Usually pro-choice is a deal buster for me, but since I can't conceive of the Dems nominating anyone pro-life, I would go for Rudy or Mitt. I voted for Rudy Perpich the only time I went "off the reservation" and when it came to Arne Carlson, my vote was nothing to be ashamed of!

Mitch said,

"spending 4-8 years under a Democrat who will be demonstraby worse"

Sure... And we've had a great 6 years under Bush haven't we Mitch...

Compared to the alternative? Sure.

Now, I was a Forbes supporter up until about 9/11. Bush has his shortcomings.

But Bush on a bad day is better than Gore, ever.

A "great 6 years under Bush"? Let's see, economy is booming, Taliban hiding in caves instead of beating unarmed people to death, Saddam in jail instead of power, five years without another domestic terror attack, the absolute joy of watching moonbat cranial explosions on a daily basis, the liberal media hegemony disintegrating...
on balance it's been pretty good.

Now regarding the post, the GOP does have a real problem: me. I'm a conservative. I've never given a dime to the GOP or attended their caucus. I voted for Jimmy Carter. Twice. I voted for Ronald Reagan once. I have never voted democrat since.
All that being said, the GOP is giving me very little reason to support them. Fiscal responsibility? Don't make me laugh. Immigration reform and border enforcement? Ay carumba! The only thing they have going is the pro-life issue, and since liberals are more likely to abort themselves out of existence than conservatives, I wonder if I should get all bent out of shape on that issue either.
May 2 2006 - I'm calling it here. The GOP is going to lose big in November. It may be a good thing. It may be what saves their not so deserving asses in 08.

Given these choices? Rudy for prez. Maybe balance him out with someone like Rumsfeld, if not Rumsfeld himself, which I'd still kind of like to see but I know that would probably not fly now, even if Rummy would do it. Or Rudy and Steve Forbes/a Forbes-like person. Rudy/Condi? Hmm...

Now understand I have voted for bad Republicans before, Nixon was the first, but if those are my choices, the libertarians just locked up my vote.
Rudy & Mitt are "Scoop Jackson" Republicans, and if you look at their social/fiscal programs they are just more free spenders. With no great loyalty to most conservative causes. The rest are no great shakes. Heck, if the Dem's could get past Hillary and nominate someone like Bill Richardson, they may be able to win again.

“Rudy & Mitt are "Scoop Jackson" Republicans, and if you look at their social/fiscal programs they are just more free spenders.”

Really now. My understanding is that Romney closed a $2 Billion deficit without tax increases and held spending to about 3.5 percent a year with a legislature that was 85 percent Democrat. I guess you and I have a different idea of what makes one a “free spender.”

I'm a George Allen Guy, I think he has a good chance.

I'm pro-choice, so that doesn't bug me with Rudy. I'm pro-gun so that is an issue.

I doubt that the Republicans are smart enough to get Rudy throught the nomination process. I'd have no problem voting for Rudy as long as he promised to impose fiscal discipline, by veto if necessary.

I like Mitt and I hope he stays in Mass.

"I'm calling it here. The GOP is going to lose big in November."

Unlikely. When the GOP retook Congress in 1994, it was because they had a specific plan ("Contract With America"). Right now the only thing the Dems have is "We hate Bush !!". That's not enough to win.

If the Dems are able to turn this election into a referendum on the President, they have a shot. However, without a specific plan plan they're dead in the water.

Furthermore, there are three trends which are hard to ignore. One is that that non-Presidential year elections generally have lower voter turnout. Another is that this lower voter turnout has, historically, favored the GOP. The third is that Congressional incumbents have a huge percentage of re-election. These lead me to believe that although the Dems may pick up some token seats here and there, the GOP will not lose big but will pretty much maintain.

"I doubt that the Republicans are smart enough to get Rudy throught the nomination process."

I’m not sure that Giuliani as the nominee would be a wise idea. Vice President Cheney isn't running himself in large part because of his health problems. The last time Rudy Giuliani ran for office (the Senate in 2000), he had to drop out because of prostate cancer. Should he be a candidate in 2008, his health and comparisons with Cheney’s health will be a big issue.

This would have been an easy call a few years ago - Geo. Allen. For a variety of reasons (some clear, some unclear), though, I am leaning toward Rudy.

Lots of things bug me about Rudy, but lots of things are bugging me about conservatives these days. I refused to vote for Arne in '94 because of his contempt for conservatives. Then he came around in '97 or so. Then he essentially became a Democrat, opposing Matt Dean. Although Rudy reminds me of Arne in some ways, he doesn't seem as much a malicious jerk.

It really is quite depressing for anyone who favors a federalist approach to limited government, which means it is as depressing as most elections. I suppose I'll vote in the general election for whomever is better on foreign policy, which means the Democrats can't get my vote until they abandon the McGovernite approach to national security.

Mitch said,

"But Bush on a bad day is better than Gore, ever."

Thanks for that in depth analysis Professor Berg. In response, I've prepared a short response...

Nu huh. He is not. So there.

Check and mate.

Kermit blathered,

"economy is booming"

Then someone needs tell the American Public because according to them, things aren't looking so rosey and as you know, since I work in retail, I hear how terrible things are every day from my customers.

"Taliban hiding in caves instead of beating unarmed people to death"

Really? What's this? - "The Taliban and al-Qaida are everywhere," a shopkeeper, Haji Saifullah, told the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry"

Read the whole thing Kermit or are you afraid to get your news from somewhere besides FOX News?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/world/asia/03afghan.html?hp&ex=1146628800&en=0692a5a972d58a3a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"Saddam in jail instead of power"

A paper tiger who was absolutely no threat to the United States was overthrown and all it cost was 400 billion dollars and 2400 American lives. Yippie.

"five years without another domestic terror attack"

But internationally - against our alies and friends, there were more terrorist attacks in '05 than in '04. More in '04 than '03. I don't know about '03 vs. '02 but i'm guessing the same increase is true. They don't need to attack us on our own soil numbskull.

"the absolute joy of watching moonbat cranial explosions on a daily basis, the liberal media hegemony disintegrating..."

I wonder if it's as fun as when I used to watch you guys all apoplectic over Bill and Hillary Clintons a few years ago?

Doug the clerk whined "Then someone needs tell the American Public because according to them, things aren't looking so rosey"

Of course they get their news from the totally objective MSM which does such a good job of factual analysis. They do a great job of non-factual analysis too.

"The Taliban and al-Qaida are everywhere,"

Except in power, running a country. Makes a diff, dontcha think?

"A paper tiger who was absolutely no threat to the United States was overthrown and all it cost was 400 billion dollars and 2400 American lives. Yippie."

How many American lives did the overthrow of Hitler and Tojo cost? Shit you Move-on morons always want something for nothing, don't you?

"But internationally"

But, but, but, I wasn't talking internationally. Diversion supressed.

"I wonder if it's as fun as when I used to watch you guys all apoplectic over Bill and Hillary Clintons a few years ago?"

I wonder if you're capable of having fun, Doug. I thought the Clintons were a laugh riot. especially that "I worked harder on the middle-class tax cut than I've ever worked before. I just couldn't get er done". What a comedian. Maybe they'll get him to do next year's Correspondent's dinner. If they get him to wave his million dollar speaking fee.

Kermit cried,

"Of course they get their news from the totally objective MSM which does such a good job of factual analysis. They do a great job of non-factual analysis too."

You mean the same totally objective MSM that says the economy is booming? The same MSM that has been saying the economy has been soaring for 4 years now? Damn, when will the American Public stop looking at the reality of their own situation and just pay attention to the man behind the curtain!

"Except in power, running a country. Makes a diff, dontcha think?"

I'll answer your question with a question. Who is/was a bigger threat to American troops in Iraq; Husseins' elite Army or the alleged insur-gents (filter wouldn't allow the word ur-gents) blowing up humvees and taking pot shots at troops?

"Shit you Move-on morons always want something for nothing, don't you?"

Something for nothing? Uh no. But let's look at what we were sold shall we?

Budget Director Mitch Daniels

"the costs would be between $50-$60 billion"

When a asked whether the administration was preparing to ask other countries to help defray possible Iraq war costs, the budget director said "he knew of no such plans."

"There’s just no reason that this can’t be an affordable endeavor.

"The United States is committed (to) helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

Donald Rumsfeld

"under $50 billion for the cost"

"I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do."

"If you worry about just the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan Iraq has oil. They have financial resources."

"I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense. [Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it."

Adviser Glen Hubbard

"Costs of any such intervention would be very small."

Ari Fleischer

"there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."

Paul Wolfowitz

I think it's necessary to preserve some ambiguity of exactly where the numbers are."

"There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Josh Bolten

"We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for the balance of this year." Congresional testimony - 7/03.

And comparing the casuaties of war in Iraq to World War 2? You're either very stupid or... Well, nevermind. You're just very stupid.

"But, but, but, I wasn't talking internationally."

Of course not. You wouldn't want to see the bigger picture because it might not look so pretty. But good on you for staying consistently myopic.

"And comparing the casuaties of war in Iraq to World War 2? You're either very stupid or... Well, nevermind. You're just very stupid."

Wow. Who could argue with such brilliance? I'm convinced Doug.

Kermit said,

"I'm convinced Doug"

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything Kermit. It was a simple observation.

To your question, "I wonder if you're capable of having fun, Doug", the answer is yes. For example, About once a month, I collect your posts and invite friends over and we read them aloud. We used to read Bush's malaprops but we found that you're a lot funnier.

Two things you forgot to mention about Rudy, Mitch, are that he's also pro gay rights, and that he dressed in drag on an annual basis for a song-and-dance act here in the city. I think as soon as that video hits the wires, he loses the nomination.

I really don't think Rudy dressing up will hurt his chances. Look at Bush - He plays dress up all the time and it seems to have helped him. I've seen him dressed up as a pilot and as a cowboy and Republican voters seem to really dig that stuff.

Maybe Rudy can combine his interests and go to the 2008 convention as either Amelia Earhart or Dale Evans.

That might be good for the Log Cabin vote?