I'm one of your social conservatives and I'd pull behind Giuliani right now, for sure. I actually think a Republican ticket with one social liberal (social moderate? Nah..not on the "one side or the other issues") and a social conservative on it. Balance in that case is a good thing, IMO.

The NYP needs to do better research. Moore had an official roll at this year's DNC. It wasn't prime time, but he delivered a speech all the same. His speech was far more liberal than what was on display during prime time, and does a far better job of showing the Democratic party's true stripes. Hugh Hewitt has a transcript.

Beck,

That wasn't at the convention. That was at an off-site forum, presumably sponsored by some related group. His appearance was affiliated with, but not part of the official activities.

Bill,

Hell, I would vote for Condoleeza right now if I could, but the rest of those fellows don't impress me.

McCain? No! The dirtbag! I really do hope condaleeza runs, though. She'd make one hell of a great first woman president. Much better than hillary.

LE - Can you kindly explain to me why McCain is a "dirtbag?" Because he breaks ranks to often?

Russell - Rufy Giuliani and McCain don't impress you, but Condi does? While I like Condi, she is the least qualified on the list, Rudy the most. He is one of the few politicians I've ever monitored that really gets things done.

I'm curious why you think Ridge is so moderate.

Bryan -

http://www.issues2000.org/Tom_Ridge.htm

http://citypaper.net/articles/050400/sl.howcol.shtml

Bill,

I wasn't basing my impressions on the person's experience, but their beliefs. Condoleeza is the only one of that group that has communicated a clear-sighted appraisal of who our enemy is, and what we need to do to protect ourselves from them. Granted, this may be because none of the others (save Colin Powell, who's hopeless anyway) was ever in a position where they needed to articulate such a stance, but at least I know Condoleeza has it right. She's also at least as intelligent as the others (probably moreso) and has a knack for putting her ideas forward forcefully and skillfully.

Colin Powell has never articulated a particularly hawkish stance, but both McCain and Giuliani have, one largely identical to that of Dr. Rice.

Giuliani/Rice '08! In either order.

Gen Powell is great as Sec State - he needs to stay there.

If Giuliani was to get the DCI spot or the "Intel Czar" thing if they knee-jerk that into being, he would be a great prospect for POTUS or VPOTUS.

Dr. Rice is dynamic, experienced, smart, and articulate. She could handle either position as well.

All of the others mentioned in these comments are great team players; perfect at cabinet level.

My $.02 - $.0078 when adjusted for inflation.

Let's not confuse "national appeal" with electability. You are equating national appeal with media appeal. McCain is the darling of the press, but got crushed by Bush in 2000. I suspect the country is more socially conservative than you care to acknowledge.

I have concerns about the star power of the Republican bench. I could vote for Rice, Powell, Ridge or McCain over anyone the Democrats could put up. But let's be realistic -- Powell and McCain will be too old in 2008 and have had health issues. I'd love Giuliani. Despite my disagreement with him on some social issues, his leadership skills would make him a great president. But if he takes the intel tsar position he runs the risk of making it impossible to win in 2008 in the event we suffer any domestic attack or intelligence setback (much like what Ridge would face).

"I could vote for Rice, Powell, Ridge or McCain over anyone the Democrats could put up. "

That's the key. Clinton's triangulation worked. McCain might have lost in primaries, but he'd clean up in a national election.

Giuliani is a gun grabber, of the worst sort. Like P.M. Howard in Oz. He'd get rid of them all, without apology. If that aspect of his agenda could be neutralized, I'd have no problem voting for him.