The polls i have seen at polling compilation websites show Rudy and McCain at #2, and #1. In this poll it seems alot of people actively DISLIKE mcCain. what do you think accounts for mcCain's less enthusiastic showing amongst the digerati?

This is a tough one Bill. I suppose that the people who picked Newt weren't viewing the poll as a practical matter, but rather as a referendum on their real preference. Just like Dean supporters.

The concern I have is the list of most favored and the clear limitations of nearly all of them.

10) Bill Owens (9.5) - semi-unknown
9) Sam Brownback (12.0) - semi-unknown
8) John McCain (13.0) - too unpredictable, scary
7) Mitt Romney (15.5) - terrific, but a Mormon and sort of pro choice
6) Tom Tancredo (17.0) - who?
5) Newt Gingrich (19.0) - He's Newt
4) Bill Frist (20.0) - a weenie, too soft
3) Jeb Bush (31.0) - Dynasty problem. Too much like royalty.
2) Rudy Giuliani (39.0) - pro-choice, baggage
1) Condoleeza Rice (61.5) - Solid, but: abortion stance? Black and a woman, how will that play?

I'm guessing that the RNC doesn't have a safe play until you get to Brownback and Owens. They should probably be building those guys up. If Romney were a pro-life Catholic/protstant he'd be gold.

Wasn't me. This is what I think of Newt Gingrich.

what do you think accounts for mcCain's less enthusiastic showing amongst the digerati?

Repubicans dislike McCain because they think he's always willing to throw the Party (or a specific issue) under the bus for some press attention. I always still liked him, but I seriously question this bizarre focus on steroids (govt. overreach), and found some of his posturing during the election to be distasteful. He can't get the nomination, though he'd probably have the appeal to win the Presidency.

SteveL -

Despite Rudy's moderate views, he still polls well among all conservatives. Condoleeza would probably make a good VP pick. Jeb Bush is a great executive, but the dynasty thing does get old. The rest are relatively unknown, but hey, the bench you just listed is a lot better than the Dems will have in four years.

Have you seen LeShawn Barber's take on Gingrich the candidate? She wouldn't vote for him, and it boils down to one word: Character.

For example: "...I think Gingrich is a man of low character. He served his first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital suffering from cancer. During Bill Clinton’s impeachment scandal, he’d been cheating on his second wife with one of his staff and told her over the phone while she was attending her mother’s birthday party that he wanted a divorce. I won’t even get into the ethics violations."

It's all here: http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/01/17/why/

Oh, crap. LaShawn beat me to it.

Rudy G and Condi would be a practically unbeatable ticket in 2008, the problem will be that the GOP won't nominate them. Just as the DNC has to cater to its extremist factions for the nomination. They tried to compromise this year and they ended up with John Kerry (Joe Lieberman was too moderate-conservative, but the mainstream Dems knew that Howard Dean had no hope). Maybe, if the GOP is lucky, a compromise will occur that allows that ticket to happen, but sadly I doubt it.

Rudy G and Condi would be a practically unbeatable ticket in 2008, the problem will be that the GOP won't nominate them---

Apart from it being WAY too early for 2008,I feel that the 'who gets nominated'will depend much more on what has happened in IRAQ(and other dysfunctional areas) than on some vague 'social'agenda.If(well,let's be honest---WHEN)the Democrats nominate another of the usual suspects in 2008,the IMPORTANT thing for Republicans(and everyone else)will be to ensure the Dem candidate goes down in flames.Whoever can most efficiently get that job done will probably be the candidate.
The only person who will absolutely NOT be nominated is McCain for exactly the reasons highlighted by others.He is way too much of a media-whore,and an opportunist,and his liberal media buddies are not popular with too many Republicans.

Can you imagine the campaign posters if it were Newt Gingrich vs. Ted Kennedy in 2008? It would like a battle between giant, pink Zardoz heads.

Based on that list, you're dealing mostly with name recognition.

IMO, Newt would be bad news for reasons other than the "Prince of Darkness" and "huge head" grounds (substantive though they are ...).

Newt's tenure as speaker demonstrated a lack of administrative ability - while I recognize some good came from his Speakership, he got played on the government shutdown & that error effectively hamstrung the Republican majorities.

Newt simply wouldn't get anything done, even if he could get elected.

Oh, and P.S. - I'm not impressed with how he runs his own life, either.

McCain's a "sudden respect" junkie. "Sudden respect" is what a Republican gets when he disparages another Republican.

I didn't vote in this one, but I'd say off the bat that campaign finance reform disqualifies McCain. I like Newt as an intellect, but the majority of American voters are more likely to elect an order of dim sum than Newt.

Rudy has a lot of baggage. Owens is a good governor, but he's as wooden as Gore, and without the tongue kissing. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo -- the nation's foremost immigration reform advocate -- would be too much a single-issue candidate and would be labeled (unfairly) a racist by a vociferous collection of pandering, racist progressives.

Condi is going to carry the Bush name as prominently as Jeb, and so is going to have to wait; Brownback I don't know much about; Frist? He's more of a Tom Hayden than a Sonny Corleone.

Which leaves only one man: Bruce Willis.

Yippee Kiyah, islamofascist motherfuckers.

Reading some of the comments at RWN and at some of the linked voting blogs , its not surprising that Newt had so many positive votes. There seems to be quite a few R’s who feel that Bush is too moderate, and that the party will win even more votes if it moves more to the right.

That just proves to me that there are idiots in both parties. It seems as if the R’s have done a better job the past few years of keeping their idiots satiated without actually doing much other than some lip service. They need to keep walking that tight rope without losing those voters. Of course, when the D’s throw up a candidate like Kerry or Dean, it makes the R’s job a whole lot easier.

Brownback is like McCain, anything for attention no matter if it hurts the country or the party. Look at the statements he made regarding Iraq prior to the election that were very critical of Bush. He's just another empty bloviator. He would never have the guts to say what he really thinks. If the Republicans are smart, they'll not nominate a Senator or anyone elected and living in D.C. I would guess if it looks like Hillary will get the Dem nod, there will be pressure to get a woman on the Rep ticket. Condi would be an obvious choice. A lot will depend on how things go the next 3 years and her performance as the SOS. If things go sour (which I don't expect), anyone connected with the Bush Adm would be out of the running.

LeShawn Barber is right on with her taken on Newt. The guy is dirty, as we say in the ghetto. However, you guys are sweating the abortion thing way too much. First, if you want to make illegal all abortions, you are left with a small minority (maybe 1 in 6). Most Americans favor some for of abortion, as well as some limitations on when they can be performed. Changing these attitudes (needed to retro Rowe v Wade) is frankly pie in the sky.

Getting Condi in on the ticket would be cool, even at VP. This would be a nice foil for Hillary. I know a lot of you don't particularly like Hillary (ok, putting it mild), but she is bright as well as manipulative and paranoid. If we could match Hillary with another lawyer type, and Condi with a strong pro-business running mate, then we could have a repeat of "the trial lawyers vs. the business persons," which would be interesting in its own right.

I love the word "ginormous."

And yes, that's all I have to add to the discussion.

Carrick -

I agree with your accurate take on abortion and the general electorate, but the problem with a pro-choice candidate is the far righties that want an outright ban, and who vote in disproportionate numbers in the primaries. But you still could be right that it's overstated even there, I don't know.

Gingrich is a loser for Pres from the git go, but I can understand where he might be getting some support. Watch him on any talk show ... if you suspend what you know about his personal life you want to be in this guy's history class. He speaks well, interestingly and makes absolute sense about things.

Dems have been able to run less than sterling character people because, frankly, they belittle that personal history has anything to do with public performance (they trot out FDR's own piccadillos as 'proof'). Gingrich's character is DOA.

Leave it to Jeff to suggest Bruce Willis, probably the best bet with Arnold on the sidelines.

The abortion question is interesting. I think it is important for the nominee to personally oppose abortion, even if their position is that it should be left to the states whether or not to ban it. Romney is essentially in this camp. Not sure on Rudy.

I actually think Romney is the brightest and best potential executive on the list, then perhaps Condi. The question is whether the south will vote for a mormon or a black woman. Rudi polls well now, but he showed some things last year that made me think he's not ready for a national election.

Apropos of Newt Gingrich, a seemingly off-topic start: Once, driving along I80, I saw a bumper sticker that said,

No! You can't do that! This is Oregon!

Gingrich is damaged goods, right enough, and has essentially no chance of being important as a political figure again. (Pundit, advisor, yes.) But he is a man of ideas. Agree or disagree, you have to admit he's thought about it and has positive suggestions.

Contrast that to the cries from both sides, though it seems to me more from the left than the right, of "No! You can't do that! I forbid! Don't do that!" No proposals, no suggestions. Apparent thought, but the result of the thought is stasis.

"Stop that!" is not a positive program; at the very least it needs to be "do something else." That's the attraction of Gingrich. Call it wishful thinking -- he'd be great if he wasn't carrying so much baggage.

Regards,
Ric Locke

Doesn't matter, I've already decided to vote Libertarian in '08 as a protest vote.