The smell of political death is reeking from the campaigns of all the Republican presidential hopefuls.

Maybe if Huckabee changed his name he'd surge in Iowa and become an instant frontrunner? (That's how shallow these mindless campaigns have become.)

If I were a betting woman, I'd bet that the eventual Republican nominee isn't even in the race yet.

There's nothing in this post bashing Democrats, or claiming that they're no different than Republicans. Come on, Tim! Continue today's theme...

And while you're at it, why don't you contribute to your local Republican? It'll be a lot less damaging to goal of a solid Democratic majority than the crap you're spewing out lately.

The will of Jesus.

and pro-CFR that it would kill you to mention Ron Paul?

http://RonPaul.meetup.com

If I were a betting woman, I'd bet that the eventual Republican nominee isn't even in the race yet.

You're wrong.

I think Micki's point is that we're acting, a year before the election, as if this was six months before the election in previous years. I remeber that in 1968 it was the June primary in California that pretty important, although things got horribly skewed by the death of RFK. In 1988 it was the March "Super Tuesday" primary that was supposed to cast the shape of things. Now we're rolling back primaries and caucuses to ridiculously early dates.

I may as well invite the pundits to beer and burgers at my Back Yard Caucus, January 22, 2009, to decide who the Front Runner of the 2012 race will be.

I was hoping to watch America unwind the clock to the 17th Century and implode in a Calvinist witch hunt.

One question I have is why the religious right types like Dobson etc. didn't turn to Brownback as an alternative to Giuliani & Romney?

'Twould seem a fairly obvious choice for them...

I have to watch the generally lackluster GOP campaigns with great amusement. Despite the fevered dreams of a "permanent majority" with the GOP, despite the propaganda about how conservative the country supposedly is, how dead liberalism supposedly is, the proof is in the lack of money these candidates are getting, overall. Romney's mostly self-financing, Giuliani's a bizarro Republican, and the supposedly rock-ribbed moral values guys are dying on the vine.

Only neo-libertarian (?) Ron Paul seems to have any kind of groundswell of support coming from somewhere, even though the majority of Republican voters clearly don't like him.

So, how'd they go from visualizing for a permanent majority to this sorry state? Was Rove's dream basically buttressed through voter fraud and suppression, stapled together with gerrymandering, and maintained through politicizing all branches of government and mandating GOP donations through lobbyists by freezing out the ones who didn't play ball?

Seems like the plight of the GOP candidates puts the lie to the notion that the country is conservative at all. If that's the case, why are the Democrats trying to hard to be as conservative as they can be? Seems like there's ample political capital to be gained by tacking leftward on the part of the Democrats, and offering an actual way forward.

Meantime, it'll be fun watching the remaining GOPeons keel over in the coming months, from lack of support.

"Neo"-libertarians are the hypocrites that claim that they can be Libertarian and also be pro-war, more specifically, endorsing preventive/aggressive war. Look up the rantings of one Eric Dondero for an example.

Ron Paul is NOT a "neo"-libertarian. If you want to add a prefix to his "flavor", a closer one would be Paleolibertarian, but most Libertarians reject this label and just call themselves "Libertarians" because they believe that a pro-war Libertarian is a contradiction. Neoconservatives and Neolibertarians are both pro-war, Paleoconservatives and Paleolibertarians (i.e. Libertarians) are not. A lot of Conservatives and Libertarians think that even having to add the "paleo" tag to distinguish them from all the Straussian Statist "Neo"s out there.

^ end of the sentence...

No, actually do. Hard.

As a prior soldier in the US Army and as a former Marine, I must say that it is appaling to learn that the armed forces are "paying" to solicit persons to enlist in the military. In 1980, when I enlisted on my own free will, I wasn't given a bonus of any type. Now the military wants to assure that if you stay in the military long enough, you will be discharged with a bachelor degree. Where is the military going? Are we so desperate that we must lower our standard to allow "minor" criminals to enlist along with lowering the enlistment score to allow person in the military? Would you want to serve along side one of these persons? I wouldn't. Af far as a draft, I think it's crazy. Our generation hasn't been reared that way and half of the youngsters don't even know what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan. There has to be another answer to this dilemma. We just need a President who can figure it out instead of standing around looking like an idiot.

I don't really care that Huckabee left the race (was he ever in it) but I do care that you don't have your favorite blog links posted anymore. You have messed up my morning routine of going directly from the War Room to Atrios and then to Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo.

Slackie Onassis asks: "...why are the Democrats trying to hard to be as conservative as they can be?"

Because the last time liberals got too out of line in the 60's, many of them were assassinated. (JFK, RFK, MLK, MalcomX)

Don't think the right wing won't go that far this time. They will.

Okay. I wouldn't bet the farm, but I bet there's a 50-50 chance that Darth Cheney will put his (black) hat in the ring.

We live in strange times. Remember when Cheney picked himself for the veep slot as head of the search committee for Bush? Well, he could be letting the current crop of Repug contenders slug it out for a while, then he will come riding in as the defender of the current administration -- and use GWB on the campaign trail as his ally in freedom.

Pull out the fear card, stir in a measure of jingoistic bullshit, and pepper the sheeple with platitudes of how great this nation is -- and VOILA! -- Cheney has a message that resonates across the land.

Yeah, I know, people are supposed to have Cheney's number by now, and he's got a bad ticker that runs on batteries...but, we'd be reminded that he's younger than Reagan, younger than McCain, and his "so-called" health problems have not interfered with his functions as vice president.

This spring Cheney said, "America is a good and an honorable country. We serve a cause that is right, and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of this earth. We're the kind of country that fights for freedom, and the men and women in that fight are some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. The only way for us to lose is to quit. But that's not an option. We will complete the mission, and we will prevail." This kind of rhetoric sells like hotcakes.

Could Cheney legitimately win a presidential campaign? No. But that hasn't stopped the Repugs in the last two elections, has it?