WHAT ARE THEY SAYING ABOUT THE PROSPECTIVE GOP CANDIDATES WAY ON THE EXTREME END OF THE LUNATIC FRINGE?

Among the kooks and nutcases known as the Republican Party base, objective #1 is to keep McCain from getting the nomination. These are the people who are still trying to figure out if their dream ticket-- Macacawitz plus Santorum-- can somehow be resuscitated. The view of McCain over in loonyville is as close to right wing imbeciles ever get to reality: "This guy is an egomaniac who has built an entire career out of kicking conservatives in the teeth in order to get adulation from the mainstream media." McCain is certainly an egomaniac who has relentlessly and shamelessly sucked up to the media but his extreme right wing record certainly doesn't show him kicking conservatives in the teeth, just Americans. [UPDATE: DOBSON SAYS "ANYONE BUT McCAIN." One of the big religionists in the GOP, a cult leader in Colorado named Dobson whose followers take the sheep analogy very seriously, says he's praying "we won't get stuck with him." He also said "I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances."]


First choice in the nuthouse seems to be Randy "Duke" Cunningham's so far unindicted criminal partner, bribe-taking/toupee-wearing roly-poly Duncan Hunter. "Hunter is a movement conservative, tough on illegal immigration, the candidate with the best credentials in the war on terrorism, and in my opinion, he would be the most electable candidate the GOP could run because his position on trade would probably allow him to put states like Michigan and Pennsylvania genuinely into play. The real question is: can he buff his name recognition up to the point where people will start taking his candidacy seriously? He has a long way to go on that front at the moment."


When Hunter goes to prison they move to Newt Gingrich, one of the most hated and polarizing people in contemporary American politics. "Judging by his poll numbers not just in the blogosphere, but of the general public, Newt has a shot to win the nomination and out of the whole field, he would probably be the guy I'd most like to see in the White House. However, Newt has a lot of baggage and I'm still getting the sense that he doesn't intend to run." I'm sure that means something, I just don't know what. Most Democrats feel Newt would be the best candidate to run against in the entire universe.

No one likes Mitt Romney (and the non-Utah extreme wingnuts hate Mormons) but they'd take him if he were the only guy who could stop Giuliani or McCain. Nevertheless, Giuliani is next on the list, although only if he's the fallback position to stop McCain.


After Giuliani and before McCain comes a rogues gallery of 7 kooks and maniacs with less chance of becoming president than Paris Hilton. "Tanc [KKK leader Tom Tancredo] is one of my favorite conservatives, sets the standard on illegal immigration, is fiscally conservative, and is tough on the war on terror. However, the leadership he has shown on illegal immigration which has helped him build a following has probably also made him too polarizing to win the Presidency." Imagine being forced to choose between Tanc and Paris! Next is Sam Brownback-- "generally conservative, but he's not particularly charismatic, is a squish on illegal immigration, comes across as soft on the war on terror, and seems to have terrible political instincts." If Brownback, who's voting record is further right than Macacwitz', Orrin Hatch's, Santorum's Tom Coburn's, Conrad Burns', Tad Cochran's or David Vitter's is grudgingly admitted to be "generally conservative," you can see only someone with a pedigree as strong as Hitler, Franco or Cheney is going to make this gang happy.

After Brownback, the next also rans are Jim Gilmore ("The fact that Gilmore is this high says more about the quality of the field than the quality of Gilmore as a candidate. As of yet, he hasn't shown that he can get any traction or bring anything to the table."); Tommy Thompson ("The fact that he used to be governor of Wisconsin makes him more electorally appealing than Huckabee or Pataki, but as of yet, he hasn't given people any reason to support him."); Mike Huckabee ("He's socially conservative and seems personable enough, but he is not fiscally conservative, he's an amnesty advocate, and he doesn't come across as tough on the war on terror."); George Pataki ("A middle-of-road governor from a liberal state that he couldn't deliver in an election. Pataki brings very little to the table."); John Cox (He may be an accomplished guy, but he has never held elected office before or done anything that shows he's qualified to be President. Combine that with the fact that he has zero traction and zero prospect of gaining any and it would be tempting to leave him off the list all together. But, since I'd still prefer him to McCain or Hagel, he stays on." whew).


Then comes McCain, the antichrist. But, apparently, there are two even worse than the worst: Chuck Hagel ("Even Hillary is to his right in the war on terror." Good point.) and Ron Paul ("Paul is a soft on terror Libertarian who has run for the Presidency before on the Libertarian Party ticket. He would have about as much of a chance of getting elected as Al Sharpton.")