Romney's is an appallingly dishonest campaign -- the best that can be said for him is that he doesn't really mean the things he says (the idea that he is underneath it all truly still a moderate).  Even less appealing is Giuliani's ridiculous posturing as the hero of 9/11 (to say nothing of his personal ethics).

How these two have so far eclipsed a man of the character of John McCain is beyond my weak powers of comprehension - at least in matters concerning the internal politics of the GOP.  But to assume that McCain cannot overcome their current advantages is to write off the good sense of a large part of our nation.  

Compared with Romney and Giuliani, McCain is a giant.  While I have my problems with his support of the Iraq war, and could never vote for any of these Republicans, I am loathe to accept the judgment that the Republicans will be choosing between Rudy and Romney.  It's just too disgusting.  

Now that Fred has wilted like a salted snail, I go agree with it will be either Guiliani or Romney.  And this is good for the Democrats, even if HC is the nominee.  Right now, only Guiliani has even a chance to winning a nat'l election, and that is an iffy chance at that. If Dash Riprock somehow gets the nod, it will be an ugly November for the GOP.

McCain, good man he may be, is ancient history and his campaign will be over as soon as the voting begins, probably after the 3rd or 4th second tier finish.  At least John Kerry had someone who loved him enough to keep him from embarrassing himself in 08.  Poor McCain...

I always love your posts Neil - no shilly-shallying around with you. You're like my id.  

I had dinner with my very right wing Republican uncle last night. He's given loads of money over the years, he's very active in the whole thing.  He's an absolute crazy person, but I adore him.  He at least has the decency to be a McCain supporter and we've gone to events of his together.  I love McCain, I don't care what he says and I'm a liberal Democrat.

I spoke of how nervous I was that Guiliani was becoming the Republican frontrunner. With Senator Clinton's negatives, the idea that Rudy effing Guiliani - a glib amoral nut job who everyone on Talkback knows I detest - could actually pull this off depressed me to no end.  He immediately said "Honey, I hate to say it, but everyone knows Hillary will kick his sorry ass without even raising her heartbeat."

Then he said "Great job you all are doing in Congress, keep it up."  We laughed.

Only the Gods know where we will be come November, 2007.  

I'm perfectly willing to accept that Republicans will choose either Rudy or Romney for the nomination, at the expense of a better man like John McCain.  Such is the nature of the GOP in 2007 and 2008.

What will be interesting will be whether a third-party candidate from some aspect of the Right (social conservative, paleocon, or otherwise) will emerge in this race.  If Ron Paul does well in New Hampshire, it wouldn't surprise me to see him run as the Libertarian Party candidate in 2008.  He did so in 1988, when he was a much more obscure candidate, and the Libertarians have ballot access in most states already, which overcomes a big barrier to entry for third-party candidates.  

You're right myzaguirre - New Hampshire has a way of shocking people.  I

It's agree that it's possible that Ron Paul might end up running as a Libertarian.  What I wonder about is: will that help or hurt the Democratic nominee?  Normally the answer would be obvious, but lately it seems that a significant chuck of Paul's support comes from the hipster left.

McCain is a giant upon midgets, of course, but I could probably stand a Romney presidency without fleeing the country.  Giuliani, on the other hand...

Ron Paul is supposedly going to drop a few million dollars in New Hampshire for ad buys, etc.  He may end up getting a good portion of the vote, and the free publicity that goes with it.  Then, when the GOP noise machine turns on him with the vigor that we are all acquainted to, he has a prime excuse to bolt the GOP and go Libertarian, saying that he legitimately won a lot of votes in an early primary, and was still shabbily treated by the Party.  Speculation, yes.  But not outside the realm of possibility.  

Here's a good article on his latest moves in the NH GOP primary: marcambinder.theatlantic.com/.../when_i_visited_ron_pauls.php

Intrade is a good predictor of trends, but should be taken with a grain of salt. Ron Paul's supporters constantly jack his numbers up to laughable levels, for starters. Also, according to Intrade, in a 50/50 nation; the Republicans have only a 35% chance of winning the presidency in 2008. I'd be the first to tell you they've got to be the underdogs on that one, but 35% is ridiculous. These are micro examples of a macro trend at Intrade. Let me put it this way: Political prediction markets fall prey to irrational exuberance too, and far more so because of ideology.

I have a considerable amount of money invested in Intrade and have made a 36% profit on it overall, in the last six months. I'm successful at it for two reasons: I don't let my ideology (liberal) effect my investment decisions and I've learned the art of profiting off of those who do. The only real losses I've taken have been when I invested TOO rationally.

PS...and, yeah, I think Fred Barnes is pretty spot-on with that, too. Right now I have money in 3 stocks, or "positions" as they call them, over at Intrade: Romney to win the Presidency (currently at 8.5%); Giuliani to win the Presidency (currently at 18%); and Clinton to win the Democratic Nomination (currently 70%).

Giuliani's numbers ought to be higher, around 25. Romney's too, probably 15 or so. And Hillary is as sure a bet as any. I always tell people, "Life is simple: figure out what you're good at and find a way to make money at it." Getting into to Intrade was probably one of the best decisions I ever made.

According to Slate's election scorecard, Romney is ahead in both Iowa and New Hampshire. So right now the augury is that Romney comes out of NH with two straight wins under his belt and all the momentum and money that entails. Combine that with Rudy's apostacy on issues ranging from gun control to abortion, and it's hard for me to see Rudy beating Mitt to the nomination. Of course, New Hampshire has a way of upsetting the apple cart, but right now my crystal ball sez Clinton vs. Romney in November 08, and a Clinton II White House in January 09. We'll see.

Still hoping against hope that Gore will jump in at the last moment and scatter them all like cockroaches. Yeah, I know--dream on.

Isaac's already linked to Fred Barnes's analysis of the GOP race, but I'll link to it again

I'm going to disagree with Barnes and everyone else and say it's wide open on the GOP side.  Well, not completely wide open, but there are scenarios for McCain and Huckabee that are only unlikely because of the money.  And aren't there scads of donors who anoint the winner of IA and NH?

The reason is that Huck has a real shot at IA and McCain has a real shot at NH.  Rudy and Mitt could slay each other in the runup to the votes, spending themselves down into McCain and Huckabee territory, lose or at least lose relative to expectations, and then we have SC and MI and other states picking the GOP nominee.  Romney may be from MI, but that state has not been kind to his family trying to trade on their name since George Romney was governon about a million years ago.  

I think the big reason you won't have a second tier winner might be McCain and Huckabee splitting delegates, but if those two got together, they could jointly defeat Mitt and Rudy.

That being said I PRAY that Barnes is right.  Rudy and Mitt would be the most beatable of the four non-joke candidates.

The love for Cmdr McCain is rather sweet, but it ignores the actual McCain positions and concentrates on an out-dated image. As of now (1) he favors a continuation of the war with minimal changes; (2) his position with the religious right is incoherent; (3) he has no understanding of any of the key financial and domestic issues a President would face. And, to be brutally frank, he is an older man whose body has never recovered from torture which surely weakens his ability to campaign. Why on earth should anyone in the GOP support his candidacy? Answer: nobody does.

ratnerstar

If we didn't flee the country under Bush, we probably will stick it out even if Giuliani were to succeed him. But I share your view of the Mayor.

Neil

Romney's another Bob Dole, without a sense of humor. He's like the most obnoxious MBA whippersnapper you ever met. Here's hoping the Powerpoint Troll sweeps IA and NH. We'd crush him in the general.

Giuliani scares the sh*t out of me, esp the way he invokes all the bugaboos of the Reagan era: the Threat + crime and race and welfare queens etc.  There is indeed a threat, but the thought of Norman Podhoretz defining that threat and our appropriate response to it is truly terrifying. If someone doesn't persuade Rudy to lay off his "gotta play offense" spiel, he too will be easy to defeat in the general. Given the escalating Turco-Kurdish conflict, we're now embroiled in our THIRD unfinished mideast war; the percentage of likely voters who want us to start a fourth mideast war had got to be far far south of 50%.

McCain and Huckabee are the GOP's wisest choice. They're canny and they _speak like normal people_. I wouldn't rule them out.