When it comes to phoney, Bill Frist is as plastic as his idol, George W. Bush. We need real people in this country that have sacrificed and paid the price of freedom. Bill Frist & George W. Bush are the rich kids pumped up to a level impossible for the vast majority of kids in this country. Leadership models? Not hardly. Some of us have had kids put at risk in Iraq for phoney Republican scare-tactics & see our children's futures no better, while the rich boys just get richer. George & Bill never had a child at risk. Their rich kids live the protected life that their daddy built. That's a Republican attitude....not an American attitude. Priviledge of the few is the practice of this day. I say it's time to dispense with the baloney. Equal chance...opportunity...that's the real America. Not phoney rich boys living out their daddy's directives and croneyism.

This is for those who think Mitt Romney won't get the women's vote. I have seen him 'work' a room after guest speeches in New Hampshire and Michigan and the response he gets from women in the room reminds me of how JFK could woo and charm the ladies in the 60's. This is the LEAST of his problems! If I was a lib-dem(GASP!) I'd be far more concerned about how Hillary will attract white male voters!

Well, it seems we have a lot of budding politicians here. Lots of emotion-laden rhetoric, trashing this person or that--very little fact-based intelligent discussion of the strengths and weakness of the various candidates. But it is a lot easier to throw out some prediction, or try and blacken someone's reputation, then to do one's homework. I guess we shouldn't expect a higher standard from our politicians if we as voters can't walk a higher road ourselves.

Posted by: Grace,

"Yes, Jamal, glad to see that you can look back and see that all the illegal weapons of Saddam were ok with you. Also nice to see that you seem to portary your lack of support for going into Iraq. Well, son, we are there, we took out a murderer who butcherer his own people, and millions of Irap people celebrate his imprisonment and his dead sons."

Grace, The Iraq war is going to be pivotal in the 2006 and 2008 elections as indicated in all the polls. More and more Americans of all parties believe the Iraq War is Bush’s war of choice. A smart Republican candidate would show distance between Bush and his War. The gun ho pro-Iraq war talk might win a primary, but it will be a handicap in the general election.

The White house will try to hold on to all Republican support for its policies as long as it’s in office. Democrats are counting on this. Think of it as putting all your eggs in one basket, the bush basket. Condi Rice for better or worse is politically tied with the Bush Administration as long as it’s in power.

I would love to debate you on the details of the Iraq War, but it’s out of scope for this debate. However, it is a frequent subject of Emily Messner’s debates and I look forward to see you post there.

Yes, Jamal, glad to see that you can look back and see that all the illegal weapons of Saddam were ok with you. Also nice to see that you seem to portary your lack of support for going into Iraq. Well, son, we are there, we took out a murderer who butcherer his own people, and millions of Irap people celebrate his imprisonment and his dead sons.

Back to Condi, when the people get a real chance to vote for her, they will. There is money coming into the bank for that Condi group and they have been running ads on TV and radio. So that shows people suppport her and are donating. As I said before, a few media people want to ignore the activists who are running the Condi group and I have to laugh as they try to think nothing is going on. If it was a Karl Rove conspiracy to get Condi on the ticket, you can bet the media and the Dems would be screaming. But since it is open, totally in front of the media in broad daylight, the liberal press want to block any report of what is going on. Good thing that even Chris Matthews interviewed the former Marine lady who is in charge, so she got major face time on MSNBC. It was like putting spurs on her boots.

Teddy - to answer your question:

SENATE POLLS:

Rasmussen:
Warner - 49%
Allen - 44%

Times - Dispatch:
Warner - 47%
Allen - 42%

PRESIDENTIAL MATCHUP:

UVA Center for Politics poll:
Warner -49%
Allen - 32%

P.S. Romney is a joke, it would be a DREAM come true as a dem if the rethugs nominate him, Frist or Allen. Romney wouldn't even win Massachusetts or Michigan, despite republican wishful thinking. It would be feeding time for Hillary.

evanglical Christians do not view Mormons as fellow Christians. In fact, they have a dimmer view of LDS members than they do of many other religions. They would vote for a Jew, a Bhuddist or a Hindu before they would vote for a Mormon. Romney will not escape the primaries. Especially in SC.

I don't understand the coverage of this event. Everybody knew Frist was going to win the poll, it was in his home state. Yes Romney's second place finish is very surprising. And I would be more interested to see how well he fares in a similar event in New Hampshire, in his backyard. However I cannot see the significance of this event at all.

As a Democrat I am not concerned about Romney at all. The guy would have a tough time winning re-election for Governor much less a national campaign. I don't know how Sen. Allen will do against Webb or Miller in his Senate re-election race. And would Allen even beat Warner? I doubt it.

I'm more concerned about McCain and Gov. Huckabee of Arkansas if you ask me.

I know it's mentioned above, but I believe it deserves it's own separate message. If anyone is interested in helping a Romney candidacy for President for 2008, please come to my blog at http://blog.electromneyin2008.com. There is a form where you can fill out your information. I plan to group people together in similar areas, so we can help propel Mr. Romney to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

I am not worried about Frist or Romney. Romney is a Morman...I would like to see how that plays with voters in 2008. If Romney was not a Morman than I think he could do pretty well in the Presidential race, but Democrats will hit that fact home. Woman voters will not vote for a Morman and they represent the biggest percent in the voting block. I say bring him on, and Frist is down right laughable. Allen is a Bush Republican, but I see him as being the likely Republican candidate.

My county (Livingston County, MI) just had a straw poll last Friday. These were the results from that poll. Romney is a homer, so that was no surprise. Look who finished 4th....Mike Pence. People are looking for strong fiscal conservatives who are also pro-life and pro-2nd amendment.

1. Governor Mitt Romney – 24.74%
2. Senator John McCain – 18.56%
3. Senator George Allen – 17.53%
4. Congressman Mike Pence – 14.43%
5. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich – 11.34%
6. Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani – 10.30%
7. Congressman Tom Tancredo – 1.03%

Write in:
Secretary Condoleezza Rice – 1.03%
Senator Sam Brownback – 1.03%

Posted by: Marilyn

"Say what you want about McCain - while he has not pleased conservatives on everything, he has always been solid on their core issues. He has always been 100% pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. Whether that's just an act, I don't know, but if it is, he's a hell of a lot better actor than Romney"

Republicans have controlled the three branches of the Federal Government for five years now. They have had five years to appease you anti-abortion and gay bashers and have done nothing. Wake up, do you know what the donkey and the carrot routine is or should I say the elephant and the peanuts routine. You have the GOP (Bush, McCain, Frist, Rove….) riding an elephant (republican voters), the GOP has a long stick with a two peanuts (ban abortions and ban gay marriage) dangling on the end. To get the elephant to continually walk (always vote republican), the peanuts are dangled just out of reach of the elephant’s trunk. The elephant (republican voters), never gets the peanuts (ban abortions and ban gay marriage), but continually walks (always votes republican). The sad reality is two peanuts are not going to save the elephant from starvation, nor is gay bashing or banning abortion going to save this country.

Posted by: Grace

"As a delegate from Texas, I was looking forward to showing my support for Secretary Rice. I wrote in her name, and Condi got a total of 32 write-in votes. That is 2.2%, more than Rudy. She is also a major player for 2008 and it is quite strange that Hotline would fail to put the name of a contender for 2008, with over 20% support for president in the Marist polls, USA Today/CNN/Gallup polls, and Zogby polls, as well as the Siena Polls. You boys at the DC bureau should have seen all the banners for Condi 08, and the I LIKE CONDI STICKERS on the delegates. You also failed to mention she had an organized group in Memphis, and it is the people who are going to get Condi to run. Mercy sakes, these Democrats yapping in here about a Republican straw poll. It is so funny to read all this stuff, since you Dems and liberals are not involved in picking who the next Republican candidate is, it is the Republican voters and delegates. If the organization for Condi had not been in Memphis, how many votes do you think Condi would get? On the other hand, Hotline screwed up the ability for the voters who support Condi to show how much she is their preferred candidate for 2008. Funny how you all try to make fun of our political activity while you Dems have got a totally disorganized party of leaders fighting for control. Good luck."

I hope Condi "the mushroom cloud" Rice gets the republican nomination, makes me smile.

I did my own research: Matt Bai has a NYT column at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312bwarner.html?ei=5070&en=26000c1450100c41&ex=1142398800&pagewanted=all

This is an excellent article that says a lot more about Warner v. HRC than all of today's WaPo articles put together. It also defines Warner both good and bad.

test

Always amused by the dislusional lib posts I read here and elsewhere. The only time dems are confronted by Reality is the day after the votes are counted. Then it's back to "Fantasy Land!" But the most obvious fact revealed here is that Mitt Romney is the MAIN topic! I relish the thought of a Hillary-Romney match in 2008. Where can I invest some money on Mitt Romney? British Bookies will soon be taking future wagers. I can hardly wait!

The Romney campaign had no contact with the grassroots operation in Tennessee. It was done by a couple who travelled around the state for three weeks prior to the SRLC to generate buzz for Romney. And they were NOT paid for. Frist was the one who bussed people in. Stop with the rumors. You can not take away the legitimacy of Romney's finish. In fact, if you take Frist out of the equation and use his voters' second choices, Romney would have won the whole thing.

All this talk about abortion is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan was pro-choice as Governor, GHWB was pro-choice, Al Gore was pro-life, and they all "found their way home" in time to run for President, and they all won the popular vote. So it's irrelevant that Romney changed his position.

Warner v. Romney sounds good to me.

Mark -

You say "there are very few, if any, truly honest liberals anymore".

Can you do me a favor and give me an example of a single honest conservative/republican from the current administration?

Ohio guy - I don't agree with you on many things but i think you are intelligent and you have made some good points on here. And I agree with you about Warner. The Democratic Party would be smart to nominate him. So keep writing in because I enjoy your comments and I think they keep the debate lively.

to 'Wait A Minute' -

I don't recall ever saying that Romney didn't run for election in Mass. b/c he wouldn't have won, so don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I know why Romney didn't run and it's b/c he said it would be disengenuous to run for governor and then turn around and run for presidnet in his opinion. All I said was Warner did not run for the Senate b/c he is planning an '08 run.

Don't get snippy b/c you made a dumb comment about Warner being scared of Allen and I called you out on it and proved to you how wrong you are.

Sandy, it's impossible to know fully whom a candidate would appoint to a Supreme Court opening. Roberts was great (probably), Miers disastrous, and Alito still to-be-determined. Thomas was great; Souter awful. O'Connor and Kennedy were mixed, Scalia great. I do feel, however, that while McCain has been pro-life throughout his career in the senate, his need to be loved by the media could lead him to appoint liberals to the court. All McCain really cares about is foreign policy. I don't feel that so much with Romney. And by the way, there are very few, if any, truly honest liberals anymore.

Pro-Romney organizers paid for hotel & reigstration costs for "over 200" SRLC attendees in exchange for their votes for Romney in the straw poll. When you work out the numbers, 14% of the 1427 votes cast comes out to exactly 200 votes. Looks like not a single vote was cast for Romney that WASN'T paid for!

Sandy, I agree with you and disagree with Mark. So what if those comments are from a decade ago? They are still relevant.

I looked around and found something much more recent that describes Romney's position on abortion (it's from the Boston Globe):

"'I RESPECT and will protect a woman's right to choose....Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

That was Mitt Romney in April 2002, then a candidate for governor, responding to a questionnaire from the Massachusetts affiliate of the abortion rights group NARAL."

Seems like a major flip-flop to me. I don't think it's sincere that he has supposedly converted. I can't judge the man's heart, but it seems like he takes a position based on which office he is running for at which point in his life.

I would like a lot more consistency. If you flip-flop on questions of life and death, what about war, poverty, economics, etc.

There is no consistent philosophy here it seems, except for saying whatever you need to in order to get elected. ANd that's just wrong.

Well in all sincerity, why trust Romney when there are other people with stronger records on the issue? I think that conservatives and pro-life people are getting tired of played by candidates who just seem to be political opportunists. The rationale for supporting Romney by some of the people on here seems to be "don't believe all this stuff you've heard from Romney over the past decade about abortion - he's really pro-life now." So was he lying before? And now he's being truthful? I don't buy any of this stuff about how "he had to be pro-abortion just to get elected in Massachusetts." That seems to me to be a bizarre rationale for someone's candidacy. Conservatives want to vote for someone who speaks from the heart and is unafraid and unapologetic about what they believe. I would rather have an honest liberal than a dishonest conservative or flip-flopper. I think Romney would not appoint Roberts and instead appoint someone like Souter.

Sandy, those comments from Mitt are from more than a decade ago. He may or may not agree with them now, deep in his heart. To me, anyway, what's important is not how a candidate feels personally about abortion and other social issues, but what kinds of judges he or she would nominate. If Romney would appoint conservatives like Roberts, it wouldn't matter what Romney himself would believe.

All this stuff about how wonderful Governor Romney is, I just don't believe it.

Here are some things he has said about abortion:

"I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign."

-Senate campaign debate with Sen. Ted Kennedy.

New York Times, Oct. 26, 1994

For RU-486

'I don't really understand how it works or when it works but my understanding is it's an effective morningafter pill, and I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking the morning-after pill,' Romney said. 'I would favor having it available.'

-Boston Herald, May 19, 1994

I find this to be highly upsetting. Even pro-abortion people should be upset about this. The man is either pro-abortion or a flip-flopper who can't be trusted.

Joshua, I like George Allen, but I don't think this is his time. Anyway, none of the things you wrote about Governor Romney are true. And McCain is now 69 years old. He will be 72 in 2008.

George Allen is the best rationale and safe choice for the GOP. So far out of all the candidates, Allen is the only one who is CLEAN and has INTEGRITY. Qualities sorely needed for the GOP.

1. Frist, association with Tom Delay, HCA (Columbia Medical) scandal and Terri Schiavo.

2. Romney, New England politician and issue of legalizing non-mainstream marriage - not gay marriage, but polygamy ("Big Love") again an issue. Oh yes, also a big time flip-flopper. Hauntingly like the GOP version of John Kerry (minus the purple hearts), so he can't win the Southern vote. Plus Utah Olympic Committee bribe scandal will be a problem for him.

3. McCain, alot of respect, but geez he's 72 now, he'll be 74 by 2008, better pick a good VP. Another Bob Dole type candidate. Oh, like all the others, he's got scandals - remember Keating five - well he's one of them.

I would like to echo all of the other comments about Romney and his problems.

He flip-flops on the most important issues.

I don't care for his attitude - always changing positions on the key issues depending on what election he is running in.

Colin, you might be interested in the following link, which is a ranking of all 100 senators from most conservative to least conservative based on their 2005 votes. According to this analysis, HRC is about the 20th most liberal senator, putting her a little to the left of the average Democrat senator. That makes her liberal, though not wildly so.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/cons.htm

Romney? No thank you. We don't need another flip-flopper. Can't make up his mind on abortion. Now he is pro-life? Again? I don't believe it. Not after he was so rabidly pro-abortion just a couple of years ago.

Just another shallow political opportunist.

Jake and Ohio guy: If I am not mistaken, I am the one stating that flexibility is a strength and despite your accusations that "I was nowhere to be found when Kerry was being labeled a flip-flop" or that I am full of hypocracy, I would like to encourage both of you to not assume so much.

In the 2004 presidential election, I was registered as Republican and voted for Kerry. I understood why Kerry voted the way he did when he did.

I now support Romney. I really wish politics wasn't such a cynical, power-hungry game. I appreciate those who have offered calm, reasonable analysis. I hope that moderates will triumph over the radicals of both parties.

Mark - Agreed that HRC is a great politician. In fact, all the talk that she can't possibly win reminds me of when Jimmy Carter's staff was hoping that Reagan would win the republican nomination b/c he was "too conservative." Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for.

However, I don't see how anyone can view her as a liberal democrat. Pick an issue and she is likely to be centrist by any measure. I'll grant you that that may not have been true regarding health care in 1994, but she learned a lesson on that one. Think about the major issues of today:

Iraq & War on Terror - she's continued to be about as hawkish as any democrat out there even while criticizing the prosecution of the war. Whether this is good or not is open for debate, but her position hasn't changed at all and it's hardly liberal.

Social Issues -- Both of the Clintons have always presented a more moderate view on most of the hot-button social issues. If anything, HRC has only articulated a more conservative view on abortion, etc. of late. If she ends up supporting parental notification, which she has apparently considered, then she'll literally be where a majority of America is at on abortion.

Taxes & Economy -- Rolling back only the tax-cuts for the top income bracket and keeping the cuts that apply to the middle-class strikes me as a pretty moderate stance, as does requiring pay as you go rules in the legislature. Maybe you disagree with this stance, but it's hardly the "liberal" economic plan.

Health Care (today) -- She's worked actively with Newt Gingrich on Health Care issues and today has a much more market-based approach to fixing existing problems.

I'd be curious to hear how any of these views make here something other than a moderate. I know republicans hate her, but that doesn't actually change where she's at on the issues.

If you support Mitt Romney for president in 2008, then visit the link below and join are growing numbers!

http://www.americansformitt.com

So Warner won't run against Allen b/c Virginians want a full-term Senator, but Romney doesn't run and it's because he won't win? How about they're both not running b/c they both want to be President?

You can have your double-standard back now.

Colin:

HRC is not a centrist, but she is at the center of the Democratic party. And that's a big reason she'll get the Democratic nod in 2008. And don't forget that women vote more than men. Bayh and Warner are similar, except that Bayh will show a better handle on national-security issues. In this day and age, I think it will be difficult for someone perceived as inexperienced to get the nomination. That's a big reason Kerry beat Edwards. Sure, the Dem race will come down to two people, but it will do so too late to stop Hillary. And anyway, she's a great politician. She'll outshine the other Democrats.

Another comparison between Warner and Romney doesn't hold up: both ARE one-term governors in states which usually favor the opposite party, but Warner was barred from running for reelection even though polls indicate he would've won easily had he been able to run and his chosen successor-Tim Kaine-was elected (even though he is perceived as more liberal than Warner). Romney, on the other hand, has CHOSEN not to run for reelection, presumably out of fear he would lose (a strong possibility, according to polls) and dash his national ambitions.

Keep It Simple -

>> If Warner is so stout, why did he refuse to run against Allen? <<

Your idiotic insinuation that Watner is scared of Allen is not lost on anyone. Warner chose not to run against Allen b/c he is definitely running for president in 2008, and Virginians want a full-term senator. Allen apparently dosen't care about leaving after 2 years to run for president. For your information, polls have shown Warner soundly defeating Allen in a Senate matchup and also defeating him if both men were the presidential candidates in '08, so it wasn't out of fear, it was out of priciple. Warner would destroy Allen.

SENATE POLLS:

Rasmussen:
Warner - 49%
Allen - 44%

Times - Dispatch:
Warner - 47%
Allen - 42%

PRESIDENTIAL MATCHUP:

UVA Center for Politics poll:
Warner -49%
Allen - 32%

Just thought I would take the time to straighten you out. :)

Mark - So you think that HRC has already won the nomination then? She will clearly have the most $$, but I respectfully disagree.

In every recent Dem primary that I can think of (even in 2000, where Gore was the sitting VP) the race has ultimately come down to two candidates. HRC is likely to be one of them and the other will either be running to her right or left. (Like it or not, from a policy perspective she really is a centrist.)

From my vantage point, Warner will likely try to hit her from the right after Bayh, Clark, etc. have fallen from the race. I understand that you apparently like Bayh, but the guy really doesn't have much charisma and his wins in Indiana, although impressive, have an awful lot to do with his last name as opposed to his own political brilliance. I think Warner emerges from that group and consolidates the Right/Center wing of the party.

Edwards is definitely running from the left, as would Gore if he got back in, which could actually happen. Although I like both of them, neither has a shot to win the nomination.

Colin, I just moved from McLean to Indiana. I agree that Governor Warner was a good governor and is a good guy. The tax environment was excellent in Virginia before Warner was governor. Now it is less than excellent, but still very good. I just think that in a primary with several well-qualified moderates (Edwards will run as a populist, strong-defense moderate, not a liberal) the moderate vote will be split too much for a moderate to get the Democratic nomination. Unlike Lieberman, who ran out of money quickly, Bayh will have a fortune unless he blows it all in Iowa. The guy already has something like $10 million in his campaign bank now. Hillary is a standard leftwinger, like Kerry and Gore before her. She'll be the only significant one in the primary. The moderates will be Warner, Bayh, Richardson, Edwards and maybe even somebody like Clark. Too many in the race for one of them to win.

Mark - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the comparison, but I would note the following:

Taxes - Depends on what you mean by "tax rate" for whose are lower. Va. has a slightly higher income tax rate on the high end of its range compared to Mass's flat rate. However, Va. has a lower state sales tax than Mass, much lower usage fees, and a SIGNIFICANTLY lower gas tax.

Tech Developments -- Agreed that Mass has a thriving tech sector as well, but I don't think you can link that to Romney. Warner, in contrast, has affirmatively worked to transform Virginia's economy while he was in office. Has government spending helped Va.? Of course it has. But Warner has also pushed an agenda focused on expanding technology into all parts of Va., including the generally neglected S.W.

Bayh and other Moderates -- My comparison to Lieberman referred to his perceived ability to raise money, which he was able to do initially after entering the campaign late due to his pledge to Al Gore. The fact that Bayh is raising money now strikes me as similar to the perceptions about Lieberman. Basically, I don't see how it's relevant b/c the guy really doesn't have much appeal to any sector of the party. As far as Edwards goes, he's trying to run to the LEFT of HRC. He's renounced his vote on the war, he's focused on poverty issues, and is actively courting liberal activists. I like the guy, but I wouldn't say he's shooting for the same block of voters as Warner.

Dear Intrepid Liberal: Frist will lay an egg in Iowa and New Hampshire. Contrary to your hopes and dreams, he won't be the GOP nominee.

Frist's response to Feingold's proposed resolution of censure against Bush on ABC this morning was pathetic. Accountability of leadership under the law is not a weakness. It is the glue of our democracy. Frist amply demonstrated this morning why he is unfit for the job.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Colin: Massachusetts and Virginia have very similar tax rates, but it looks like Massachusetts' are slightly lower.

On Bayh: He is raising a fortune of money to compete in 2008. Lieberman had no money in 2004. Also, John Edwards will also be competing, and getting, some of the moderate vote in the Dem primary.

On Massachusetts: It has a thriving technology sector, including biotech. Virginia (where I lived for a decade before moving a few months ago) is a wonderful place that has benefited mightily from big government spending (defense, homeland security) since 2002. Governor Warner is a good guy, but he didn't have much to do with it.

Keep It Simple -- You forgot a few other differences between Romney and Warner:

Taxes -- Va. STILL has one of the lowest tax rates in the nation and had to raise some taxes (Warner also cut taxes on quite a few things)in order to keep its Bond Rating at the highest level. BEFORE he cut taxes he slashed the State's budget in all areas except transportation and education, which is why the voters understood when taxes were raised. In MASS, the tax rate is quite a bit higher and, candidly, there was more fat to cut from the budget. All tax increases aren't bad -- it really does depend on the circumstances. FYI - Va. is now using the increased revenue to fix some of its transportation congestion. If you've driven around N. Virginia, you'd know that is a very POPULAR initiative.

Non-Political Experience -- Yes, they were both successful executives. But Warner has used his knowledge of the High Tech industries to modernize Virginia's economy and create Jobs. Romney simply hasn't done anything similar in Mass.

Core Convictions -- Mark Warner has always been, and remains now, a MODERATE. If he wins the Dem nomination, it will still be as a moderate. His responses in that NYTimes articles proves that. Romney, by contrast, has switched from being "conservative" pre-1994 to "liberal" and now back to conservative. I'm still waiting to hear how he explains these changes as anything other than political expediency....

Marilyn -

"Say what you want about McCain - while he has not pleased conservatives on everything, he has always been solid on their core issues."

McCain voted against the tax cuts, twice. Romney and Allen say they would have signed the ND anti-abortion law, while McCain had caveats. While the social issues are what gets the base fired up, taxes are issue #1 with conservatives. So, no, he hasn't even been close to 100%.

Colin, I believe that Al Gore and John Kerry were the frontrunners in 2000 and 2004, respectively. (Dean came on strong before the votes were counted in 2000, but Kerry began the campaign as the frontrunner and ended up with the nomination.)

MDDEM -- Warner raised taxes. Romney did not, and Romney's deficit was larger. Warner took the easy way out. That would be the choice between those two candidates, and Romney would win.

If Warner is so stout, why did he refuse to run against Allen?

Fact is, Warner and Romney are very similar. Both were one term governors with legislatures held by the opposing party. Both were executives in the corporate world. Both lost races to senior Senators. Warner-Romney, in my opinion, would be a no-lose election for the American people.

Mark - Clinton certainly could end up winning, but when was the last time that such an early Dem front runner cruised to the nomination? These things have a way of tightening up a bit, and I think that someone will end up making the primary competitive.

For what it's worth, I think the arch of Bayh's campaign will be pretty similar to Lieberman's, which is to say he looks more formidable when it comes to fundraising than he is as a candidate. Richardson is a wild-card, but I think some skeletons in his closet may preclude a run at this point. Phil Bredesen, the Governor of TN, is an interesting dark horse for VP. I think a ticket of Warner/Bredesen would win in a landslide, so it's probably an impossible dream...

Republicans have once again demonstrated why they are the masters of hypocrisy.

If a democrat switches positions on abortion or gay marriage, it's "flip-flopping".

When a republican switches positions on abortion and gay marriage, it's "flexibility".

When a democrat who voted for the war in Iraq says he or she made a mistake, they are a "flip-flopper" or a "cut-and-runner".

When a republican pundit realizes Iraq is a qaugmire and a lost cause, he is "enlightened" and in the "mainstream".

- Rovian hypocrisy at it's finest (or worst??).

Note: Barack Obama is NOT running for prez or vice-prez in '08, just for those who might not know.

Senator Clinton is enormously popular with women, so she'll get the Democrat's nomination. She'll quite possibly pick Mr. Warner for her VP. In a Democratic field that's likely to include Warner, Bayh and Richardson, there just won't be enough moderate votes for any one member of this more-moderate trio to win the nomination.

Romney vs. Warner -- It strikes me that it will be pretty hard for Romney to distance himself from his past statements on abortion and gay rights without losing his credibility. That being said, astute politicians have managed to make similar moves in the past. Reagan signed one of the first pieces of legislation DE-CRIMINALIZING abortion and Bush I was a committed Pro-Choicer until he got picked as VP. Similarly, Gore was generally viewed as Pro-life before running for national office. If it looks like Romney is the only republican that can win, I could see conservatives swallowing his line about "evolving."

On Warner, I think similar logic holds. If primary voters are desperate enough to WIN again (regardless of ideology), then I think Warner has a real shot. The guy has a convincing talk on why he's a democrat that will speak to liberal as well as centrist dems. After 8 years of a president that the most liberal members of the democratic party despise, that may be enough to let Warner win the nomination....

For what it's worth, I think Warner would destroy any republican nominee other than McCain. In that match up, I think things would be close.

The following is from a George Will piece on Mark Warner, which includes quotes from the former governor. After reading it, do the Democrats on this board believe that Mr. Warner can win the Democratic nomination in 2008? Given the ideological nature of the majority of primary voters, I just don't believe it.

"Warner breaks from purity, as portions of the base understand it, by supporting the Laci Peterson law -- killing a pregnant
woman is two killings -- and 'reasonable restrictions on late-term abortions.'
Parental notification of a minor child seeking an abortion? 'I'm for it.'

Romney's running for vice president.

Clinton/Obama
vs.
McCain/Romney

Once the conservative evangelicals and Roman Catholics find out that Romney flip-flopped on abortion and gay marriage, they will never support him. Many Mormons do not like Romney because he has betrayed their faith on these issues. Plus he has flip-flopped and now all his lobbyist and consultant friends (many of whom are totally pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage and just use the Republican Party to further their own financial gain) are wringing their hands over what to do about it.

Saying "he had to be pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage just to win in Massachusetts" is not a justification for his actions. I'm sure he is a nice person but he doesn't stand for anything. He either sold out his beliefs to get elected, or he is really in favor of these left-wing views.

Say what you want about McCain - while he has not pleased conservatives on everything, he has always been solid on their core issues. He has always been 100% pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. Whether that's just an act, I don't know, but if it is, he's a hell of a lot better actor than Romney

I loved Mitt, reading up on him - he is honest, committed, very intelligent, and a proven winner. (almost unheard of in politics) He allready has a pretty quickly growing grassroots support movement, and due to his LDS connections has the ability to organize really quickly and efficiently. His religion may be a small hurdle to some but the positives will far outweigh the negatives. Mormons are known for honesty, strict morality, hard work, integrity, and service. He instantly has organized connections all over the country and in key states like florida, and ohio where mormon numbers are surprisingly high. Bush wouldn't have been elected without LDS volunteer support, and it will benefit Romney more than anyone thinks. It is interesting to note however that much of the early grassroots support for Romney is not from mormons but conservative evangelicals!

Grace so eloquently opined: "Mercy sakes, these Democrats yapping in here about a Republican straw poll. It is so funny to read all this stuff, since you Dems and liberals are not involved in picking who the next Republican candidate is, it is the Republican voters and delegates."

1) That IS funny since Republicans NEVER interject their ideology in Democratic races. Never! Banish the thought.

2) I guess we should just not have an opinion or voice it publicly. How dare I think we live in an open society!

>>>you Dems have got a totally disorganized party of leaders fighting for control

You are mistaking diversity of opinion (remember that? it's one of the founding principles of this country) for disorganization. Unless you actually believe that everyone should agree on everything, in which point you are 60 years late and on the wrong continent.

Mitt Romney - flip-flopper on abortion and gay marriage. It's no excuse to say "he was in a Democratic state, so he had to support these things." Mitt Romney would sell the conservatives down the river in a heartbeat. And now we are supposed to believe that he has returned to his conservative beliefs? It's one thing to have an evolution of views on these issues, but Mitt Romney started out as being pro-life and against gay marriage, then supported abortion and gay marriage when he ran for the Senate in 1994 and again for Governor in 2002, and now we are supposed to believe that he has had a sincere change of heart back to his old beliefs? How convenient that this happens just in time when he wants to run for President!

It's too bad, because Mitt Romney is talented in a lot of other ways, but he has squandered any credibility he had. He is worse of a flip-flopper than Kerry.

If "nicetry folks" took an in depth look at Va. Gov. Warner's achievements with an extreme right wing southern conservative legislature. He did the right thing and went to the voters and said here is the issue on transportation. I need to get the funds to fix the terrible problem YOU the Voters face in the state--you make the choice to tax or let the problem get worse. Guess what the majority of voters agreed with him and reelected him big time. That is leadership and he did this on many important issues facing the state of Virginia. The voters decided they needed problems in the state addressed and THE VOTERS addressed them. Romney is a LITE WEGHT. He reduced taxes all right but in the process reduced services to those middle and lower income people--how nice! It takes character and leadership to tell the voters the truth no matter how bitter a pill it may be. I notice he didn't fully address the high cost of heating fuelvfor the citizens of the state of Mass. All I can say to nice try is "nice try back at you.

>>>Thanks for the heads up on the Novak thing

No problem at all, I totally understand the pressures of running a website in the midst of a million other things... life, job, etc :)

As a delegate from Texas, I was looking forward to showing my support for Secretary Rice. I wrote in her name, and Condi got a total of 32 write-in votes. That is 2.2%, more than Rudy. She is also a major player for 2008 and it is quite strange that Hotline would fail to put the name of a contender for 2008, with over 20% support for president in the Marist polls, USA Today/CNN/Gallup polls, and Zogby polls, as well as the Siena Polls. You boys at the DC bureau should have seen all the banners for Condi 08, and the I LIKE CONDI STICKERS on the delegates. You also failed to mention she had an organized group in Memphis, and it is the people who are going to get Condi to run. Mercy sakes, these Democrats yapping in here about a Republican straw poll. It is so funny to read all this stuff, since you Dems and liberals are not involved in picking who the next Republican candidate is, it is the Republican voters and delegates. If the organization for Condi had not been in Memphis, how many votes do you think Condi would get? On the other hand, Hotline screwed up the ability for the voters who support Condi to show how much she is their preferred candidate for 2008. Funny how you all try to make fun of our political activity while you Dems have got a totally disorganized party of leaders fighting for control. Good luck.

To "FairandBalanced":

Thanks for the heads up on the Novak thing. I do appreciate it. Thing is, is that when it comes to spelling and grammar I am a perfectionist normally, so it really surprises me some of the mistakes. Normally if I used spell check, it goes through the entire page and doesn't find a single mistake. But, with that said, I've gotten a little free with my posting without checking of late, and I need to change that. Thanks for the reality check. I do appreciate it. I am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong on something, and this is definitely something that needs to be corrected.

Most Sincerely,

Ann Marie Curling

I was also kind of shocked that McCain used the straw poll as a vehicle to support Bush. It kind of reinforces the Bush people's attempt to portray McCain as kind of nuts. Interestingly, I've heard that McCain has hired a lot of old Bushies! Maybe they have gotten to him.

McCain's strong suit has always been that he's a maverick and an independent, and a different kind of Republican. Frankly, I think the only kind of Republican that could win in 2008 would be a different kind.

McCain is clearly pandering to Republican primary voters... but you want to know something? They might be looking for something different in 2008, also.

McCain became a reformer after he was implciated in the Keating 5 scandal. I guess now he's becoming a "real Republican" after being victimized by the real Republican machine of George W.Bush.

to those of you who said that Romney's "flexibility" is his strength-- where the hell were you when Kerry realized that the war in Iraq was a farce, stood on principle and voted against it?

Because I watched the Republican Convention, and it seemed like a lot of people were yelling "flip-flop." Not a lot of "flexibility" fans there.

Posted by: Mccain in 08
“I find it laughable that so many discount Mccain for displaying the kind of personal integrity that's is so hard to find in politicians today. Sure, Mccain may vote against the President on some big issues but he never fails to give the kind of respect due to the President of the United States. Mccain has the courage to stand up for his principles and this pointless straw poll won't change that, no matter how many 'locals' get bussed in.”

GWB outsmarted and destroyed McCain once before in the primaries. Why is he endorsing GWB in a straw poll? Doesn’t he realize it’s a political kiss of death, he’s the only candidate that kept some distance from GWB and he can run on that fact against all other opponents that were GWB rubber stamps? He’s only helping the Democrats win in 2008. "McCain in 08", wake up, look at GWBs polls, who ever the Republican nominee is, they will be tagged early as GWB Jr. McCain nominating GWB in the straw poll was poor decision making, will this be the kind of president he’s going to make? Now all the major GOP candidates can be tagged as GWB Jr. As a democrat, thank you McCain.

Posted by: Mark

"The Democrats on this board seem angry. But maybe they're just scared...that Mitt Romney will beat Senator Clinton in 2008. Mitt has a record of accomplishment in the private and public sectors that no other potential candidate--in either party--can match."

Well then if he does defeat her, she won't be nominated for President. However, by your own thought process if Clinton does win over Romney. She'll not only make a great presidential nominee, but great president.

Oh and Ann Marie, I know somebody pointed out the spelling mistakes, but you may want to correct this one... it's spelled with a "K"... N-O-V-A-K. Ya dont want THAT guy on your bad side, who knows what kind of nasty things he'd print!

These results, from top to bottom, are literally the ideal scenario for Dems. Thank you SRLC!

And, hehe, the people who think Dems are "afraid" of Romney, better think again. Now I simply cant wait for the Republican Primary. Its going to be very entertaining.

I recently moved from Virginia after spending a decade there. Mark Warner is indeed very well-liked in his home state, but he won't get the Democrat nomination. Once he's on a stage with Senator Clinton and some of the other folks who will run, he'll seem dull and uninformed. Plus, he has said some things on abortion (to his credit, in my opinion) that imply he isn't as doctrinaire against abortion (notification, etc.) as the Democrat party as a whole (and as the primary voters would want). A center-left politician like Bill Clinton could get the nomination in 1992 because he was so impressive and smooth, and the rest of the field was so weak. Governor Warner is a nice, successful guy, but he's not close to Bill Clinton in terms of political skills or knowledge on policy.

Which white boy will win?!

How many millions will they be worth?!

Can't wait for episode 2!!

Mccain is no more a suck up than Hillary is a spider monkey. Don't mistake respect due to one's commander in chief to blanket support for political gain. Mccain is a military man from military family and his support of President Bush is no different than the respect that he showed President Clinton during his administration. Mccain has broken with the Bush White House every time his principles demanded. His support for Bush is necessary at this time. What chance do we have of halting Iran's nuclear enrichment program if foreign leaders think that Bush no longer has the support of his own party. As Benjamin Franklin said, we must either hang together or we will hang seperately.

And don't kid yourselves, there is no other legislator or governor of either party that could unite the country after so many years of partisan bickering.

And as far as the flip-flopping on abortion argument goes...The way I understand it, he had a close relative who had an abortion and had medical complications that nearly took her life. That made him support making sure that abortions were safe. He never liked abortions, but he would respect a woman's right to choose and promised not to change Massachusetts' abortion laws while governor. And he has kept that promise. Now, after studying stem cell research, his position evolved into being pro-life. I see flexibility as a strength. I change my opinions as I learn and study more. Rigidity leads to blindness. One of Bush's greatest faults in my opinion is his rigidity.

Anyway, please read the following from a transcript of the Feb. 26, 2006, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace" in which Romney addresses this criticism head on: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186080,00.html

I researched him and found that he is:
pragmatic (he founded a very successful business consulting firm that takes a pragmatic approach to fixing the messes businesses get themselves into),

willing to compromise (as the Republican governor of Democratically controlled congress, he has had to compromise often to get things done),

shows respect for dissenting opinions (he appointed a democrat to his cabinet and agreed not to change the abortion laws in his state even though he is pro-life),

believes in freedom and responsibility (he has helped to pass legislation that enables everyone in his state to have medical insurance, but the people pay for it themselves with a pro-rated scale for the poor),

is honest (he cleaned up the scandal ridden 2002 Winter Olympics),

has integrity (when there was suspicion that he had obtained improper campaign funds, he gave those funds to charity and was later cleared from any wrong-doing),

wisdom (I invite you to judge this for yourselves as you get to know him better. Read his recent speeches or his book "Turnaround"),

vision (Here is a link to his policy agenda which will be better defined later: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-3_3_06_MK.html),

flexibility (Although he has always had respect for life, he started out respecting a woman's right to choose an abortion, but after studying embryonic stem cell research in more detail, he moved more to being pro-life.),

and a desire to find real solutions.

I found that not only does he have those characteristics, he has the accomplishments to demonstrate that he could actually bring his plans into fruition.

Before you make a decision, please look into Mitt Romney. I have read critiques of Romney that brought up some of the arguments that have been asserted in this thread. But, upon futher review, I discovered that they were either unfounded or interpreted in a very slanted way.

Let me recommend two sites to you:
1) The first is Ann Curling's blog that has links to news articles about Mitt web

2) The second has a good summary of why Mitt Romney is right for America in 2008 http://www.americansformitt.com/

Forget McCain, he can never beat Hillary. Anyone who would suck up to Bush after what he did to him in 2000 would do and say anything to get elected and is not to be trusted. The only reason he asked for his votes in the straw poll to go to Bush is because he knew he couldn't win.

I hear a lot of "Warner would mop the floor with Romney." I'll have that debate every day and twice on Sunday. Warner and Romney both eliminated large state deficits. Warner did it by resorting to the largest tax increase in Virginia history. Romney did it without raising taxes. I'll take that debate to the American public.

And Hillary? Please. Has she ever been an executive, at any time, in any role? So, how is she qualified to be President.

Flip-flopping? Please. No one is doing a better job on the front lines in hostile territory on the issue of gay marriage than Mitt Romney.

And the planted rumors about Romney flying in help are unfounded. Chuck Todd reported on Hardball that most of Romney's support came from the state of Tennessee.

Democrats, your fears about facing Romney are justified. I'd be afraid if I were you, too.

As ugly as it sounds, I don't see Romney going anywhere as a national candidate because of his religion. National campaigns are so awful these days, I can't imagine some element backing a competitor not going there to some extent, and it doesn't take much delving into Mormon theology (the real stuff, not just what they promote to outsiders) to make it sound a lot like what most people call "cults." Just one major press conference with people asking about how many ancestors he's converted posthumously or whether he thinks he'll rule his own world someday will be enough to burst any bubble he might build up.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
www.wsws.org

March 10. 2006 -- Cui bono from Dubai Ports World's renegotiated U.S. port management deal? A number of observers suspect that the deal worked out for Dubai Ports World to transfer operations of U.S. ports to a U.S. firm involves Bush family business dealings. The drawings of the late artist Mark Lombardi point out some interesting relationships between the Bush family, the Bin Ladens, BCCI entities, and Dubai. Lombardi died from a reported hanging suicide in 2000 but his "Global Networks" drawings illustrating the relationships between Texas financial networks and Middle East businessmen and government figures have garnered the past interest of the FBI and Homeland Security Department.

One of Lombardi's drawings, titled "George W. Bush, Harken Energy and Jackson Stephens, c. 1979-90, 5th Version, © 1999," shows a link between UBME Bank Dubai and Bush Harken Energy investor Sheik Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), SA (Luxembourg), Harken and BCCI investor Gaith Pharaon, the late Sheik Salim Bin Laden (the older brother of Osama Bin Laden who died in a 1988 plane crash in Texas), Main Bank Houston, James Bath, George W. Bush, and George H. W. Bush.

UBME Bank is now known as Emirates Bank International, the largest bank in Dubai.

Another Lombardi drawing, titled BCCI, ICIC & FAB, c. 1972-91, Second version, shows a connection between Ghaith Pharaon and his brother Wabel Pharaon and BCCI's Cayman Islands entity called ICIC. BCCI was an international slush fund used by Vice President George H. W. Bush to funnel money to various U.S. clients, including the Afghan mujaheddin, Sadaam Hussein, Gen. Manuel Noriega, Nigerian dictator Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, President Vinicio Cerezo in Guatemala, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, Gen. Hussain Mohammed Ershad in Bangladesh, and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in India. There is also a connection to UBS Bank in Switzerland where the Bush crime family reportedly has stored the billions of dollars in gold and jewels extorted from Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos in return for safe haven in the United States. The U.S. envoy who worked out that deal was Paul Wolfowitz, the then-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and now World Bank President.

One name of interest on the Lombardi chart is the late General George Olmsted, an Army G-2 in China in World War II and purchaser of the International Bank in Washington, DC in 1955, a well known bank with few assets. Olmsted was also rumored to be a top CIA asset and, more interestingly to international shipping, a prime mover, along with Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, of the 1948 creation of International Registries, Inc. (IRI). After Stettinius died in 1950, ownership of IRI passed to Olmsted's International Bank at 1701 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington. After problems with the Liberian government, IRI and Liberia severed relations on Jan. 1, 2000. IRI's shipping operations had previously been shifted to the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a former U.S. trusteeship that gained independence. Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, is a contrivance that has masked thousands of questionable shipping and intelligence operations, banks, and corporations, including corporations involving arms smuggler Viktor Bout and Pat Robertson, through the International Trust Company in Monrovia.

In 1976, when George H. W. Bush was CIA Director, IRI/Liberian Services moved its headquarters to Reston, Virginia. IRI also maintains offices in New York; London; Pireaus, Greece; Hong Kong; Ft. Lauderdale, FL; Singapore; Shanghai; and Tokyo. The entity has long been rumored to be a CIA front, having registered ships owned by Greek shipping tycoon Stavros Niarchos and brokering deals involving George H. W. Bush's Zapata Off-Shore. All of Zapata Off-Shore's Securities and exchange Commission filings between 1960 and 1966 have been destroyed.

The Carlyle Group, the corporate entity that replaced the Bush-influenced entities such as BCCI and savings and loan banks of the 1980s and the Enron slush fund of the 1990s, is rumored to have a major stake in Dubai Ports World outsourcing of port operations in the United States. Halliburton is also rumored to be a top contender to take over port operations from Dubai Ports World. George H. W. Bush has old business ties to Dresser Industries, which is now owned by Halliburton/Kellogg, Brown & Root.

Romney is an empty suit and Frist is the Doctor of nationalism.

Allen's speech notwithstanding it won't do him any good if he loses his senate race this fall. Then the corporatists of the Republican Party will have to find another empty suited moron to carry their banner.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

I think Hillary is praying to God that the republicans nominate Mitt Romney. She would absolutely destroy him and it would be funny when he dosent even win Michigan or Mass. The only republican who can beat Hillary right now is John McCain.

Regarding "Mitt Romney won as a conservative Republican in a state that is 85% Democrat."

Mitt Romney ran as a liberal pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Republican in two statewide elections in Massachusetts - 1994 and 2002.

I would vote for H. Clinton over Romney - at least you know where she stands. Mitt Romney doesn't stand for anything except his own career. What a disappointment.

Nice try, consultants for Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is huge flip-flopper. Was pro-life prior to 1994, was pro-abortion from 1994-2005, and now is pro-life again? Flip-flopped on gay marriage, too.

Mitt Romney - a nice guy and a good speaker who decided about 12 years ago he would say anything just to get elected.

Interesting straw poll. The SRLC attendee's rumor is pretty laughable since over 85% of the straw poll voters were from Tenn. and the rumor on the outside is that Frist was doing the busing.

Suprising results from Romney, gonna have to keep an eye on him. Seems like Mitt Happens!

Regarding Mitt Romney:

- Private sector experience is unmatched
- Turned around a corrupt and failing Olympics and made it one of the most successful in history
- Won as a conservative Republican in a state that is 85% Democrat
- Beat a woman candidate (what other Republicans in this field have done that) named Shannon O'Brien in a state that is 55% Irish Catholic
- Turned a $3 billion deficit into a $1 billion surplus in three years
- WILL win Michigan, a key battleground state
- Whipped everyone but the hometown boy in a straw poll that he didn't even compete in

He's a winner, plain and simple. Hillary will be begging Republicans nominate someone else, because Governor Romney will run laps around her. The attack dogs are already turned loose on him. It won't matter. He's got what it takes.

I find it laughable that so many discount Mccain for displaying the kind of personal integrity that's is so hard to find in politicians today. Sure, Mccain may vote against the President on some big issues but he never fails to give the kind of respect due to the President of the United States. Mccain has the courage to stand up for his principles and this pointless straw poll won't change that, no matter how many 'locals' get bussed in.

Mark -

I find it interesting that you say this about Romney:

>>Mitt has a record of accomplishment in the private and public sectors that no other potential candidate--in either party--can match.<<

Everyone's entitled to their opinion no matter how silly but how about you back it up with some facts. Mark Warner accomplished more as governor and as a founding member of Nextel than Romney ever will. Warner was rated one of the best 5 governors in the country by TIME magazine.....funny how Romney wasn't on that list. Warner founded Nextel with a few others and built a company from nothing and now has $200 million in personal wealth.

Romney is what the neocons would call a flip-flopper and an opportunist. But hey, PLEASE go ahead and nominate him. PLEASE. I would love watching him get destroyed by a woman and not win EITHER of his "home" states.

The whole thing was overrated. People put stock in this meaningless stuff because they are desperate to write stories about anything. They have nothing else to do.

All of the candidates are boring losers, except for Romney, who is just a big flip-flopper. If Romney got nominated, he would just go right back to being pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage again.

Does any of this mean anything at this point? Or is this just for political junkies? I thought Chris Matthew's' live-from-Memphis reports were a bit much, and I'm a junkie myself.

There's rumors at the SRLC that Romney tried to pack the conference with supporters and paid to get them registered to vote in the straw poll.

Non of this matters McCain is going to sweep it.

If I were a Republican, I would not support Mitt Romney. That man is the worst kind of flip flopping opportunist. What he did is like if a Democrat got elected in Mississippi as a pro-life conservative and then started running for president and describing themselves as a pro-choice liberal. You wanna know why Romney isn't running for re-election? He can't win. Frist is a joke too. He is a completely ineffective majority leader, he interferes in personal family tragedies, and diagnoses people over a video tape. If you like Bush, what could be better than electing his right-hand man. Allen could be a decent candidate, but if Bush is still at 37%, his similarities to Bush might not go over too well. Plus he'd better watch out back home. He only got 52% of the vote against a Democratic senator with a closet full of skeletons who didn't want to run. Plus Warner would beat him in Virginia if they ran against each other. Sorry Republicans, you ain't gonna win in 2008.

frist win is interesting on this level...yes srlc was in memphis but that didnt guarantee that frist voters would turn out...charlie cook didnt think they would and said so on friday during hardball interview....very conservative red state bloggers ddnt think they would...Chris C. seems to have been in doubt from his frist speech post...but they did

we also know frist can raise money...his pac proved tday that they are capable organizers...

so a frist campaign would presumably have money and would be able to organize...iowa's caucus structure makes iowa an organization state...and we know mccain will skip iowa...i wonder if frist is better positioned than many people think...

btw, big loser isnt mccain...it is allen...he finished 4th not third...because presumably the bush voters are actually mccain voters...allen should have done better and didnt...va isn't as far away as massachusetts or arizona...and va is a srlc state...

allen organization was aparently stunned...from buzz in peabody lobby...

To TR: I appreciate the constructive criticism. It's been a very busy day, and I have not been as diligent as I should be on that accord. I will definitely be more aware of this in the future. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

To Ann Marie: Your blog might be more influential if more of the words were spelled correctly.

The Democrats on this board seem angry. But maybe they're just scared...that Mitt Romney will beat Senator Clinton in 2008. Mitt has a record of accomplishment in the private and public sectors that no other potential candidate--in either party--can match.

Mark Warner would absolutely destroy either of these buffoons.....I hope the repubs nominate one of them.

Engler and his minions will run the Romney campaign straight into the ground. They can't even win their own state.

Still amazed that Sam Brownback doesn't do better in these things. His stands and record on the core conservative issues are closer to those of the rank and file's than any of the other candidates. I guess it's his low profile.

My address didn't show up, it's http://blog.electromneyin2008.com.

I know that Mr. Frist finish first here, but given his home state it's not unexpected. Mr. Romney on the other hand had a remarkable showing. The more people see of him, the more they're going to like. For those of you who want an extensive library of Mr. Romney's stand on the issues, and who he is as an individual visit my blog.

they are just trying to pick the biggest loser ... Frist is way to right wing to win a nation wide election ..

A big nothing. The Republican Party is going to lose in 2008 because all of their candidates are either corrupt, phony, or boring. This "straw poll" is a total waste of time.