Preparing to Lose in '08

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann grasp the obvious, though they manage to stumble along the way.

In the field taking shape before our eyes, none of the top four contenders is likely to satisfy their [conservatives'] delicate palates - made more arrogant and discerning by decades of victories.

This is the aforesaid stumble. Palates have gotten less, not more discernible as each Republican candidate has been less conservative than his predecessor. Twenty years ago, Bush would never have won the nomination. Heck, people who dismissed McCain as too liberal eight years ago are seeing him in an altogether different light when he stand next to uber-liberal Rudi Guiliani. Speaking of which...

Rudy Guiliani? Pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay rights, pro-immigration, pro-gun control Rudy? Righties will vote for him only if they have lobotomies first. Remember how the New York City Council prohibited the Boy Scouts from meeting on city property because they wouldn't let in gay scoutmasters? Rudy let it happen.

I'm not so secretly hoping for a Guiliani nomination as nothing could expose the party as a complete charade more quickly. I am especially going to enjoy watching the soulless among the Evangelical commentariat tell their flock to vote for someone who opposes them on every single important issue.

Sen. John McCain? The McCain of the Kennedy-McCain bill to let illegal immigrants become citizens? Of the "anti-torture" bill to handcuff our agents when they question terrorists? Of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill that the right wing hates? Of the Lieberman-McCain anti-global-warming bill that addresses a problem the right doesn't believe in? That John McCain for president? The right wing can't tolerate his apostasy even if he is the pro-life candidate that Rudy isn't.

I like McCain infinitely more than Guiliani. The latter is a political whore, through and through, and possesses a very despicable character, whereas the former and I could probably enjoy a beer together. I'd never vote for the man of course, but I think him fairly respectable, for a politician. In the end, I think McCain is simply too honest and genuine to win the nomination. He's also very old.

Mitt Romney, who was pro-life and then switched to pro-choice when he ran to become Massachusetts governor and now is switching back again as he runs for president? The Mitt Romney who said "I will protect and defend the right of Massachusetts women to choose?" The Romney who has flip-flopped on gay issues? Will the right wing back him? No way.

There is also his Mormonism. I'm not sure why this matters, but the pundits keep saying that it does. All of which may mean nothing. Regardless, his wishy-washy stance on abortion should sink him.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich? A man who has never valued the right-wing social agenda?

When did this guy come back into play? His relative obscurity may be enough to vault him to the nomination, as Gingrich took on the antichrist of American conservative politics, Bill Clinton, back in the 90's.

And then there are the personal lives - the only one of these guys who hasn't had multiple wives is the Mormon - a church that's viewed dimly by lots of conservative Christians.

See, the pundits know. That said, divorce is viewed more favorably by conservative Christians than one would expect given Christ's take on the matter. Many conservative Christians are divorced and remarried themselves, so this might hurt them less than one would expect.

I think we'll all be a little surprised at how many conservative Christians turn out to vote Republican in 2008, but I also think the number who defect to third parties or refuse to vote outright will be large enough to sway the election to the Democrats.

People who say Hillary is too divisive to win are forgetting one very important point. She doesn't need to be as charming as Bill was; she merely needs to be more likeable than the Republican stooge who runs against her. Judging from the field, this task hardly seems Herculean.