AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' CHOICE MOST REPUBLICAN VOTERS PICK IN POLLS-- A MODEL OF MODERN REPUBLICANISM: MICHAEL SAVAGE

It should come as news to no one at all that there isn't anyone exactly regaling in the plethora of great Republican candidates. Sure, virtually everyone not on the Regime's payroll is delighted to be getting closer to the time when we may never heard the word "Bush" again outside of the realm of war crime tribunals. But the dreck the Republicans are being asked to chose from as his replacement is even making the right-wing Moonie Times want to vomit.

Many conservatives say they pick "none of the above" when faced with a choice of Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.

"When I look at these top three guys, I think of Shania Twain singing 'That Don't Impress Me Much,'" said former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, referring to the popular country singer.

Another right-wing Texas pol, Tom DeLay, was equally dismissive a few days earlier and predicted that Hillary Clinton would probably be the next president. DeLay said he would never vote for Giuliani because of his moderate positions on gays, gun control and gynecology. Another Republican operative, Jimmy Dobson, one of their religionist storm troopers-- stop smirking; they didn't catch this one in bed with an underaged boy yet-- said he wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstances.

Such dissatisfaction with the leading Republican presidential candidates is widespread among the party's conservative stalwarts, including many of the 150 alumni of the Reagan administration who attended an annual reunion at the Heritage Foundation on Tuesday night.

"We are without a viable candidate for 2008 at this point," said Mary Ann Meloy, who was an official in the Reagan White House.

Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly counts herself in the "none of the above" category because, she said, the top three candidates are wrong, ambiguous or suspect on "limiting court jurisdiction, the loss of U.S. jobs from globalism and the immigration-amnesty-guest-worker, pro-life and same-sex marriage issues."

Similar discontent has been expressed by conservatives as prominent as radio host Rush Limbaugh-- who said last month that "there's nobody out there that revs me up" in the 2008 Republican presidential field-- and from many other longtime activists who are influential, if not quite household names.

"No one of the three top-tier individuals is a conservative," said Tom Carney, a Florida lawyer and Republican fundraiser. "But even more importantly, none of them have original thoughts. They are all ultimate pragmatists. They want to be president without the necessary vision in this time of international crisis..."

Christian Josi, senior vice president of Dezenhall Resources, a Washington-based public relations firm, said, "I am a conservative. I have had all I can stomach of Republicans."

"To put it very simply, it is very clear that McCain and Giuliani both have demonstrated that they have significant problems with key elements of the Bill of Rights," Mr. Josi said. "And that is frightening. Don't get me started on Romney. Suffice to say, I find his ideological commitment to the core conservative principles to be highly suspect."

So what's a right wing bigoted greedball to do? I mean, Adolf Hitler isn't coming back to solve their predicament (and "None of the Above" won't work in November '08). Although... speaking of right wing icon A. Hitler, another of their heroes does come to mind and-- it turns out-- he is seriously mulling a run for the Republican nomination! What luck! Ron Gunzburger hipped me to Republican author and radio propaganda star Michael Savage's intention to be president (of the United States... of America).

If you're not a right-wing kook grappling with the fringes of reality you may not know who the hell Michael Savage is. But that doesn't matter. Every person who votes in the Republican primaries knows him and loves him. Why? Well, he believes in the same nonsense they believe in... chapter and verse. In fact, you can read all about Savage in a fair and balanced report in an old issue of Salon.

Savage told the GOP propaganda outlet, NewsMax, that he knows the idea of him running for president is bizarre, "but when you consider the people running for the Presidency, none seems to be qualified." Well, he has a point there. But, still Michael Savage? He may have a digit more on his IQ than Shawn Hannity, but he's even crazier.

He thinks his big selling point is that he's a "non-politician who has a very large following, who is very conservative, and who believes in a simple message of borders, language, and culture." And he thinks he can "electrify the American people."

NewsMax, of course, is worried that a bizarre extremist like Savage will harm the entire GOP. Savage disagrees. He said he does not think his candidacy would hurt the Republican chances in November-- even if his run is divisive and insulting towards other GOP hopefuls. Example 1: the current crop of Republican candidates have "virtually no chance of winning right now... They are all political apparatchiks. They have never stood for borders, language or culture-- not one of them. They have completely failed the conservatives who elected the Republicans during the Gingrich revolution."

Example 2-infinity are even better:

"McCain... what does McCain stand for? He ran in the mantle of Barry Goldwater and then he completely humiliated that legacy by being a senator in the mold of a Rockefeller Republican rather than showing any tinges of Goldwater conservatism."

Rudy Giuliani-- "He has not got a ghost of a chance to be president. He's for Giuliani and no one else. He's too liberal; favoring gay marriage, for example, and he made New York City an asylum city for illegal aliens. He has no conservative credentials."

Mitt Romney-- "I don't know the man but his policies seem to be all over the map."
Newt Gingrich-- "He is intellectually brilliant, but I think... he's unelectable because he has too much history."

On the issues, Savage was equally blunt. "There is only one major issue," he said. "It's interconnected to the border. The border and the war on terror are interrelated. Bush cannot have it both ways. He cannot say he's fighting the war on terror over there and leaving the door to Mexico off its hinges over here. It doesn't make sense."

As for the war in Iraq, Savage says our troops are fighting with handcuffs.

"You can't fight a war with rules of engagement that are the rules of engagement of a state trooper in the United States."

Savage insisted, "This war cannot be won without a new strategy. They're putting more men into the meat grinder. There is only one way to resolve this. Use the techniques that have been used in all previous modern wars. Use air power to decimate the enemy in his stronghold-- the Sunni triangle, and the area where the Mahdi army is-- Sadr city, and then send tanks in with the men behind the tanks to mop up. You do not send boys in, alley-by-alley in hand-to-hand combat unless you are an incompetent sob."

Killing between a million and 3 million Iraqi civilians might not win anyone the presidency but it's probably a sure winner for the GOP nomination-- even if he did just call Bush and Cheney incompetent sons of bitches. He'll certainly spice up the debates-- especially since no one thinks McCain is capable of staying awake for more than a 3 hour stretch at a time these days. John Amato over at Crooks & Liars just turned me on to an even more bizarre Republican ticket than Savage-- and maybe even one that could be more popular: Rumsfeld and Bolton, the elusive third George W. Bush term Republicans think they want.