Edwards is the strongest Democratic candidate for the general election.

Romney is the weakest Republican, followed by Huckabee, Thompson, McCain, and Guiliani appears to be the strongest.

Edwards would easily beat any of them.

"knowing full well that he will be a loser come Election Day?"

How broadly pompous can you get with an opening statement like that...knowing full well that whatever candidate comes out of the GOP, unless a 3rd party throws into the mix an auto-win for Hillary, we'll be counting chads and holding our overnight counts from Ohio just like Bush-Kerry election.

Don't count Huckabee out so quickly. He's fought and beat the Clinton Machine in every election - he Has Reagan's top man at the campaign helm, and more importantly Mike is Right for U.S.! He will unite the GOP's he will take DEM votes (especially if Barak or Hillary win the nomination) I will admit John Edwards v. Huckabee would make me very nervous indeed. The other two Dem's wouldn't cause me to lose sleep in the least.

AS for Romney and Giuiliani....it would be a good opening for a 3rd party candidate to enter the race....and we'll have a Democrat for President - sending the GOP's a very clear and strong message as to who where their meat and potato's come from.

Bottom line - Clinton's can't win without a 3rd party in the mix...in fact that's probably true of any Democrat in our current national divide.

Please see:

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/why.php

EVANGELICALs For Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez 2008 YEA!

VOTE: ((( Peace Love Rockn Roll nRap Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez 2008. YEA!. Thanks to All )))))))))

The Christian Coalition, who has shown itself very quick to pick up a 38-cal. gun (of the state) and impose its moral authority on every other citizen, "Throw them in jail, tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies, etc.," put George W. Bush in office and cheered as he started a war and was quick call any who disagreed "unpatriotic."

To all Christians everywhere I would say, "Ye will know them by the fruits they bear."

Dear Practical Progressive:

Your 7:05 PM post ended thusly: "So, as someone who respects religion and diversity, I must nevertheless impose this religious test: any candidate for public office, to receive my vote, must demonstrate an unshakable commitment to using reason, not faith, to factually inform his or her public decisions."

That's about how I feel. I would add that while I am devoutly religious in an established faith, I sharply draw the line at imposing my views on anyone else in any shape or form, save to protect myself and my rights. My nose ends where someone else's begins, and vice-versa. I've seen a lot of hatred in my lifetime which arose out of religion, not to mention reading about the Crusades and the Thirty Years War, and I resolved a while ago that, while I was going to stick up for myself, I wasn't going to initiate hatred against anybody, or call anybody a sinner for not sharing my beliefs.

That's an important reason why I can't wait for That Man in the White House to leave it. He's all too ready to ram his beliefs down my throat, and my reaction is to regurgitate.

For MENECK: I can see you don't know a lot about Jews. My neighbors in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn (NOT including myself) are 100% conservative Republicans, for the same reasons that Mike Huckabee is--they are appalled (rightly or wrongly) with what they perceive to be the increasing secularization of America. On the other hand, most Jews in Manhattan are conventional liberals, except for those resident in Greenwich Village, who are off-the-deep-end leftists who mostly despise liberals as being too milk-and-watery. In short, stereotyping is a very risky business, not so?

Someone forgot Ron Paul a REAL Republican who is far more qualified, far more honest then any you spoke of.

ladies and gentlemen seriously take a few moments and read what Ron Paul stands for and why he scares the Republican and Democrat elite, why the media tries to ignore him and why Corporations that RUN the Congress are shivering in their gucci's PRAYING that Ron Paul continues to be ignored.

We you and I need Ron Paul and his convictions and principles.

Ron Paul 2008
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

How cleverly snotty. If one answers your question, that would place that person in the not exemplary, not civic-minded American camp.

You obviously had the same rhetoric instructor as Tucker Carlton.

Here's a question for you. Are you still beating your wife?

This blog has got me to thinking a little more about the God Vote, and, specifically, what's troubling about the possibility of a theologically conservative evangelical in the White House. Huckabee is a good case study in a way because he seems like a pretty decent guy, and he also seems to take the liberal side of his religion -- compassion for the poor and the oppressed -- fairly seriously, so he is pretty much the most inoffensive of possible religious right candidates, from a progressive perspective.

The fundamental issue is the one that came to our attention in the last presidential election -- the fact-based vs. faith-based divide. I am not a believer but was raised in a religious household, and have respect for the ways in which religion aspires to promote and express the nobler human proclivities, and also respect the mythopoeic function of religion. But every society must establish a way of agreeing, for public decisions, upon what is true and not true; and, in a pluralistic democracy, that way must be by following the rules of science and reason. While I acknowledge the importance that faith plays in the lives of many, because it is so personal and particular, this role must be limited to individuals' lives, not to our collective life as a nation; otherwise, we have no principled way to settle our differences. And that is why, decent and compassionate as he seems, the prospect of Governor Huckabee becoming President is so alarming;. He denies the truth, incontrovertible by the tools of science and reason, of, say, the age of the Grand Canyon, and is willing to enact that denial into education policy. How can I have any confidence that he will use our agreed-upon process for making other consequential policy decisions?

So, as someone who respects religion and diversity, I must nevertheless impose this religious test: any candidate for public office, to receive my vote, must demonstrate an unshakable commitment to using reason, not faith, to factually inform his or her public decisions.

Win, win for Romney.

In addition to his proven, real executive ability, proven as governor, in the Olympics game, etc...

He makes the JEWS scream.
They won't be able to twise american policy to suit Israel with him in power. Thank God.

And as the "New Yorkers" of "wall street" ... who've brought down America and her economy with their crooker derivities games and greed...now sell our legacy to China or Dubai or wherever they can recover a crooked buck...Romney looks like a gift from heaven or whereever.

Romney. Let' have Romney.

And may the greedy "wall streeters" follow their crooked money away from America.

Win, win for Romney.

In addition to his proven, real executive ability, proven as governor, in the Olympics game, etc...

He makes the JEWS scream.
They won't be able to twise american policy to suit Israel with him in power. Thank God.

And as the "New Yorkers" of "wall street" ... who've brought down America and her economy with their crooker derivities games and greed...now sell our legacy to China or Dubai or wherever they can recover a crooked buck...Romney looks like a gift from heaven or whereever.

Romney. Let' have Romney.

And may the greedy "wall streeters" follow their crooked money away from America.

Mr. Berlinerblau's question is moot, as far as I can tell. Forget about religion (though Huckabee or Romney will make things even easier than they might be otherwise). The 2008 election is shaping up to be sorta like last year in the NFL: Hillary and Obama are the Colts and Patriots (or vice versa), and the flock of GOP contenders are all the NFC teams who were competing like mad to be wiped out in the Super Bowl. Don't fool yourselves into thinking Hillary's too unlikeable or Obama's not strong enough. November is going to be a wipeout--take it to the bank.

Hi Grant and Eric, and thank you for your responses. Of course, no doubt, I was engaging in hyperbole in stating that Governor Romney has "no convictions whatsoever." What is clear, however, is that he is prepared to misrepresent his convictions depending upon expediency (suggesting that honesty is not one of his convictions), and that his convictions do not include positions on abortion or gay rights.

At the same time, I think it is a mistake to conflate conviction with personal loyalty, work and commitment, as your posts suggest you do. Loyalty is a value I admire, but loyalty without conviction gets a person into the situation Mayor Giuliani finds himself in with Bernie Kerik and his shadier associates. It is one thing, and an admirable thing, to go to bat for and support your loyal employees, and to do everything for your family. But to have compassion for the faceless person whose job or pension you're trashing with your leveraged buyout -- that requires not loyalty but conviction. And, in those cases as in the others I cited, Governor Romney demonstrates lack of conviction.

I'm an right of center independent who really wants McCain. If I can't have him then I'll vote for Hillary, a person I swore I'd never vote for and personally can't stand but I've listened to her over the past few years. While I don't like everything she says and has done at least she has been consistent, unlike others in her party like Pelosi who I've listened to in public and then at a convention where she went way left of left which I believe most of the democratic candidates really stand. Yea I know Pelosi isn't running but whoever is President will have to deal with her. You have to listened to her when she thinks only the dems are listening. Gives some insight into the scary side of that party.

I believe McCain when he says something. I believe Hillary has changed her tune to court the votes and will change back if elected. I also believe these two can be more than a match for Pelosi and the other left / right nut jobs in the congress.

If it's not McCain or Hillary then I'll vote republican no matter what. Bush may have poisoned the waters but I'll still vote for the lesser of the two evils and with what's left over it's the republican.

VOTE: ((( Peace Love Rockn Roll nRap Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez 08 YEA!. Happy Every Day ))))))))))

It doesn't matter who the Republicants nominate. W has poisoned the waters for the GOP for decades to come. Dishonesty and incompetence are hard traits to overcome.

Typical blinkered MSM thinking. Ron paul is going to be the GOP nominee. Then what?

Kase,

Before you lump Romney in with the shallow and witless, go click on Grant's link several commnents up.

Or read more details about it here:

http://w3.newsmax.com/romney/

Huckabee would like everyone to believe that Romney is too weird for words, so here is what Romney does that is indeed atypical.

But it is not shallow or witless.... :-)

Gee, SO hard to choose given that ALL the GOP possibles are such shallow, witless, bible-thumping, morons...

The problem is that there is little difference between the parties. Voters deserve candidates who say who provide clarity on the issues without fuzzy logic.

I foresee either a referendum on the war,
or regarding illegal immigration?

Take your pick.

How about teaming up John McCain and Joe Liberman. I can see the bumper sticker now:

Give WAR a Chance
McCain-Liberman

Or among the Democrats an unbeatable ticket would be Dennis Kocinich and George Noory

Give ALIENs a Chance
Grey, green, who cares?
"ETs" are people too!

Grant: I really believe Romney should court the secularist vote more. He does not possess the antipathy towards non-believers that seems to be assumed in these blogs.

MPOV: That ship has sailed for Romney. Didn't you hear his I-like-all-faiths-except-the-"religion"-of-secularism speech?

Att: J O S E P H:

Att: E R I C:

Att: All of Mr. internet Parasite(s), HUCKA wanna BEEE infiltrating, like the "SATAN/LUCIFER/JINN/DURGA/KALi..." here to mess a with Brethren(s) 'Old-Lady' socalled MS condition?

Huckabee , you & your STAFF-SUCK!

A;; HUCKABEE staff SUCK!

By: J.J., a voluntary friend of Mr. Honorable Mitt_ROMNEY, for Prez 2008, YEA!

Shame Shame on Volunteers for Huckaba babbbaba wanna be Prez bee!

VOTE: PEACE Love Rockn Roll nRap Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez 2008 YEA! Thank You all.

Grant:

Thanks! I hadn't seen that. Your link said it all.

Practical Progressive:

Have you ever taken a look at Romney's family? Do you think a person can build a strong, cohesive, intact family with "no convictions whatsoever?"

Consider also for a moment that Romney's wife has MS. He is hugely wealthy and very handsome. He has every opportunity to find himself a fully functioning trophy wife and a few girlfriends on the side. Do you think he "just happened" to get a strong family? Or does that take work and commitment?

Some things in life operate by the Law of the Farm, which simply is, "You reap what you sow." There is no last minute cramming on the farm, no procrastinating about important matters till the last moment, and then expecting to get a wonderful harvest.

Romney is where he is by prioritizing, hard work, and living by his convictions.

Practical Progressive:

You wrote concerning Romney: "The bottom line is that the man has no convictions whatsoever -- and it's plain for everyone to see."

Here's no convictions for you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwWVWkPr-4

Most of our founding fathers were slaveholders Calvin, did you remember to pay attention during history class?

We certainly got rid of that though didn't we?
Bad things are bad things, no matter who does them nor how long they were done.

And we still admire the good work they did as well, don't we.

So why should we feel that just because our history has so much religious fanaticism that we should keep it today? Why should we who are against religious control of the government sit back and let the wackoes drive the constitution off a cliff just so the religious types don't feel so uncomfortable?

What you are doing is called Argumentum ad numerum

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

And guess what, you're numbers are diminishing, soon you won't even have Argumentum ad numerum, all you'll have is Argumentum ad dumbassium

You keep talking about the GOP Evangelicals. What about the Fundimentalists of the Democrats? You know, the old guard Bolsheviks of the 60's feminist movement, the ones that attack any Democrat who posts qualms about Clinton and her polcies? Now, I live in Oregon; I am a Democrat, but out here the radical feminst stuff doesn't play well. In fact, it's so bad that Senator Gordon Smith, one of those seats targeted by the DNC has moved into "safe" territory. Worse yet, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire is likely to *loose* to Rossi in the upcoming election. All because of Clinton and the religious zealotry of her true believers. Now, I'm not familiar with most of the rest of the country, but I'd bet that Clinton costs Democrats in close races (and more than a few not so close races, too) everywhere. In the end, it doesn't even matter if she is the nominee, the very idea that we would contemplate her and the the religious fervor of her more fanatical followers is scaring the bejesus out of voters. The Republican's are simply reprinting some of the more shrill and hysterical pronouncements of her minions. Creationism may not be acceptable in some circles, but the Clinton glospel that heterosexual men are evil or stupid clodhoppers has a lot worse play in Peoria....or Spokane or Salem or Bend or Tacoma.

There are no registered Democrats who are exemplary, civic-minded Americans. In fact there are no Democrats who believe in God; these are mutually exclusive items. Your God is Marxism and your civic-mind is the Communist Manifesto.

Since we're dealing with hypotheticals, how about this?
George Bush uses his "signing statement" tactic to bypass the law prohibiting him running for a third term. Then it doesn't matter WHO the dems put up. They could nominate Charles Manson & he'd still win by a landslide.

Terra Gazelle, you bet your booty Ron Paul is a libertarian. Do I want the government out of Social Security? You bet. It's a Ponzi scheme that's going to crash any day now and take MY (and your) hard-earned money with it, money I could have invested privately and done far better with. Do I want the government out of education? Yup. Do I want the government out of my suitcase? Yup. (My civil liberties are violated at least twice a week by those $5-an-hour-power TSA twits.) Do I want the government out of health care? Yup. Being a doctor himself, by the way, Ron Paul does not want you to die. He just doesn't think the government should be in the business of health care. Do they know more about medicine than doctors? The answer is clear.

The list goes on and on.

And yet, Michael Cloud, a great libertarian communicator, tells us that when we sense we are debating with a statist like you, we shouldn't waste our time. So I'm going to sign off here. Good day.

Hey, as long as we're quoting Ayn Rand, here's my favorite:

"A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code."

This is a perfect description of the real republicans and the "real christians" running the party.

The real christians want intelligent design taught in public schools. They want faith to suppress reason wherever it discomfits faith, at the same time they want new scientists coming out of each generation who will be capable of using their reason to cure diseases and solve our evergrowing problems with technology.

Only an idiot thinks this kind of mutually exclusive process can work, or the insane.

Huckabee and Romney actually believe the crap coming out of their mouths, they don't just say it so it sounds good to the flock.

Our best hope is that Huckabee and Romney and their followers will so pollute the air with their ridiculous and vindictive battles over who is the real christian that we can ALL be free and willing to point them out as .... drum roll please .... NUTS.

Other than Huckabee's anti-Mormon campaign, Romney might have another reason to fear Huckabee. Romney probably thinks Huckabee is the Protestant Pastor that showed up on the side of Satan in Romney's temple wedding rites.

I would hope that Rudy Giuliani could make it as the candidate in your senerio. My primary reason is his continued position on fear, 9/11 and the rest of the world. If he could be soundly defeated, it may show the rest of the world that we are not a bunch of blood-thirsty imperialists hiding in our corner waiting for another excuse to beat another country to a pulp. Forrest Gump's mom had it right - "stupid is as stupid does" - and allowing Rudy to run this country for four years is really stupid.

Trading cowboy diplomacy for mafia diplomacy will sink the US faster than you can say "fugidaboudit".

Prominent PR specialist and evangelical Mark DeMoss has circulated a memo
to leaders of evangelical organizations urging support for Mitt Romney. I
asked for and received his permission to reprint it here:

To: Conservative Evangelical Leaders From: Mark DeMoss (Personally)

Subject: The 2008 Presidential Election Date: October 9, 2007

In about 100 days we will likely have a Republican nominee for president.
Most political observers believe it a near certainty that this nominee will
face Hillary Clinton in the general election. While most people think this
election cycle started too early, I'm finding that few people realize the
primaries are almost upon us, and how compacted the primary calendar is.

Within about 30 days after the last college football bowl game is played,
primaries (and an all-important caucus) will be held in Iowa, Nevada, New
Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware,
Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah and
West Virginia! (At least a dozen of these will fall on the same day,
February 5, 2008.)

As certain as it seems that Hillary will represent the Democratic Party, it
now appears the GOP representative will be either Mayor Rudy Giuliani or
Governor Mitt Romney (based on polls in early states, money raised and on
hand, staff and organization, etc.). And, if it is not Mitt Romney, we
would, for the first time in my memory, be faced with a general election
contest between two "pro-choice" candidates. Read More...

I decided over a year ago to help Mitt Romney; and while I have not been
(and will not be) paid one dollar, I have worked harder on behalf of a
candidate this past year than in any election of my lifetime. Why? In large
part because the next president is almost certain to appoint two-to-four
Supreme Court justices.

When I began surveying the landscape of potential candidates I was looking
for three things:

Someone who most closely shared my values;

Someone who has proven experience and competence to lead and manage large
enterprises;

Someone who can actually win the nomination (without which it is obviously
impossible to challenge or beat Hillary Clinton, or any other democrat
people who certainly don't share our values). So how did I settle on Mitt
Romney? After spending months researching his life and his record, and hours
with him (and his wife and staff) in his home, his office and on the road, I
am convinced his values practically mirror my own values about the sanctity
of life, the
sacredness of marriage, the importance of the family, character and
integrity, free enterprise and smaller government. But more than one
candidate shares my values; which leads me to my second criterion.

The President of the United States is the CEO of the largest enterprise on
planet earth, presiding over a nearly $3 trillion budget and some 2 million
employees (the size of the workforces of General Motors, General Electric,
Citigroup, Ford, Hewlett-Packard and AT&T combined). Mitt Romney has already
been the chief executive of one of the most successful investment management
firms in the world Bain Capital, with nearly $6 billion under management; a
Winter Olympic Games (Salt Lake City, 2002), where he turned a $379 million
operating deficit into one of the most profitable Games ever; and the state
of Massachusetts, where he eliminated a $3 billion deficit without raising
taxes or borrowing money.

That kind of experience convinces me Mitt Romney could lead, manage and
govern and actually win (my third criterion)? After he was the runaway
winner of the important Iowa straw poll in August, TIME magazine's political
columnist Joe Klein wrote, "Romney now has to be considered a strong
favorite to win the Republican nomination. And another prediction: if
nominated, Romney will be formidable in the general election." Like it or
not (and most of us don't), these campaigns have become obscenely expensive.
It has been estimated that the two party nominees may well spend in excess
of $100 million in the primaries, and several times that in the general
election. One insider told me Hillary may spend half a billion dollars
before it's over! This means a successful candidate must be able to come up
with this kind of money. Through the first three quarterly reporting
periods, Republican candidates reported total revenues as follows:

Mitt Romney: $62.4 million Rudy Giuliani: $46.1 John McCain: $30.5 Fred
Thompson: $12.8 Ron Paul: $8.0 Sam Brownback: $3.3 (through 2 quarters; 3rd
quarter number had not been reported yet) Mike Huckabee: $2.3

These numbers are important for many reasons. It takes money to hire staff,
recruit volunteers, send out mailings, travel the country, organize events
(Mitt told me recently he had done 462 events just in Iowa so far!) and to
buy TV commercial time. CNN recently reported that Romney just became the
first candidate in history to buy 10,000 TV commercials at this point in the
presidential campaign (by comparison, John McCain was purchasing his first
commercials the same weekend).

Gov. Romney is also leading by 4%-11% or more in polls in a number of early
states, such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and one recent poll
now shows him leading in South Carolina. Historically, a candidate who wins
the Iowa caucuses and several of the early primaries benefits from a
tremendous amount of national exposure and fundraising momentum.

As this race heats up and we approach the final stretch of the nominating
process, I have three growing concerns:

Currently, conservatives (whether evangelical or not) are dividing their
support among several candidates. In the long run, this only helps Rudy
Giuliani, who clearly does not share our values on so many issues.

Talk of a possible third party candidate draft movement only helps Giuliani
(or, worse yet, Clinton), in my view. While I wholeheartedly agree with Dr.
James Dobson that not having a pro-life nominee of either major party
presents an unacceptable predicament, I would rather work hard to ensure we
do nominate a pro-life candidate than to launch an 11th-hour third party
campaign. Mike Huckabee affirmed this concern when he told the Washington
Post last week, "I think a third party only helps elect Hillary Clinton."

Perhaps most troubling to me is the idea I keep hearing that electing
someone like Hillary Clinton would "actually be good for the conservative
movement," since it will "galvanize our forces, enable us to build our
mailing lists and raise more money, therefore, I'm not going to vote for
anyone this time around." Well, I am not willing to risk negatively changing
the Supreme Court, and our entire judicial system, for the next 30 years in
exchange for building our conservative mailing lists and operating budgets
for the next four or eight years. That, in my opinion, is selfish,
short-sighted and dangerous.

Here is what I believe is at stake in this election:

Someone is almost certain to appoint two, three, or four justices to the
Supreme Court. Do we want that person to be Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani
or Mitt Romney?

Someone will cast vision and lead Congress on matters of national security,
including securing our borders against illegal immigration. Should that be
Hillary, Rudy or Mitt?

Someone will deal with the definition of marriage in America and will either
defend and model a faithful marriage and strong family, or not. Who should
that person be?

Someone will either and desires above those who can't defend themselves.
Would we prefer that Clinton, Giuliani or Romney be in that position?

[By the way, I am also troubled by skeptical sentiment in some corners about
the legitimacy and sincerity of Gov. Romney's "conversion" on the abortion
issue. I always thought the pro-life movement existed for the purpose of
influencing hearts and minds on the issue of life, and historically, we have
celebrated converts to our side. We embraced Ronald Reagan (who signed a
liberal abortion law as governor of California), Norma McCorvey ("Jane
Roe"), and others, and I am prepared to accept and embrace Mitt Romney. I've
also told him he will be held accountable on this if elected.]

Someone will need to deal with radical Islamic Jihadists and the threat they
pose to our nation. As evangelicals, do we want to entrust Hillary Clinton,
Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney with that critical assignment?

Finally, someone will either welcome evangelicals and people of faith into
the White House and their administration; or shut them out of deliberations
and consideration for various appointments. Would Hillary, Rudy or Mitt be
most accepting of evangelicals and people of faith?

Now, I fully recognize some evangelicals take issue with me for supporting a
Mormon for the office of president, and I respect their concerns. Indeed, I
had to deal with the same concerns in my own heart before offering to help
Gov. Romney. But I concluded that I am more concerned that a candidate
shares my values than he shares my theology. (If I believed similar theology
was paramount in a president, I would be writing this memo urging support of
Mike Huckabee.)

As a Southern Baptist evangelical and political conservative, I am convinced
I have more in common with most Mormons than I do with a liberal Southern
Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic or a liberal from any other denomination
or faith group. The question shouldn't be, "could I vote for a Mormon," but,
"could I vote for this Mormon?" After all, Mitt told me there are Mormons he
couldn't vote for (I presume Harry Reid, for example); and there are
Southern Baptists I couldn't vote for (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore,
to name a few).

Incidentally, if one-third of "white evangelicals" voted for Bill Clinton,
the second time (a Southern Baptist who doesn't share our values on most
issues); can we not at least consider supporting a Mormon who does share our
values? Noted conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote this month that Mitt
Romney is "the only Republican candidate unequivocally opposed to gay
marriage and the only one who signed the no tax increase pledge."

On May 17, my friend of nearly 30 years, Jerry Falwell, went to Heaven. In
addition to being my first employer and like a second father following the
death of my father in 1979, Jerry was my political mentor in many ways. I
learned from him, some 25 years ago, the value of working closely with
people of other faiths and religions who shared our convictions about the
sanctity of life, support for the state of Israel, the sacredness of
marriage and the importance of the family unit, the dangers of pornography,
and the value of God in public life. Consequently, the Moral Majority (and
many subsequent organizations) was built with coalitions of evangelicals and
like-minded Roman Catholics, Jews and yes, Mormons.

Just about six months before his death, Jerry accepted my invitation to a
meeting with Gov. Romney at his home outside Boston. He joined me, and about
15 other evangelicals, for an intimate discussion with the Governor and his
wife Ann. Jerry was one of several that day who said, "Governor, I don't
have a problem with your being Mormon, but I want to ask you how you would
deal with Islamic jihadists, or with illegal immigration,or how you would
choose justices for the Supreme Court," and so on.

While Jerry Falwell never told me how he intended to vote in the upcoming
election, I think I know how he would not have voted. I also know he would
not have "sat this one out" and given up on the Supreme Court for a
generation.

I am wholeheartedly convinced that Mitt Romney can be trusted to uphold the
values and principles most important to me as a political conservative and
an evangelical Christian. Again, I am not being paid, and I am not
interested in a job in a Romney Administration (I would not accept one even
if offered, as I'm still raising three teenagers). Neither is my public
relations firm involved in any way. I am involved because I believe the
stakes are high, perhaps higher than ever before in my life.

In closing, I would respectfully urge fellow conservatives and evangelicals
to consider doing the following:

1. Pray fervently for this election.

2. Follow the news and the primary calendar; being familiar with the process
and aware of the urgency of the schedule.

3. Encourage people to vote and not "sit this one out," merely because they
aren't excited about a candidate.

4. Encourage people to support the candidate who best represents their
values; whether or not they share your theology.

5. Galvanize support around Mitt Romney, so Rudy Giuliani isn't the
unintended beneficiary of our divided support among several other candidates
or, worse yet, so we don't abdicate the presidency (and the future of the
Supreme Court) over to Hillary Clinton.

I believe we can make a difference. the difference in this election, and if
Mitt Romney should become the 44th president of the United States, I'm
confident he won't forget how he got there. I hope you'll join me. Thank you
for your consideration of these things

VOTE: ((( Peace Love Rockn Roll nRap, Mitt_ROMNEY, for Prez 08, YEA! ))))))))))

Hey! Is it just me, or are some folks missing the point? I do believe Monsieur Jacques or Herr Berlinerblau asks which GOP candidate is the most likely to LOSE to the jackass party.

I agree it's Huckabee with Mitt running a close second.

I still find it passing strange how all the ostensibly religious candidates spend a lot of time telling us how devoted they are to their faith, then spend a lot of time telling us how they are going to set those beliefs aside as soon as they get in office. How does either please anyone, religious or secular?

Does anyone know what a libertarian is..Ron Paul is one. Why not check up on what his stand is..and don't vote just because Paul wants to get out of Iraq...he also wants to get out of Social Security, do away with the Board of Education...and all and any social net and he would privatize everything. Really folks pay attention to all of what he is saying. He is a republican, he is not an Independent...he is wearing a sheep skin, but under that he is still a GOP. He believes that parents should have full control of their kid's education. That is fine but how far will we get with all those Homeschoolers learning nothing but Intelligent Design? How about Health Care? he does not want Universal care...he is one of those who thinks if you can not afford health...die.

You will get plenty of tax credits with him. Its fine if you are in a higher bracket...he wants Limited Government...yep from the same group that wants to shrink the government down enough to drown in a bath tub, and allowed citizens to drown in their homes. Limited government is what we have had..limited and incompetant. He wants to remove more regulations...you think that is what we need...? More deregulation for drug companies and insurance companies?

Read between the lines folk...Ron Paul is a member of the republican party...you think you will get something different then what we have...the only difference is with him we will have Ayn Rand and not the Christian God.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other".
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Think again.
terra

Bucinka, we all lost when the democrats let bush steal that election. When I looked at what happened in 2000 I realized that whichever one of those candidates won it would be a selection, not an election.

The behavior of both parties was even more disgusting than Nixon, and more damaging to our constitution. At least we were able to force that criminal out, we don't seem to be able to do anything anymore. Neither party has earned the right to be in a used outhouse, let alone the whitehouse.
Neither party pays attention to us anymore. How could the limited-government republicans (so they say) be so willing to crap on our constitution the way they have? How could the democrats be so cowardly they are unwilling to stand bush up on his hind legs and DEMAND that he do his *(&#^!@^$ job!

Why are the party faithful so unwilling to question the incompetence of their own leadership? What happened to America first?

The boat is sinking, and instead of everybody trying to bail it out all we see are the party pukes jumping up and down to sink it faster.

I wonder how are country is going to survive the republicans and the democrats.

OORT, how soon you forget. The Democrats (of which I am not one, by the way) didn't lose to that a$$ Bush. He stole the White House twice, and we all know it.

VOTE: R*O*M*N*E*Y for PREZ! Ya! < ?: +)' Ummm Ummm!

My easy-win vote goes to Giuliani because he's going to get trashed on both fronts. His cold-war rhetoric and hawkish opinions on Iran alone will keep democrats voting for whoever's against him, but what's going to really hurt him is his own party. Even if the many scandals blow over (which they won't), the religious right will not stand for a pro-choice gay-tolerant president. They will either get a spoiler 3rd party or just not show up at polls.

The evangelical church is certainly a stain on a political image nowadays (thanks, Pat Robertson), but even Barack Obama gave Huckabee a compliment when asked to name a GOP candidate that he thought was a decent guy. People think that exposing him as a religious ideologue will make him a piece of cake to beat. But no, no, people thinking that are in for a big surprise - because most democrats actually ARE tolerant of all religions, some could look past the church and find a reasonable guy behind it all.

Word up, Dan! When I saw those people raising their hands to say they didn't believe in evolution, I secretly hoped that trap doors would open underneath them right on the spot.

This is the PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY!!!! You have to be at LEAST this smart to ride this ride. I felt the same way when Bush starts talking about amending the Constitution. This is the document of JEFFERSON, FRANKLIN, ADAMS...you have to be of that caliber or better or you shouldn't even be able to LOOK at this document, let alone AMEND it.

Also, I would never vote to entrust the leadership of the Free World to any moron who, with a straight face and on national television, would claim that he doesn't believe in evolution, despite the MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting it! Either Huckabee is an out & out idiot, or he's shamelessly pandering to the fundamentalist Christian right. Either way, he's not someone I would want in the White House.

You've nailed it, Jacques. The only way the Republicans can lose to Hillary Clinton is if they are stupid enough to let the ultra-right wing, knuckle-dragging, retarded "true conservatives" control the nomination process and nominate a Bible-thumper like Huckabee. I'm still hoping that John McCain can make a comeback. He's been my preferred candidate for a long time. But I would have no problem voting for Rudy or Romney either. But if the choice came down to either Hillary or Huckabee (that last name itself makes me laugh), I'd probably stay home on Election Day. And given my loathing of Hillary Clinton, THAT is saying quite a bit!

But what I'd really like to see would be a "dream ticket" of McCain/Lieberman running under a third party banner! The two main parties have been co-opted by the fruitbat elements on their respective fringes, meaning that the 70% of us that are "in the middle" ... who are more concerned about progress than ideology ... are left out in the cold while the Michael Moores and Sean Hannitys of the world spend their days pissing all over each other. A third "Centrist" party in this country would really shake things up.

I wish J.C. had thrown the politicians out of the Temple along with the merchants. History is that the United States has seen alot of evangelical movements come and go through exposing the lavish lifestyles of these Christian mega-stars not practicing humility. And that politics is vehicle to money and power stooping so low to exploit religion.

Am always posting on WAPO boards to attempt a bridge from Mainstreet America to the Altered State, The District of Columbia. Mainstreet has had it with corrupt politicians playing the "Jesus" card. Mainstreet is tired of watching politicians take care of themselves only or One-Percenters. Mainstreet is paying on average a 200% increase in fossil fuels since 09/11. If that is not inflation then I have no idea what to call it.

Primaries are in fact going to kill some candidates for the long haul. Current day strategy is to appeal to about less than 2.5% of conservative voters for a nomination. America will remember their words today. Advice is not to underestimate the knoweledge and wisdom of average Americans.

Do you think the evangelicals pushing Huckabee into the front really expect to win the nomination, and from there the presidency? or is it some kind of martyr thing they're doing?

We already know they are blind and deaf to facts and realities which don't fit their picture, do you suppose they think their god is going to put huckabee in the whitehouse, the way they think bush was put there?

How far will they fall out of scope if the electorate throws them out of washington, how long will they stay there ... how much will they fight among themselves, accusing each other of satanic stupidity for losing ...

How did we ever get where we are today? How could we have been so stupid. I don't just mean the bush supporters, how could the democrats have lost twice to that man? You know you're a real loser when you lose to bush.

To all you Ron Paul supporters: I think JB didn't include him because he's not a loser. Or, at the very least, he has no Faith and Values liabilities, which is what the column was about.

I'm voting for Obama, or NOBODY.

I will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS VOT FOR A MAN WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN SCIENCE (Mr. intelligent design Huckabee), nor hillary - the DINASAUR, LOSER-LAWYER WHO'S POSITIONS I CANNOT DISCERN FROM THE DOUBLE SPEAK COMING OUT OF HER MOUTH.

The Republican establishment will never let Rep. Paul win. Right now, they view him as a crazy old uncle who's trying to be the center of attention. At the first sign that he's anything but, the Mighty Wurlitzer will start cranking up against him.

For the record, I'm undecided right now. I like Richardson, but I realize that he could be out of the race by the time it gets around to my state's primary.

I used to joke that the Republicans could run Jesus Christ as a candidate in 2008 and they'd still lose. And now, shock of all shocks, they seem to be TRYING to.

I'm sorry, but this is getting absolutely ridiculous on the Republican side. Who's closer to God? Who's brother to Satan?!? JEEZUM CROW! But I suppose when you've got nothing positive to run on, and 8 years of absolute CRAP policies that have damaged America, the Consitution, and our own culture, you've got to turn to Jesus because he's the only one who'll still love you...

It's really too early for this, this is just an exercise at shooting fish in a barrel. Both parties still have in play plenty of guys with low poll numbers who would generate a ton of respect for their "honesty" or "candor" while getting trounced on election day because they don't have the energy and consistency to carry on a national campaign. Huckabee, Paul, and Thompson are in that category, and I tend to think Paul is actually the w