you have to look out for him.

We need more on Huckabee than some illicit silverware. He has a compelling personal story and the potential to speak in dog whistles to the right while obscuring his real positions, just like GWB did in 2000. Evangelicals will say they "know his heart" and will let him get away with it in a way that they won't with Guilliani and McCain. That's the great thing (for us) about those two -- they actually have to court the right rather than winking at them, which hauls their positions into daylight.

I too am afraid of Romney.  Remember, the Republican primary electorate was able to be brainwashed by Bush, and Romney is much smarter than W.  The Right may forgive his former pro-choice stances because, hey, he really hates the gays.  And as much as this bugs me about the American electorate, Romney looks presidential (why do I have no problem envisioning Chris Matthews gushing over this guy for this looks?)

   Romney, however, is a total piece of shit.  Everyone knows he has used, and still is using, the Massachusetts governorship as a springboard to the presidency.  He announced that he wasn't going to run for reelection practically a year before the recent election.  And now, as a lame duck governor, he wants to convene the overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature during their recess to vote against gay marriage.  It's ridiculously obvious that Romney cares not a bit about what Massachusetts residents want, and only cares about his precious political career.  This man is a lying hypocrite.  If he gets the nomination, I hope we can make an issue out of this.

who will beat the tar out of us.

I think we can beat him, and in fact I think any democrat we nominate can beat him.  But it will be a lot of fucking work, and we'll have to hope that the GOP makes him impale himself on the right wing first.  If they were bright enough to let him slide through the primaries unchanged, we'd be toast.  Good for us they're not.

Romney, Huckabee, good nominees whom we'll thrash.  But McCain is scary shit.  Absent him, the field is weak, but given that he's the likely winner... not so much.

"The current slate of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination is among the sorriest of American history."

I'd like to agree, but this analysis strikes me as wishful thinking. For one thing, you seem to be conflating the separate questions of candidates appeal to GOP primary voters and their general quality as candidates. McCain and Giuliani may have trouble for various reasons in getting their pary's nomination, but both of them would be very strong candidates in a general election -- much much stronger, in terms of basic charisma, than any potential Democratic candidate (with the possible exception of Obama).

The democrats have fielded charisma-poor candidates in every single national election since Johnson, with one exception: Bill Clinton, who managed to slip in only because Bush I was considered so "undefeatable" in 1992 that almost every major Dem candidate stayed out of the race.

If we are to win the presidency again, we have to be realistic about what we're facing -- GOP candidates who have broad and powerful appeal as people and personalities, McCain and Giuliani expecially -- and counter that threat with charisma of our own. If we keep on fielding the Carter-Mondale-Dukakis-Gore-Kerry type of candidate, we will just keep losing.

How certain are we that Jeb Bush won't change his mind and lock up the GOP nomination with a single sentence, like "I'm running for President"?

My guess is that if Dubya's approval rating by Labor Day 2007 is at 45% or above, Jeb will run, believing he can clear the primary field, and defeat Hillary Clinton (presumably) in November.  Jeb will not run unless he feels he win in the general election.  After all, he already has the GOP nomination if he wants it, irrespective of the incumbent's approval rating.  

I think any Democrat could beat any of the current GOP field. The major GOP candidates have a lot of flaws and for various reasons will not sell well in some of the red states.

I agree with Syntag that this is wishful thinking. The most important thing to GOP primary voters is the same important thing to Democratic primary voters in 2004: Who can win the White House.

I think its possilbe that conservative Republicans will hold their noses and support Sen. McCain because they'll think he'll win. And if not him, then they may go with Romney and fundraising ability. Either way, the Myth of McCain would be tough in a general to beat and the Romney money is enough to be weary.

Whatever happens in the primaries, I think we should prepare for the worse - McCain - and hope for the best.

The Repubs are not doing any worse than the Dems at this stage. I worry we'll be stuck with a bunch of underwhelming candidates from both parties and then voting for trhe lesser evil. Not the kind of dynamo we need to get us out of the ME mess, can tackle the huge economic problems from trade to outsourcing to wage income stagnation. Someone that can be a real leader in rebuilding America. Because we are going to have to do that.

Do we have to settle for the same old warmed over candidates??

Let's get real.  I think Chris summed it up the best when he said we need to stop thinking about what the CW tells us.  The person who we nominate needs to be real enough to excite the people, like a John Tester, a Ned Lamont, a Sherwood Brown or Jim Webb.  Our biggest problem had been our candidates have been stupid and afraid to take a real stand on anything.  They have been listening to their high paid consultants who tell them "Oh don't say that you don't want to offend this group or that group". What we end up with is a candidate who comes across as a stiff uncaring, indifferent snob.  

I saw John Edwards on his book tour yesterday and when he was asked some serious questions about health care, education and the environment, he came across as down to earth, passionate, and really caring about these issues.  This is a very far cry from the John Edwards I saw at a VP campaign rally in 2004.  John has said several times he learned a lot in the 2004 campaign but the most important lesson was to be himself and not listen to the media consultants.

If we run a popular candidate, who is willing to talk to the people and not at the people, I truly believe we can beat anyone the GOP puts up.  It isn't about electability or charisma, or whether he can carry this region or that region.  It is about inspiring people with true vision and leadership.  Remember just because one has charisma and a kind of folks charm doesn't make them a leader, just ask "W"

I live in Northern Illinois and my brother is in Wisconsin.  Thompson is not going to go anywhere.  I suspect when wisconsin voted for him they were probably thinking of the republican governor of Illinois named Thompson and hoped to get as lucky.
I am no republican -god forbid- but, James thompson was a pretty good governor here.
The state of thier nominees is pathic in the republican party.  they are suffering from the purging of the moderates.  They need the independents to get elected.  With the hard right turned of the party (and wanting to go even further if possible) they turned off the independents.  And they will not tolerate Guilliani because he is a despised moderate.

Chuck Hagel.

He's completely underrated right now.

phat

The Republicans nominated John C. Fremont for the 1856 election.

Other than Obama, I agree our side of the ledger is none too impressive, either.  

One quible with Jonathan Singer's description of Romney as a "non-Protestant," I am unsure as to whether Mormons consider themselves part of the Protestant movement or not.  And while it is true many evangelicals do not regard Mormons as Christians, this is by no means the universal position, and it may not be even the majority opinion.  That said, I do not believe Romney will win the nomination.  

Tommy Thompson is a literally bloated gasbag who may still be enormously peopular in Wisconsin, but who also left the state a fiscal wreck.  He is also a megalomaniac who flirts with running for Senate or Governor every two years, much to the chagrin of the WI GOP.  Ultimatley, I doubt he will run, but if he does, he will get as far as Duncan Hunter.  

John McCain is one of the smartest (or perhaps craftiest?) politicians in Washington today.  Don't count him out for a second.  

I also would be careful about the assumption that conservatives don't like him.  I think he's made the most enemies among the business lobbyist community, with campaign finance reform, attacking earmarks, etc.  I suspect that there are many grass-roots Republicans who are crazy about him.  Plus, he can win many independents.  

I agree with all the comments about wishful thinking.  Forget about all these other boobs and keep your eye on McCain.

I'm pulling for Gingrich.  C'mon Newt, get that GOP nomination.

As we all learned in high school, one must be a "natural born" citizen of the U.S. to be President, which would rule out the one actually popular Goop that they have, Herr Schwarznegger.  

But here's my question.  If Ahnold chose to run, who could stop him?  The matter would have to go to the Supremes, but who would have "standing," i.e. a direct and legitimate interest in the outcome?  Not citizens or taxpayers, precedent is fairly clear on that.  Maybe a primary opponent.  But the Constitution says the foreign-born person can't be President; nothing about running or being nominated by a major party.

The only way I see is if Ahnold ran and won the electoral vote; then his opponent could take him to court on the Constitutional question.  But if he won big, would that be feasible politics?  Even if not, how would the Roberts Court rule? "Natural born" could have several meanings, only one of which is "native born."  Perhaps "natural born" means not "from his mother's womb untimely ripp'd," as Shakespeare would have it.  Weak, but Scalia has demonstrated his belief that no argument giving his guy the victory is too weak.

Although now that I think about it, it might be a good idea to pass a constitutional amendment to allow foreign born citizens who've lived here a while to run for president. Just on the merits I think it's the right thing to do, but I think having Arnold in the race would help us. McCain, Giuliani and Arnold would all cannibalize each others' votes and we'd face someone like Frist or Gingrich that we can defeat in a walk.

Bush was pretty weak too, and we've been stuck with him for the past 6-years.  

Don't underestimate the right-wing media's ability and willingness to turn a steaming pile of crap into a strong presidential candidate just because it has an (R) next to it's name.  

Take a look around the right-wing blogs and you'll see an amazing degree of hatred of McCain. Check this post out from Hugh Hewitt on McCain and the Gang of 14. Then there's Rush Limbaugh has called McCain a traitor on numerous occasions. You cannot expect the talk radio circuit to do the dirty work for John McCain.

In fact, the conservative base likes Giuliani more than it does McCain. They know Giuliani is socially "liberal," but they generally trust him to be tough and honest. They think McCain is sellout and a whore.

Are you kidding?  With a McCain-Giuliani ticket they've got balance in ethinicity, religion, geography, government experience, age, and ideology.  With a ticket like that they don't need anyone else.  And the Mommy Party's Hilary is going to sound like an inexperienced cold scold in comparison, in other words like your Momma when you were 15.

And why the fuck does this thing keep telling me the subject is too long when I use the same subject as everyone else?

Once again I find myself astonished by fellow bloggers believing any GOP candidate has a chance in 2008.  GWB has all but destroyed the United States, both its fiscal solvency for decades to come, and its ability to forge alliances the world over.  

As Bill Maher is apt to point out, America permitted itself to become insane over 9/11, and for all the wrong reasons.  The result has been a loss of civil liberties and a surrender to the most egregious radical elements of our society.  

Giuilani was a has-been before 9/11, and all he has left is the false image perpetuated by Rove and his punditocracy.  But with the Democrats in charge of Congress, and genuine investigations into the most impeachable offenses (what presidential impeachment in the Constitution was all about) by the GWB administration and its acolytes--both Giuliani and McCain being two--do not for one moment believe that any GOP candidate aligned with GWB will have a prayer in 2008.

For those who believe that the GOP is all about winning, well, then, how to account for the selection of Dole in 1996?  The GOP is all about entitlement, thus the inept scion of the Bush dynasty being thrust upon the American people.  Shrub did not win the presidency--neither by virtue of popular vote nor in Florida--but was rather thrust upon us all by a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, whose majority judges in effect wanted to select their own conservative-leaning successors.  This was, and much of the world has known for some time, a coup d'etat, carried on with the blessing of the anti-Clinton punditocracy.

Remember, too, that Shrub barely made it to reelection--with all the fanfare of Rove and media trumpeting him as a "wartime president," he could garner no more than a 51-49% win over the drab and campaigner-challenged John Kerry. And that assumes that Shrub ganered even that--we in Ohio know differently, which is why Ken Blackwell, who, like Katherine Harris in the election cycle before, nefariously sealed the presidency for Shrub, was soundly defeated in his race for governor.  So if GWB never really won the presidency with all the power of a GOP Congress to anoint him, with the Dems in charge of both houses now, and in an honest election cycle, praytell who can posit success for a GOP long aligned with GWB?

Giuliani has never been vetted in a national campaign.  Once dissected of his Rovian imagery, few outside of the Rovian circle will even want to touch him.  And of McCain?  Dear Lord, this badly aging dinosaur whom Shrub throttled will be lucky to make it out of his home state in 2008.

The great tragedy among the bloggers and many others in the Democratic Party is that they yet fail to understand just how potent a force is William Jefferson Clinton.  She speaks for millions when Ariana Huffington calls Bill Clinton (whom she once loathed) "The most gifted politician of his generation."  Republicans were so terrified of him that they still advanced impeachment against Clinton's then prohibitive popularity polls.  Newt Gingrich feared one-on-one meetings with Clinton, being mindful of the effects of his obvious allure.

Of course, Ross Perot's 2000 candidacy was a boon to Clinton.  But one must recall that Perot became himself positively disposed toward Clinton--as ultimately did President George Herbert Walker Bush too.  Indeed, it can be well argued that President Bush 41 is now on friendlier terms with Bill Clinton than with his own son!  Such is the potency of Clinton's appeal--beyond the long entrenched adversaries whose hatred was perhaps born of the fact that they were dealing with a force they could not, nor never can, comprehend.

And the bloggers yet dismiss Hillary Clinton because she has some high negatives?  There is no greater force in contemporary American politics than her husband, who would be personally supervising her campaign.  Obama is extraordinary--but he too has never been vetted in a national campaign, and the Clintons have been investigated more thoroughly than any other politicans in modern memory.  Giuliani, and all other prospective GOP candidates save McCain, have never faced the wrath of national press inquisitions, nor has Obama and several other prospective candidates for 2008 on the Democratic side.

McCain would not only escalate but exacerbate the Iraq War.  Not only does he not now "get it," he would never "get it" so rooted is he to a military which, when errant, only a civilian leader could reign in.

No, dear fellow bloggers, McCain and Giuliani and Jeb are all part of the Dark Ages of GWB and company.  The 2008 campaign will be nostalgic for Clinton years of comparative peace and prosperity and of secure alliances on a world stage.  As an antidote, much of the country will turn, if not to the Clintons themselves, then to those potential camdidates who at least understood the magic of the Bill Clinton formula of charm and fortitude.  Which is far, far, from the current crop of candidates for the presidency emanating out of the GOP.

between now and the run-up to Iowa, something to remember. Blog-borne dialogues will heavily affect how candidates' images are shaped. Keith will take on Rush--sideline skirmishes like that will be part of the pageantry. For Hillary, McCain, Gore, etc., it may not be as powerful a force as for the more emerging candidates. MSM reporters will compete with each other for who figures out what's happening at the 'roots level sooner. It's silly to sit here in late '06 thinking how The Capitol Gang disparaged Lamar Alexander's flannel shirts and think oh-my-gosh, The Capitol Gang and all our other DC kingmakers and kingslayers... how will they wield their mighty influence over the events of 2008? Media influences opinion strongly, of course, but the media cast of characters isn't static.  

Can Mitt Romney, who was until recently pro-choice and who is running as a non-Protestant in a party that has never nominated a non-Protestant, win?

According to Wikipedia, Abe Lincoln had no religious affiliation.  Ulysses S. Grant didn't either.

Ancient history, I know, but "never" is a long time.

I remember a conversation I had with Rob Portman before Cheney was chosen as Bush's running mate.  He was an advisor to the search and he seemed really high on Tommy Thompson. Then again, Rob Portman WILL be on a ticket at some point ... though probably as a VP candidate initially.