I'd say the choices fall into three categories - unelectable, undesirable, or both.

Sounds like 2004.

Unabrewer is a giant commie penis!!!

Newt is very interesting but damaged goods. Fear even though he is the smartest of the lot he is unelectable.

Rudy would be my choice for sheer chutzpah but, he is so lib on abortion and some other choices he might be too far gone.

The rest are a pathetic lot - Mitt is unseasoned. McCain is a fucking nut. Frist is a big puss and Allen is just not known enough to really draw attention.

Ok, guess Unabrewer is not all wrong....we are doomed! Maybe Limbaugh will run? Dittoheads would orgasm all over their radios wouldn't they?

There are a couple that have been left out-

Chuck Nagle
Condoleeza Rice (I know she said she's not interested, and I don't believe her)

If Giuliani was to run, there's a better than passing chance I would vote Republican for the first time in my life in a national election.

What's wrong with Romney? I mean, sure there's a strain of conservative activist that thinks that anyone who's been governor of Massachusetts has to be a liberal, but that's hardly fatal in a primary where there's no movement conservative of any consequence.

I would vote for Newt in a heartbeat.

Of the six, only Giuliani is electable. But it would take at least a pint of Jack Daniel's before I could pull that lever.

I would crawl naked of broken glass that had been drenched in AIDS-tainted blood to vote against McCain because of McCain-Fiengold.

Gat wrote:

"Of the six, only Giuliani is electable. But it would take at least a pint of Jack Daniel's before I could pull that lever."

Sorry, But I believe that would be Ted Kennedy.

"I'd say the choices fall into three categories - unelectable, undesirable, or both."

I agree. I caught part of an interview with Newt somewhere recently, and was dismayed. What he said made a great deal of sense. But it was Newt Gingrich who was saying it. Gaaaah! That's the kind of thing that makes me wonder where I went wrong!

You always have to hold your nose with one hand and vote with the other. Bush was the best of a bad lot in 2000, and absent New York DA Arthur Branch deciding to enter the race, Giuliani's the man.

Rudy's likeable, whatever his personal (read marital) problems, and is the right kind of leader in the War on Terror.

Lots of the others (i.e. not John McCain) are decent fellows, but most of them are uninspiring and lack the charisma and likeability that defines presidential politics.

I have become a Romney fan. His latest response to those soft on terror with their faux worries about our liberties was right on target. Paraphrasing, he said that our rights to 'life, liberty and the persuit of happiness' starts with the basic right to life. He added that it was paramount that we insure our lives against terrorism and worry less about techniques like surveilance. He was far more articulate than I. He's a leader.

McCain whom I once voted for is dead to me with his assaults on freedom of speech and disinterest in fiscal responsibility.

McCain bad on the 1st Amendment.
Guliani bad on the 2nd Amendment.

Ugh.

I would squeeze myself through a toothpaste tube lined with angry pumas who'd just eaten habanero sandwiches before I'd...

Honestly, what's with all the hysteria here? This almost reads like a Democratic site, the way you're ripping into everyone whose position deviates ever so slightly from the Perfect.

Let's get real. The Way of the Republican is to nominate the guy who's next in line. McCain is next in line, he will almost certainly be the nominee, and don't tell me X, Y or Z can't stand him because you know what? Ordinary people vote in primaries, and ordinary people will hear that he's going to be tough on terrorism but at the same time is not identical to, or identified with, Bush. That's the winning combination there, and when the alternative is Clinton-Obama, you'll damn well vote for it too, believe me.

That WAS the Republican way. W kinda wrecked that trend (for better) when he came from, virtually, out of nowhere to be the candidate in 2000.

I like Allen. He has all the Chutzpa of Rudy, but the sense of a southerner. (I had to choke out that line, being a new Englander, former) Unlike Romney, he has actions to back up the words. And McCain is just totally unsuitable. He was actually considered as a running mate for John Kerry... remember? Newt is good, and could put damaged goods against damaged goods if Hidabeast were to run, but "best of a sorry lot" is a good name for this bunch.

Let's face it. Conservatism is not what the republican party is about anymore. Allen is probably the most conservative of the lot.

Agree the choices are mostly uninspriting. I like Giuliani on terror, but not on 2nd amendment, McCain is not trustworthy, Newt is brilliant but I find him personally loathesome for some reason, Frist is probably a decent man, but has been a terrible majority leader, only marginally better than Trent Lott whom I also find loathesome, and George Allen is sort of "George who?" in the sense he's done nothing distinguished, and doesn't raise my temperature at all. That leaves Romney. I rather like Romney, but there are a lot of people who think the Mormon question disqualifies him. Certainly, while Mormons have been successful and are generally conservative, as a religion Mormonism is well outside the mainstream, perhaps as far outside the mainstream as something like Christian Science. I have read that a significant number of people - conservative Christians - simply won't vote for a Mormon. Even a good guy who will be weak with the base won't win. So, who are we left with? Arnold is ineligible (and probably a bad idea) and Condi says no. There are no GOP politicians with the national stature to win. It's depressing

Allen is a decent candidate, a bit conservative for me but as an ex-D, I'd still support him over any D. No candidate is likely to match a voter's complete profile.

No Problem Voting For:
Allen
Gingrich
Giulliani
Romney
Some other obscure R governor

Serious Problems Voting For:
Frist
McCain

You guys are hilarious. Everytime McCain is mentioned, you tear him apart, and as we all know, if he is nominated you're going to swear to all and sundry he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Now be reasonable here. I bet all you guys were moaning with sympathy over Joe Liebermans recent defeat. What a great guy Joe is. So, you tell me, if John McCain and Joe Lieberman are in the same room, who is the conservative, and who is the liberal?

The answer, of course, is McCain is both an economic conservative, and, by the way, a social conservative. Or has it escaped you that he is anti-abortion? Isn't that the be all and the end all with you guys?

Well, Joe, who I hoped would win in the Connecticutt primary, but who is now pissing me off no end because he won't accept defeat (i.e., the voters decision) and support the party,is pro choice, and voted with the Democrats and liberal policies over eighty percent of the time.

I wouldn't vote for McCain. He's too damned conservative for me. But I respect the man, he is a hero, all the recent abominable swift boat type allegations-which is to say, damned lies-to the contrary.

Don't you people realize what all this vile lying about him is over? It's for no other reason than he buildt his careet by demanding accountability, and calling to account politicians whom he knew were voting not for the good of the country, or their constituents, but accordding to the money being dropped in their pockets by the special interests of both parties.

Now, he's backtracked, so shame on him. I guess he knows that's his only chance of mending fences with the powers that be in his party. You all should wake up and smell the coffee.

Kelley- a bit of vitrol there, perhaps?

The way it works in 2 party politics usually is: "I don't want to vote for X, Y, or Z, but given the other party's candidates I'll stomach voting for any of them if they are nominated."

I personally am not on the fence, here.

How about a ticket of Rudy/Newt. They could out talk and out think just about anybody thrown at them.

Now now, are we all (you included, Stephen) coming to the same conclusion that I am coming to? Namely, that once Hillary! is on the presidential ballot, there will be a whole lotta folks on the right who will use that as an excuse to sit on their rear ends in 2008, regardless of GOP candidate?

I'm telling you: there are quite a few righties who made a lot of money and gained a whole lot of press back in the Bill Clinton era who are seeing the success of Markos Moulitsas and are feeling a little left out of the fun.

"That WAS the Republican way. W kinda wrecked that trend (for better) when he came from, virtually, out of nowhere to be the candidate in 2000."

Actually, his dad wrecked it by picking a VP who was unsuited to succeed him. Funny that that opened up room for his own son, isn't it?

Besides, If you haven't read Peggy Noonan lately, she sounds as though she can't wait for the profits from Hillary-bashing to come flowing again:)

Which category is Giuliani in? Unelectable, undesirable or both?

Personally, I think it's folly to argue that he can't get conservative votes in a primary campaign. He's a staunch conservative on terror, crime and taxes, he's a better campaigner than George Allen (maccaca? huh?) or Mitt Romney (tar baby? huh?); has higher positives and lower negatives than McCain or Gingrich; and nobody will ever forget the unforgettable with Rudy.

I'm really puzzled though by the George Allen fans out there. Pop quiz (no going to Lexis-Nexis or Wikpedia): Name one accomplishment by George Allen, ever. In anything. Ever. Just one.

Hillary is brilliant, corrupt and completely evil.

McCain is well meaning, dim, corrupt and insane.

I'm a security/libertarian/republican. Between those two, I'd vote for Hillary. I might have to throw myself off a tall building afterward.

I'm a second ammendment absolutist, but I think it will survive Rudy. I don't think the rest of the constitution will survive McCain.

I'll echo Ed's comments on Guiliani and say that it will both be hard to demonize Rudy, and that he is experienced with dealing with a hostile press and protesting moonpats after his time making changes in New York.

I'm plugging for Gingrich-Lieberman as a pragmatic "unity ticket".

Frist and Allen are in the Social-Right's hip-pocket, so that rules them out; McCain's too politically-compromised; and Romney's a Mormon and I just don't trust him. Giuliani a possible, but I suspect that without a crisis he might turn inward at imagined enemies.

Rudy Giuliani for SecDef, and Thomas Friedman for SecState.

McCain is next in line,

No.

First, McCain is a Senator. The weaknesses of Senators when it comes to winning the White House are well-known, and not at all confined to the Democratic candidates.

Seond, McCain is prone to the law of unintended consequences. McCain-Feingold's conflicts with the 1st Amendment are only one example, there are others. To me, this demonstrates 1) an unclear understanding of the US Constitution- a deal-killer if ever there was one- and 2) a disinclination to think about the consequences of his actions- another deal-killer where the Presidency is concerned.

Third, he's a primadonna. This is tolerable in the Senate, but you don't want a primadonna as the de facto leader of a political party- it pisses off the base and demotivates the people you're counting on to show up at the polls.

Fourth, McCain's reputation as a fiscal consdervaitve is greatly exaggerated. He's been going along to get along just like just about everyone else in the Senate.

Fifth, McCain isn't just weak on the 1st Amendment, he's weak on the 2nd A, too. Democats and independends don't seem to understand that this is significant in the Republican party- the people that can be counted on to show up and vote in the R primaries are the Christian conservatives, the Seniors, and the gun crowd. You can piss off one of those groups and get the nomination, McCain has pissed off two of them and tried to make up for it by really sucking up to the Seniors. It's not going to work.

"It's my turn" may be how the Democrats pick their candidate, but the Republican Party is not a union show, and competence and electability should be the criteria that determines who gets the nomination, not seniority.

"I have become a Romney fan. His latest response to those soft on terror with their faux worries about our liberties was right on target. Paraphrasing, he said that our rights to 'life, liberty and the persuit of happiness' starts with the basic right to life. He added that it was paramount that we insure our lives against terrorism and worry less about techniques like surveilance."

The trouble with this argument is that it need not only apply to fighting terrorism - a right to life that trumps all other rights would also entail universal health care and other programs that are a big no no on the right.

"I'm plugging for Gingrich-Lieberman as a pragmatic "unity ticket"."

Unified in what, that most people can't stand either of them? Gingrich is a great commentator, an okay if indiscriminate idea generator, a poor tactician, and as a persona... Phil Gramm without the charm.

Guiliani is pro-choice and bad for the 2nd amendment;
McCain is bad for the 1st and he completely sold the country out on the immigration 'reform'
so these 2 are very no-no for me.
so, it's between Gingrich and Allen and I would most likely vote for Allen...
unfortunately, these are the best of the worst...

Actually, the Republicans have historically been more likely to nominate the "its my turn" party, nominating Nixon in '68 & 72, Ford (the incumbent) in '72, Reagan, Ford's primary challenger, in '80 & 84, Bush, Reagan's primary challenger, in '88 & 92, and Dole, Bush's primary challenger in '96.

Dole's primary challenger in 1996 was probably either Pat Buchannan or Steve Forbes, the former went completely off the rails by 200 and the latter made a transparently obvious swing to the right on social issues that alienated his previous supporters without adding enough new ones, so there was no viable IMT candidate available for 2000.

In contrast, the Democrats nominated the "its my turn candidate" only in '68, '84 and '00 (and '80 & '96 if you count incumbents). The party passed on their IMT candidate in '72 (Muskie), '88 (Hart), and '04 (Lieberman or Gephardt), and in '76 and '92 were unable to even field a IMT candidate in the first place.

Ford in 76. Sorry about the typo.

I really wish that 'None of the Above' had been a choice on the poll. 'It's My Turn Next' gave us Bob Dole as a candidate, and we all know how that one turned out.

But going down the list, Newt I could pretty happily vote for, but I don't think he can win. Allen hasn't done anything to disqualify getting my vote yet. Frist would be a 'lesser of evils' choice, but he's been spectacularly unimpressive in the senate leadership. Rudy I'd vote for over most Democrats, but the 2nd amendment thing worries me.

Romney I'd vote for, but his insistence on pushing Hillary-Care through in Massachusetts worries me. And McCain won't get my vote regardless of the opponent.

So yeah, a pretty unimpressive bunch. Everyone but McCain I'd most likely hold my nose and vote for.

Put me in the tube with the pumas and habaneros. I won't vote for McCain if it's Hillary/Obama. And no, I won't vote for her if you put a gun to my head.

I agree most with Allen, I respect Newt's intellect, and I think Giuliani has a decent chance with the conservative base and a great chance with the general electorate. My first priority is national security, because if we don't have that the rest is moot. Democrats will fiddle with the minimum wage while bombs fall on NY and D.C. They are congenitally defective when it comes to national security, at least until this entire generation dies off.

Back in April, Insty linked to Hugh Hewitt's straw poll which differed by excluding Newtie and including Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee.

And, of course, neither Insty nor Hugh included Tancredo. I wonder why?

McCain bad on the 1st Amendment.
Guliani bad on the 2nd Amendment.

And on all the others. Really, I see all these blog posters rhapsodising about Guiliani, and the only possible objection they see is his "liberalism" on some social issues, and they dismiss that with a wave of the hand.

Are none of you aware of how he ruled NYC? Or of how he behaved as a US Attorney before that? Yes, he brought down crime, and I'm grateful for that, but, well, I don't like to use the F word, especially of someone with an Italian surname, so I'll just call him "authoritarian". Think Janet Reno and J Edgar Hoover. Civil liberties is simply not a concept he understands. Believe me, this is not somebody you want to see armed with the USA PATRIOT Act and the other powers of the president.

What about Tim Pawlenty? Is he definitely out of the race?

Milhouse, I'd agree with you if this were 2000. We were all asleep then.

This is a post-9/11 world. Do you think there will be concern for civil rights after the next big attack on U.S. soil? Get real. We need a big hammer at the helm because sooner or later it is going to get so ugly that the past 5 years will look like playtime.

I totally forgot about Huckabee! I (heart) Huckabee!! (couldn't figure out how to make a heart) When he decided to show the democrats of Arkansas, and made state taxes voluntary, by placing a tin can on the steps of the capitol in Little Rock...
Yup. I'd vote for him in a heart-beat. (no pun intended)

The state collected something like $43 bucks during that experiment, thus proving that even democrats won't pay taxes if they're voluntary. Because people hate taxes!
If I remember correctly, he's strong on every other area as well. not sure about immigration, but he strikes me as a Joe Arpaio type.

Good grief, what's with all the Newt-brilliant stuff? He's not nearly as smart as his reputation, rather he's actually shallow.

Just like there are people that are fascinated by sports, but can't actually dribble, pass, or get on base to save their lives, there are also people who like ideas but don't really have the mental equipment to deal with them very well. Remember Newt's longstanding fascination with the Tofflers? Gag..... I rest my case.

The perennial issue is that they are politicians. So, because they are in political circles, the guys who we want to run won't get the nod. I think as Repub voters (those of us here who are) we've kind of submitted to this.

Partly 'cause we tend to be political INactivists.

In some ways, its our birthright as Americans to be able to be president. Anyone can do it (though only one will succeed every four years.)

There's a guy or gal out there with strong conservative and libertarian leanings with the potentcy and personality to do the President thing.

They just gotta stand up, and be counted!

/polyanna off

I think that name recognition plays a greater part than people usually think. I'm not a true political junkie but I *do* pay attention and I still don't have a good idea about half of that list. Embarassing to admit maybe but my point is that Rudy is often going to count as an "Oh, him." or even a "Mayor of New York, right?" while most of the others will get a "Who?"

It makes a difference.

To the one guy who mentioned swift-boating and McCain... I can't help that people don't "get" it. (And if you think that swift-boating refers to baseless smears, ie., you think Murtha got swift-boated... you don't get it.)

McCain is certainly a hero deserving a great deal of respect for what he went through... but it doesn't make him qualified to be president. Military leadership (and the president is *civilian* leadership) is something that has to be re-proven every moment of the day. The fact that someone or other has made rank or was an officer way back when means nothing compared to this moment right *now*. People who don't understand the social contract where-by enlisted agree to follow orders or who don't understand in which direction authority *flows* in the military... aren't going to "get it."

Bottom line, McCain's military service and experience deserves respect but it will not bring anyone with military experience to actually *vote* for him if they wouldn't have voted for him otherwise.

Giuliani's liberalness may not be as much of an issue as people think, *particularly* on matters that are generally decided on a State or local level, such as gun control, abortion, or gay marriage.

As for the pictures of him in drag... if you're manly enough it's irrelevant.

Oh, as a side note, presidents require a certain unorthodox mixture of traits. Like it or not, GWB has it while neither Gore nor Kerry did. Clinton had it. Dole did not. Bush senior did. Even Jimmy Carter had it. Whether they were good presidents was mostly seperate from this.

My advice? (Not interested, oh well. Too late! :P) Look at past presidents for the way they conducted themselves and compare it to the candidates. If you only find one who fits that mold, you might just predict the winner...

What Guilani has that the others lack (including Hillary) is the charisma of actual leadership accomplishments.

Sure, lots of people saw him do well 9/11 but if you spent any time in NYC in the 80's and early 90's and then saw New York TRANSFORMED from filth and corruption into a reasonable, livable, city, well it has to go down as one of the greatest political achievements in history.

Yeah, Rudy has "baggage" but, post Bill Clinton, whatever personal "bar" exists in most voters minds is dramatically lower than its ever been. Will Rudy do anything about guns? Doubtful when even Democrats don't raise gun control issues anymore. Abortion? Nothing is going to happen on that issue legislatively, perhaps in the court, but neither congress nor a president will touch the issue baring a remarkable change in public sentiment.

Rudy will/should win if people perceive the world as a dangerous place. They'll want leadership, not "competence" (though Rudy can still demonstrate competence better than any other candidate, no?).

McCain is too old, not reliably conservative and, as the AUTHOR of the most anti-democratic, unconstitutional, legislation in history, does not deserve a single conservative vote.

Romney? Maybe one of the brightest politicians ever. However, he has "lead" nothing of note in Massachusetts. Done an ok job? Sure. But if he had any "conservative" goals to achieve he kept them to himself and has not chosen to advertise them in the last four years.
Nice guy. Smart guy. Leader? Not so far. Conservative? Not so that he'd make an effort for guns, school choice, downsizing government.....you name it.

McCain strikes me as an egomaniac; I just don't trust the man near the levers of power. That plus his demonstrated lack of understanding of the first amendment rules him out for me.

Romney I'll listen to; he could earn my vote if he says the right things on the right basis.

It's also worth noting that some of us like Rudy precisely *because* of his social liberalism. I'm a security voter, but I also want to oppose the religious influence inside the GOP. Rudy lets me cover both bases. Sure, he's anti-gun, but if the second could survive 8 years of Clinton it can survive 4/8 of Rudy, particularly if the GOP holds on to Congress.

Repubs/Dems/Indies, voting in '08 (IMHO):

Unelectable:

Frist
Gingrich
Allen ??? (maybe too Bushy?)

Undesirable:

McCain (undesirable to repubs in primaries)

Both Unelectable and Undesirable:

-------

Electable and Desirable:

Romney (charismatic, fresh, conservative, competent)

Giulliani (charismatic, competent, "war" hero, right will accept him if he makes appropriate noises about conservative judiciary)

I'm telling you as a Democrat, if you guys want a sure winner, you'd better stick with Rudi. He was as much a hero on 9/11 as McCain was during Viet Nam. I can almost promise you I would vote for him, depending on what kind of influence he has on the Repubican party platform in 2008.

I don't think you have to worry about gun control. I'm pro second amendment myself, though a Democrat and otherwise mostly liberal. I'm also pro-death penalty, and want the borders secured.

But hey, guess what? You won't find a perfect candidate. But Rudi, whatever his faults, comes close, and really impresses me. I just wish he'd become a Democrat and run, then you guys would really have reason to be worried.

I credit Gingrich with pushing thru the "tax cut for the rich" which moved me up into the middle class. I'd brush my teeth with hexapuma habeñeros to vote for him.

I like Giuliani, Romney & Gingrich.
&& Rice for VP.

I think some people are trashing the front-runners just to improve the position of their favored dwarf in the race to go to the ball with Snow White.

But I prefer even The Evil Witch to McCain, so I sure hope the choice in '08 isn't between the stupid party with Mr. I-have-a-shortcut and the crazy party with Mrs. I-have-a-poll.

Hexapuma habañeros? Brush your teeth with??? Is this a Newt thing?

I'm stealing this from another site:

People follow leaders, McCain's a senator.

Rudy '08.

He's older, wiser and happier.

He will also know exactly why he's voted in.

Maverick's an ego-maniac and Soros' stooge.

Actually, the Republicans have historically been more likely to nominate the "its my turn" party, nominating Nixon in '68 & 72, Ford (the incumbent) in '72, Reagan, Ford's primary challenger, in '80 & 84, Bush, Reagan's primary challenger, in '88 & 92, and Dole, Bush's primary challenger in '96.

Nixon was Eisenhower's VP, Ford was Nixon's VP, Reagan was a Governor, not a Senator, Bush Sr. was Reagan's VP, and Bush was a Governor.

Do you see a pattern?

In the Republican party, the winning nominees tend to be Governors and former VPs, i.e., people with executive-branch experience.

Not Senators.

Except that the list of people you mention with "executive branch experience" includes two former senators and two former Congressmen.

That trend isn't just for the Republicans. Senators just don't get elected. They can't prove a track record or show leadership ability. Kennedy was an annomoly, but I think his election had more to do with corruption that ability to lead.

Governors, mayors, VP's usually end up with the big seat.

BTW on that note, George Allen was a Governor before he was a Senator. Governor of the freat state of Virginny.

Some of our best and brightest come from that state.