There will be so many candidates on both sides in 2008 and such little media coverage to go around that whoever wins Iowa on both sides will likely sweep every other primary. One surprising thing is how the Republicans have basically no governors who are real contenders running when they know how bad U.S. Senators do in presidential elections. Of course, all it would take is for both parties to nominate senators and that would end.

Bull.  We want to switch to hybrids even if they don't provide a net environmental gain right away because it's easier to upgrade thousands of power plants than it is to upgrade millions of automobiles.  The latter process is long and slow, with cars lasting a decade or so plus the time it takes for any new technology to become the dominant one sold.  We want to start this process as soon as possible.  Meanwhile, a power plant can be upgraded or outright replaced within a few years, and as technology improves it can be done again, again without the long filtering in process car technologies would require.  We are much better off starting the move to hybrids now even if it doesn't pay off right away.

I work for a PR firm with a lot of energy clients.  One of our clients is a coal group, and two big talking points are security and affordability.  It's important to remember that coal accounts for 51 percent of our electricity supply, or more than 2/3 of the 71 percent that comes from fossil fuels.  It is domestically produced and has a substantial supply (although that would be dramatically reduced if cars started using electricity), while we import the vast majority of our oil.  Brownback could pitch this as a way to reduce our dependence on Mid East oil.  Moreover, coal is cheap and oil is not.  The cost of driving 50 miles would plummet with electric vehicles.

Additionally, look: he wants to replace fossil fuels with nuclear and biofuels.  Your criticism of his electricity-for-gasoline exchange completely glosses over that argument just four sentences after you quote the Des Moines register.

There are, of course, myriad problems with this approach (significant strain on the energy grid, more mercury emissions, shifting demand will raise coal prices, etc.), but he can pitch it.  What is curious is how he plans to get enough air time to make a dent with this argument.  Since this issue won't win him the nomination, it only works if he gets on TV.  God willing, it's just not sexy enough to do that.  The less I have to Senator Brownback pontificate on cultural issues, the better.

He converted from Methodism to Catholocism and is a member of the famous Opus Dei prelature.

My guess is that - whether fair or not - between the Da Vinci Code book and upcoming movie, voters will not be willing to put a member of that group in the White House.  I'd put Brownback in the "non-starter" category.  

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/living/religion/11172313.htm

Out of this group, Brownback is the only acceptable one to GOP voters.  The Republican base will stay home if Hagel is nominated.  Look at the way he is getting ripped to shreds on conservative blogs.

I think we're fooling ourselves if we think the Republicans won't nominate McCain. I think the Dobsonite social conservatives are not going to be as influential in the GOP primaries as they are in DC, because -- as always -- of the distorting effect of a process that gives inordinate influence to 2 small early states.

On the Republican side, money is king; there is nowhere near the "outsider"/grassroots constituency for them as for Dems in the early primary states. So when McCain starts piling up the cash and the consultants, I think most serious challengers will be sidelined, and he'll be, like Bush, able to run against a series of lesser funded and less well prepared candidates on his right, who will divide whatever anti-McCain vote exists in the early states, which this cycle look to be IA, NH then MI.

By the time they get to a state where Big Church matters, McCain will be running as a veteran/war hero and will have mouthed enough slogans and appeared in enough churches to have the support of the few people who matter on their side. In other wides, their activists are not independent minded enough to defy their own leadership (by definition).

I'm not happy about this but I'm afraid we're going to have, for the first time since Reagan, a really strong Republican candidate to contend with in 08. And given how badly we did against weak candidates in 88, 00 and 04, I'm not optimistic.

(On the upside, I think this gives us licence to nominate someone like Feingold who could really put forth a message of real reform for the Democratic party.)

is not a serious threat.  We know where the bimbos are.

Don't count Sam Brownback out just because he's currently polling low. The same mistake was made by pundits who were gauging the chances of Gary Hart and Howard Dean.

The fact is that Brownback's ultra-conservative message resonates with GOP primary voters and you can expect to see his numbers skyrocket as soon as he begins campaigning.

Lott has no political future after the Thurmond incident, and the Republican bigwigs know it.

Regardless, an announcement for the presidency two whole years before the election would be unprecedented.

Their best cannidate is not even on this list South Carolina governor Mark Sanford and if things start looking really bad for them they can run someone like Micheal Bloomberg who is non threatening and has a great bussiness background.