I noted you did not add Romney to your list of losers. I am glad because he looks both physically and policy-wise my choice at the present time. I have followed him for the last 1-2 months and I am thinking this is a person with intelligence, good looks, charisma--maybe the Barack Obama of the GOP with one exception. He is substantive and has actually run something both the private and public sector.

His one weakness may be his flip-flop on pro-life, but frankly I am so tired of this being the only qualification conservatives seem to want to judge a candidate by. After all remember Ronald Reagan was a liberal Democrat before he "got religion". Should we not extend this same opportunity to future candidates?

I agree entirely about the range of candidates being promoted currently by both parties. I am particularly offput (and concerned) by the spate of those from the GOP, since there is little-to-no possibility of me ever voting for a Democratic candidate (again, last time was Clinton's first term and that I expect was my last venture into that party as a voter).

But about the candidates from the GOP at present, what we have are cookie-cutter Liberals-to-Moderates of the same Liberal-to-Moderate politics that categorizes President Bush (who I voted for today would not given what's transpired as to border insecurity and what I conclude has been covert encouragement of illegal immigration -- use any term Bush approves of, it still points to that conclusion).

There is not one among them who I would willingly vote for, unfortunately.

These are bleak times for Conservatives and it's bleak because the GOP is no longer interested in our opinions, nor in possible candidates who are.

Tancredo a "screamer"? He's never been anything but calm, cool, and collected, and usually smiling, the times I've seen him on the tube. And, I'd say his one core issue IS the defense of the United States, literally, by maintaining sovereignty over our own borders. You and the neocon fellow travelers can "scream" about someone trying to "kill us (eeek!)", but until W's platform position #1 is securing the borders, he's not to be taken seriously about the supposed danger level. Add in his globalist foreign policy, laissez-faire trade policy, and a passive-aggressive domestic agenda, an OBVIOUSLY botched war effort, and W's set back the Republican Party to 1974. Do you think Jim Webb would have run as a Democrat if Reagan were in office now? And yes, as a Republican, I think Jim Webb is superb! As for the girly men running for the nominations of both parties, I choose "none of the above". As for Hillary: keeping puffing her, because, should Algore chooses to run, he will be HELL for the Republicans to beat. Thanks again to G.W.Bush.

beancounter:

Reasons Romney will not get the Republican nomination:

1) Cult religion.

2) His flip-flops on issues dear to Republican voters has never been out of conviction, purely out of opportunism.

3) RomneyCare

Why is everyone so against Guliani? He is the ideal choice of either party simply because he has not been involved in the legistlative branch of government.

And I take issue with DJ's statement that none of these individuals have the defense of this country as there core issue. That's just a ridiculous and untrue statement. Right now, that's the main issue that seperates us from the libs and in case you haven't noticed, it is McCain's only issue right now (regardless of what you think about him).

If we're going to win the next election some of us are going to have to stop exaggerating our criticisms of Republicans and stick to reality. I'm not crazy about some of the stances they are taking either but let's not start bashing them just for the sake of it.

If any of you think the idiots on the Christian right will vote for a Mormon, I want some of your hemp.

OB 1 Hussein or Her Thighness will be in church making damned clear that they are TRUE Christians throughout the general election and the mindless evangelicals will be goose stepping into the voting booth to vote for them.

The reason we so seldom see great nominees for either party is that great leaders come along infrequently, and are likely to chose some field other than politics in which to lead. Which is a good thing.

After the first few Presidents, we have elected far more mediocre Presidents than great ones. So while Dole and Dukakis lacked the qualities which could have made them great, either, if elected, would have probably found himself around the middle of the rankings at the end of his term.

Neither can we expect a "true conservative" candidate, since each of us has a somewhat different definition of what that is, and even if we found one, he wouldn't get elected any more than a "true liberal" could. Right or wrong, the majority of people are in or near the mushy middle.

In my lifetime I've seen two major party nominees who were close to the doctrinaire ideology for their side. Barry Goldwater was a conservative's conservative in 1964, and George McGovern was true to the left in 1972. Only one election intervened between them, but both were horribly trounced.

anyone who thinks Giuliani is a stereotypical politician is buying the MSM line

Ask someone from NYC not in the media biz and you'll get the real story

I would say sending an unknown up in 2008 is a fool's errand

Giuliani will win.

You'll see.

If you want a winner...it is Rudy.

Why consevatives keep talking up Hunter and Gringrich
is beyond me...simply put if nominated both would lose
the general big time. Why can't some consevatives understand
the virtues of pragmitism?

Why would the Republicans nominate Giulani when he would not even carry his own state. The same goes for Romney.

The Republicans have to face the fact that there is no magic bullet that will win the 2008 presidential election. The Republicans did no get back to trying to win local election, developing new candidates, and to showing that they can actually accomplish something instead of having a constant stream of failures.

Guliani's star will rise next summer when al-Qaeda takes out one of our cities and it becomes known that the plot succeeded only after the Democrats dismantled the domestic terrorist surveillance program.

John S: you hit the nail on the head. Which is exactly why your line of thinking is so tired: you secretly want an attack and people to die. For what purpose? To make the Democrats look bad? That, my friend, will undoubtedly backfire. Who's been in control for 6 years?

I know I've reached fear-mongering fatigue; it's time for people like you to start thinking of ways to do something positive and worthwhile. The time of demonizing people and calling them unpatriotic because of different opinions is OVER. Wishing for terrorist acts in order to say "I told you so" really just makes you think in ways and support policies that will only make your cynical terrorist hopes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I lean left, but I've always found Giuliani to be dynamic and interesting; he's one that doesn't wrap himself in a flag with a bible in one hand and a rifle in the other. He hasn't pandered to any side and follows his personal beliefs, regardless of how at odds those may be with his chosen party's national platform. That takes balls, and is a sign of a good leader.

Rudy more than any other Rep has a good shot at winning NYC.
Yeah lets go back to the local level to build candidates while Hillary
destroys the country. Grow up.

Michael,

Look at how selfish the Republicans have been versus the Democrats. The Republicans have totally lost all of New England yet their is no effort on the part of Republicans to try to remain viable in New England. The same goes for the west coasts.

If you want to stop Hillary (and the future versions of her) the Republicans need to develop candidates at all levels that can win, are articulate, and are media savy. What they need no more of are the Hasterts who have no idea how to win an election and the Republicans need to eliminate any candidate who is inarticulate like President Bush.

when the Dems wanted to win they went with a moderate from an area of the country where they weak.

So, why don't we do what works?

Democrats, all of them, are more invested in the defeat of the United States than they are in their usual liberal social issues. I suppose their hatred of President Bush drives it, but it is simply unbelievable. Imagine, a political party that, in their hearts, truly wants the defeat of US forces.

I think any Republican that runs on the defense of the country, with even a modicum of right-of-center positions will win.

I don't think any candidate is great, but money and organization determines the nominee.

DJ,

Good observation, and I want to tighten it up a little. For the first time I can remember, and maybe a first in this country's history, a party (the Dims) has all its front runners recommending to the American people defeat in a war. Based on the pontifications of Hillary, Obama, et. al., all are recommending withdrawal from Iraq which equates to defeat.

Now someone tell me I am wrong, but I think this is a first in American politics.

Giuliani has the unique opportunity to split both parties at their radical hinges.

He could draw in moderately liberal Democrats, Reagan Democrats and all Republicans except the far right.

I love to see it.

Pragmatically, Rudy is probably the only choice Pubs could make that would mean a close race and perhaps a win. Perhaps he picks a solid conservative as VP. Perhaps, conservatives look at that as a sop to their ideology. We all know he will stronger on national security than any other Dem. We know he is strong on domestic protection via any crime, gang or violence agendas in our urban areas. That is a plus. He is open to stronger reactions toward border protection. A young conservative, like Santorum, Huckabee, another sleeper conserv from the South , could be a strong team. The Dems could pick Obama-Hillary as a team too. That would be a battle royal. But, Rudy would at least have a chance to defeat them.

I think it's a bit premature to write off Al Gore. After all, he's a proven winner. He won a majority of the popular vote in 3 successive Presidential elections (twice as Vice President). He would have won the electoral vote in 2000 as well were it not for the butterfly ballot that confused some elderly voters in Florida.

Gore has improved his image in the 6 years since his defeat and is now widely viewed as more likable. In addition, his position on global warming is now accepted as mainstream. Gore was right on that issue long before it became fashionable among Republicans.

Glen Koons backs Giuliani for pragmatic reasons, which I think are valid. But the most valid reason is that Rudy is one of those rare persons in politics that sees what can be accomplished and goes out and does it. In short he is the only man running and therefore will win.

OK, it doesn't look great but the comment threshold stuff appears to be working...

"How about we not nominate a loser?"

Well... if the GOP hadn't acted like such Dems for the past 7 years, maybe we'd have a decent stable to choose from.