the northeast. Lots of baggage.

2) How does he do with the christian and value right wingers in light oh his personal life? Remember, his mistress lived in Gracie Mansion while he was till married.

Well Hugh, if what I read in the article is true, his marriage was to a second cousin--If he was married in the Catholic Church, that would be grounds for annulment (I think) ie: it was not a valid marriage.

It makes a big difference whether his "mistress" merely lived in Gracie Mansion (that's a big place with lots of rooms) or whether he was living WITH her prior to marriage. Since that really isn't known we can only "judge not" - I guess we have to give him the benefit of the doubt he knew the right thing to do.

But I agree with you, there are too many shadowy areas to Mr. Giuliani. He did do a lot to clean up NY, I have to give him that. But his stand on
gay marriage, pro abortion...that's going to hurt the GOP if they nominate him for the candidacy of President. (people are TIRED of the culture of death) Mr. Giuliani has to say NO to abortion for the right reason - it is objectively wrong to abort life because the Creator of Life and only the Creator is in charge of who lives and who does not. He has to be able to explain why there is no such thing as a 'GAY' person. GOD is creator of all life. God is Spirit. God is all good. (holy) 'we' were made in that spiritual image-perfect as 'our Creator is' UNTIL humanity
got 'their own ideas' in 'their own head' and thought their way was better than HIS WAY. Then
'man' was no longer in communication with His Creator...and so it would have remained, had God not been 'born of the flesh' (ie: who we celebrate coming on Christmas) and well, that
human/divine life is again ours to live if we but submit OUR WILLS to HIS WILL (deny the self thoughts)

God never made a 'gay' person. It is purely a man-made idea of man's head.