Ghost of a flea

About as good as Rockefeller/Humphrey. Sheesh.

In a general election, I'd go to polls for Thompson or Romney. After McCain pissed on the 1st Amendment with McCain-Feingold he's out; and Giuliani's stance on social issues and guns is unacceptable.

So ironic: I helped McCain get elected Senator way back when... met him several times in Arizona; got a personal "thank you" note from him around here somewhere. Another pol that "grew in office." Why do they always grow to the left?

I am a foreigner, obviously, so can only speak as an interested observer. I agree the problems you cite and still hold out some deranged hope for FRED! to come up the middle as the compromise establishment candidate. This outcome is entirely possible and, arguably, no less likely than the alternatives. Thompson is the only man in the field I can imagine writing in the time of the Federalist Papers.

That said, Giuliani and McCain are by no means the worst in the field from my point of view. I am a one issue voter, that being the importance of crushing the enemy, driving him before us and listening to the lamentations of the women. And I loved McCain's crack about Romney being the candidate of change; so satisfying. Huckabee strikes me as totally unacceptable for reasons which are obvious and Romney as a man of no convictions beyond self-interest. I think Romney would be better than Huckabee but seeing as I think both of them would lose, say, forty states in the general it is a moot point. Then everyone concerned about 2nd Amendment rights and Roe vs. Wade can look forward to a Supreme Court dominated by Clinton/Obama appointees for the next forty years. Assuming, of course, the jihad does not bring down civilization in the meantime.

My 2 cents.

McCain-Feingold.

Conan reference! I knew you all spotted it; I just wanted you to know I knew you knew.

McCain-Feingold; true.

But also, say, Obama-Edwards. A lesser of two weevils scenario...

I sympathize very much on your "one-issue" stance... that's how I was able to go vote for Bush in 04 rather than stay home. However, I will not allow a candidate nor a party to use that to make me their bitch.

As for Obama-Edwards and nominations, some years ago I passed the "the worse, the better" point.

As a Canadian I have a wide variety of socialist parties to vote for - including a supposed Conservative Party - so am spoiled for choice; I expect this colours my perspective. The problem, it seems to me, is that the last time the Republican base tried to send a message at the voting booth it resulted in a Democrat controlled House claiming a mandate against the war when their slim victory was down to conservatives enraged by Republican spending, corruption and dithering on the war. Judging from this field of candidates - Thompson excepted - it seems the message was not heard.

So, what to do? Guerrilla actions such as the successful dextrosphere/talk radio campaigns against the Dubai ports deal, the amnesty sell out and the ever more virtual border fence were enough to corral a squish President. Handing the White House over to an explicitly pro-choice and anti-war party seems like a bad idea to me regardless of whether your issues are socon or security con. I admit - again excepting Thompson - it is wipe out for fiscal conservatives and small government conservatives across the board.

Is it just me, or can HRC be read not only as Hillary Rodham Clinton, but also as Her Royal Clintonness? Seems appropriate, n'est-ce pas?

I read somewhere the other day that HRC also stands for Human Rights Commission... coincidence?