McCain will not get the nomination. He's going down fighting though, on immigration reform and staying the course in Iraq, two highly unpopular positions in Republican circles at this point. The “base” largely loathes him, and his “straight talk” isn't generating the buzz or admiration it used to on the campaign trail among independents and Republicans.

Rudy…. . He was an overrated mayor of NYC who couldn't stand the successes of others under him (like police chief Bratton, who has performed literally the same miracle in LA as he did in NYC) and focused on small issues that did little for the city in the long run but were aesthetically pleasing. Again, all he did on 9/11 was his job. Nothing more, nothing less. He should not be lionized for that. His campaign strategy is asinine ; I'm the 9/11 guy, listen to me, I'm the expert… fear the world, fear the Mexicans, fear the Muslims, fear the Democrats and my opponents. To me he is a shameless opportunist who has a shady respect for the law and a very shoddy roster of friends and associates we've only begun to understand (like Kerik). There is enough dirt on them alone to kill off his campaign as we go through the year and early next year, let alone the revelations that will unfold in a general campaign.

Thompson is too lazy, too uninformed and merely a placeholder for conservative desires that will not be sated in this campaign. He will enjoy some early success but over time he just doesn't have the goods to get it done. C'mon, he's the most unqualified guy in the room, a nice voice & folksy humor does not a president make. Even GW Bush had more success and more to his name than Thompson. Let's not even get started on the Reagan comparisons, which are a grave insult to all that Reagan accomplished and underwent before he even got to the presidency in 1980. The conservatives swooning over Thompson remind me of how deluded my fellow compatriots have become.

None of these folks remotely do it for me, though I could tolerate voting for McCain, Romney, Obama or (please let this not happen) Clinton.

Clinton was a poor president who mismanaged America's historic opportunity in the 1990's, only managing not to botch the economic aspects that drove globalization further. On his watch, we abandoned long-term friends in Thailand and Pakistan, failed to take the Al-Qaeda threat seriously, abdicated US leadership and vision on Africa, Latin America and elsewhere, gave the North Koreans everything they ever desired in 1994, politicized the US military more than ever before, etc. etc. Consistent foreign policies? Umm, what? where? how? I would go along with the economic policies, because the US leadership was rather gifted in that regard in the 1990's.

What's your read of Romney? To me McCain has the advantage that its his turn, Giuliani has popularity, and Thompson is the logical anyone-but-Giuliani candidate. Romney seems like the Republican version of Edwards.

Obama is considerably to the left of Hillary — he was against welfare reform when it was enacted, against the Iraq War when it started, and has little to offer except the ability to speak on at length about nothing in particular (his “real talk”).

I disagree on your assessment of Clinton and Bush — 1993- has been a period of propserity and growth for both America and the Core. Much of the groundwork was laid by previous presidents, of course, but the relatively consisent foreign and economic policies have led to many successes and few outright failures.

Rudy is a fiscially conservative “law and order” social liberal. This hurts him in the Republican primary among social conservatives, but his turn around of New York City is justly admired. His outstanding performance on 9/11 was not a one-time act of heroism, but rather fully consistent with how he led the city during his two terms.

Well, considering that Romney is still the most likely nominee, once he gets into office he can build bridges with the Latino community in a way that Rudy and Fred Thompson can't. He's a political chameleon and would be willing and able to dump the social conservatives and paleocons going ape-shit over this after winning office. His record in Mass augers well for that.

I don't see what's wrong with Obama. I appreciate his thoughtfulness, willingness to build consensus, offer “real talk” to his supporters and constituents and would find him an excellent president to get things done. We don't need another 4 years of a Clinton or a Bush, considering that neither family has advanced America's interests very well over the past 20 years.

Let's not even talk about Rudy “Mr. 9/11 all the time, everytime”, the failed mayor who did his job on 9/11 and people think he's some kind of saint or hero for it. If our expectations have become that low, its rather a pathetic symbol of how low our country has fallen. “He's presidential material because he did his job on 9/11, oh my God”.

Why do you support Obama over Clinton? I don't want either of them to become Presdident, but my person view is that Clinton's experience, her ties to Bill, her toughness, would make her a better President.

I'll bet you that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are the premier office-seeking organizations by the time we're both in our 80s — so let's wait and see who is right.

Here here for annexing Mexico [1], and the Manifest Destiny of the American Nation [2]

Eddie,

I fear that in one mindless blow, the Republican netroots managed to blow away 7 years of successful outreach to Latinos.

Americans cluster around the political center, but the politically active cluster around the left and the right. We shouldn't have to choose between stupid and defeatist. But for now there isn't another choice.

I'll stand by the patriotic comment. The Left is generally anti-American, and I fear many liberals love America merely as a nation-among-nations. That's like saying, “I love my father. He's an older gentleman, and I tend to get along with older gentlemen I interact with.”

We shouldn't have to choose between stupid and defeatist. There is still a center in this country, filled with intelligent and brave leaders who could lead this nation. It just so happens that most of them tend to stay local or at least stateside or do something like join the military or run a business. One day they'll be forced to jump into the cesspool to save the country. Most of us are just too busy enjoying a free ride right now to notice that glaring need is getting worse.

And patriotic ? Give me a break. The Klan and the 9/11 Truth wackos claim to be patriotic too.

Well that's what conservatism is. “Conservatism” is a reactionary stance. “Standing athwart history yelling stop” and all that. And that is exactly why “conservative” is so incongruous with the American context. After all, the American Experiment is an open-ended, freewheeling improvisation; an ongoing exploration of human potential. America is the antithesis of “conservative.”

“It's easy to say that the Republican netroots are intellectually empty, and it's hard to disagree.”

The Republican elected-officials too.

American conservatism is closer to classical liberalism than the conservativism than Europe knows. Except during the post-war consensus (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford), the Republican party has been generally idenitified with the movement.

“the American Experiment is an open-ended, freewheeling improvisation”

Thank God this is just rhetoric.

Anonymous,

“I think the anger at the immigration bill wasn't about the immigrants, but about the GOP leadership's contempt for its supporters.”

How do you differentiate these causes?

If the election comes down to Obama vs [any Republican], I'll probably vote for Obama.

If Gore gets into the race and makes it through the primaries, I'll probably vote for him — although, choosing between him and Giuliani would be very tough, and the chance exists I would vote for G.

I look forward to the day when neither the Republican party nor the Democratic party continues to exist or exists as merely a fringe group. I suspect that will happen in my lifetime.

While the hard-core Left in America seems peculiarly absurd and nearly as insane as the hard-core Right, I'm pretty sure I can find agreement with them on some issues, just as I'm sure I can find some agreement with the hardcore Right. In general, however, this either-or dichotomous paradigm you propose is very anti-Curtis.

Immigration is going to happen regardless of the laws made about it: that's my take on that particular issue. All in all, I'd rather go with some of your earlier ideas and annex portions of Mexico. Get it done now, and stop fussing about the minutia involved in these immigration-bill bickerings.