As this election season drags on, and the GOP, lead by it’s new standard bearer, John “Maverick” McCain, lurches even further to the center-left than it had already been drifting; and given the near third party status of the Republicans in Washington State (after the Democrat party, and Really Democrat Party) , I am finding myself out in right field, without a Party to support.
I am not alone, by any stretch of the imagination. There are many others out here. We can see each other, and even converse with each other, commiserating in our sad new existence.
We find the basic tenants of the Democrat Party politically repugnant. Some of us even find Democrat stands on certain issues immoral, naive, reckless, or even suicidal, on a national level. The Democrat party has been, for most of it’s history and to this day, the party of Racism and Separation. It is a party that sees the Constitution as blunt instrument (when it can be twisted to fit their agenda), and a malleable “living” document when they can use the Judiciary to redefine it’s passages. Or, when all else fails, they simply ignore it. They are what we fought the Cold War against - a party run by a privileged elite (Super-delegates, in current parlance), dedicated to retaining and reinforcing racial separation (now known as Diversity), protectionism (under the guise of human rights, and “fair-trade”), appeasement and surrender to our enemies (far too many example to cite). They are, in short, a Party dedicated to remaking America into a third world banana republic, with a Democrat Politburo in charge. They are not Democrats, in any true sense of the word.
The GOP (who should be forced to renounce the name Republican, as they no longer deserve it, or adhere to the principals the party was founded on), the party that championed emancipation of the slaves, women’s suffrage, and the civil right act (despite Democrat opposition to all of the above), has become corrupted by power, and is now attempting to move to the left, to court the less fervent fellow travellers of the Democrat party. The ultimate expression of this is the elevation of a man who has opposed many Conservative - no REPUBLICAN - principals, as our nominee for the highest office in the land, and along with it, leadership of the party.
I used to be a Libertarian, once upon a time, when I thought that some of their stands might soften with time. Unfortunately, the Libertarians have done the ONE thing that the Republican Party has not - stayed true and locked in to their core principals. While that includes many things that I do support, including a firm grasp of the Constitution (what is now known as strict constructionism), and personal liberty, they also take many stands that are logically cohesive to their philosophy, but are naive at beast, and suicidal at worst. Among these are their stands on unfettered and uncontrolled immigration, and their policy of “military protectionism” - that the US Military is and should only be a self-defense force. These are wonderful ideas, and lofty goals, but in the real world, they are very likely to get you killed.
There is also the Constitution Party, which is part Libertarian, and equal parts Protectionist and Isolationist, with some Christian philosophy on the side.
I am sure there are many other parties out there, many of which I am not familiar with.
But I, and the others out here in Right Field, see none of these as a new home for us.
What are we looking for? I can’t answer for everyone, only for myself. If I could invent a party, it would have the following stands:
1) The Constitution should be interpreted with the original intent of the framers. Specifically the Bill of Rights should be enforced as intended, with emphasis on the 9th and 10th amendments.
2) Immigration is a positive force, and necessary to the future growth and prosperity of the nation, but our borders must be controlled, and we must have a single official language for the business of the nation, to bind us together.
3) The United States must remain strong enough militarily to defeat any enemy that would attempt to harm our citizens, either directly, or by attacks on our economic or strategic interests.
4) We must help nurture democracy and freedom around the world, using all tools at our disposal.
5) We must support and promote free trade.
6) In support of all of the above, we must be engaged with other nations, but we must never forget that diplomacy is only credible when backed up by the threat (or promise) of force - be it economic or military.
I am sure there are other planks that would be important, but these seem to cover it.
If anyone knows what party may meet these criteria, please let me know. I think I have a lot of friends who would be interested, as well.
UPDATE:
A commenter asked for some support to my allegation as the historical racism of the Democrat party.
Trail of Tears & Indian Removal Act- Supported by Andrew Jackson, President, Democrat
The Republican Partywas formed in 1854, primarily as an Abolitionist (anti-slavery) party, to oppose the Democrat Party. Indeed, many anti-slavery Democrats joined the Republicans. See also the Kansas-Nebraska act.
The Copperheadswere anti-civil war Democrats, some of whose action went over the line into treason. Think about today’s House and Senate leadership, when you read about them.
The Ku Klux Klan formed in 1865, had, by 1868 become a virtual military arm of the Democrat party in the south. Indeed the Klan became synonymous with the Democrats. They were such a powerful force in that party, that the 1924 convention was referred to as the “Klanbake Convention”. Even today, a former Klansman is an Elder Statesman of the Democrats in the US Senate - Robert Byrd of W. Virginia.
The Internment(and confiscation of property) of Japanese (and other asian) Americans during World War II was performed under Executive Orders (#9066 and 9095 respectively), issued by Franklin Roosevelt, President, Democrat.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964was passed with support of 82% of Republican Senators, and 80% of Republican Representatives. Only 69% of Democrat Senators, and 63% of Democrat Representatives voted for it.
After this, the Democrat party began to shift to more subtle forms or racism.
Entire Bureaucratic industries have risen up, ostensibly to help the poor, the economically disadvantaged, the immigrant. What they have done, is to ensure the failure of anyone that becomes entangled in their web. Welfare (and WIC) were instrumental in destroying the African-American nuclear family. Bi-Lingual education (and indeed, in many places, multi-lingual government services) have ensured that many immigrants are kept isolated in their cultural “ghettos”, and do not fully integrate into American society.
The crown jewel of todays Racism from the Left (which, there can be no argument, means the Democrat Party, for all intents and purposes), is the concept of Diversity. The very term “Diversity” is meant to be warm and fuzzy, inviting, even welcoming. In truth it’s basic underlying theme is DIFFERENCE and SPERATION, keeping every little Ethnic, Racial, and Religious groups in their own little space, separate, distinct (but EQUAL) to all others. It is the ultimate expression of Racism and Separatism.
The nemesis of the great evil of Diversity is a concept that reigned in America previously - the Melting Pot. It is in the melting pot, that all races, creeds, and colors combine, bringing along much of the good, less of the bad, and making a new and better whole. Diversity can never deliver an integrated society (look at Canada). It can only deliver an equal society, where all values, and morals, and ethics are equally valid, and therefore, equally invalid. Through Integration, and the Melting Pot, the many join to become one, not by forgetting who they were, but by adding that to the mix.
The ultimate expression of Diversity is the proposed menu requirements for the Democrat National Convention this year:
…caterers must provide foods in “at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white,” garnishes not included, according to a Request for Proposals, or RFP, distributed last week.
I think I would rather have a good Stew…
Hat tip to the DANE, and courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:
The House Republican Conference released a video last week titled “The Pelosi Premium” contrasting then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) 2006 promise to pass a “commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices” with the steep rise in gas prices since she took the gavel. According to the video, the price of a gallon of gas has risen from $2.33 in January 2007 to $3.40 in April 2008.
But let’s say that, as an environmentalist, you want to both 1) drastically reduce carbon emissions; but 2) want to pay as little a political price as possible for causing the requisite economic damage a reduction in carbon emissions would bring. How could you accomplish both of the goals? Well you might just pass a an energy bill that: 1) imposes huge new alternative fuel mandates; 2) allows for no development of new energy sources, and 3) raises taxes that discourage energy exploration and production.
It is not like the House wasn’t repeatedly warned that their policies would lead to higher gas prices. So we must entertain the possibility that that is what they meant to do all along.
Remember that out of any one gallon of gas, the Oil Companies make 8 or 9 Cents profit, and the TAXES on that same gallon run about 42 Cents!
Since 1971, when the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted, it has been legal for anyone of at least 18 years of age on Election day to vote (though that right had existed at the Federal election level since 1970, as a provision added to the Voting RIghts Act of 1965).
The result has been, to date, less than earth-shattering.
That may change this election cycle, with the first Generation X’er, Barak Obama, (though he is technically a tail-end baby boomer, having been born in 1961) with a shot at actually winning the White House.
Anecdotal ecidence suggests that Obama pulls vastly more young voters (17-24 range) than other candidates (way too many sources for this - here’s one).
In the late 90’s and to the current day, evidence has mounted that the decision making capabilities of the average American are somehwat less than desirable until later than previously supposed. One recent study suggested that while there is individual variation, :
indicates the juvenile brain is still maturing in the teen years and reasoning and judgment are developing well into the early to mid 20s.
Which should come as NO suprise to anyone that has lived through the horror of having Teenage children in the house.
Experts say that even at ages 16 and 17, when compared to adults, juveniles on average are more:
_impulsive.
_aggressive.
_emotionally volatile.
_likely to take risks.
_reactive to stress.
_vulnerable to peer pressure.
_prone to focus on and overestimate short-term payoffs and underplay longer-term consequences of what they do.
_likely to overlook alternative courses of action.
All of which could lead them to do something colossolly stupid, like voting for an empty suit, whose main talent is that he can read a Teleprompter REALLY well, and make it sound inspiring; is married to a woman whose College Thesis suggests a belief in Black Seperatism, who only decided that she was Proud Of America when her husband became the front runner for the Democrat nomination for President; attends what appears to be a Black Seperatist church; who is associated with a domestic (unrepentant) terrorist; and did, from all appearances, nothing during his single partial Senate term, except raise money for his Presidential run.
But I digress.
In the last several years, we have, as a society, determined that are young are, to put it simply, incompetent to make rational and reasonable decisions about many things.
Here in Washington, new restrictions were placed on new drivers.
On a national level, the sale of Alcohol is banned to anyone under 21.
Going back to the study:
It’s one thing to say teens don’t control their impulses as well as adults, but another to show that they can’t, he said. As for peer pressure, the new brain research “gives credence to the idea that this isn’t a choice that kids are making to give in to their friends, that biologically, they’re more vulnerable to that,” he said.
Consider the lobes at the front of the brain. The nerve circuitry here ties together inputs from other parts of the brain, said Dr. Jay Giedd of the National Institute of Mental Health.
This circuitry weighs how much priority to give incoming messages like “Do this now” versus “Wait! What about the consequences?” In short, the frontal lobes are key for making good decisions and controlling impulses.
Brain scans show that the frontal lobes don’t mature until age 25, and their connections to other parts of the brain continue to improve to at least that age, Giedd said.
The inexplicable behavior and poor judgments teens are known for almost always happen when teens are feeling high emotion or intense peer pressure, conditions that overwhelm the still-maturing circuitry in the front part of brain, Giedd said.
Peer Pressure like is found on College Campii, and at Political Rallies.
Different mental capabilities mature at different rates, Steinberg notes. Teens as young as 15 or 16 can generally balance short-term rewards and possible costs as well as adults, but their ability to consider what might happen later on is still developing, he said.
Like the consequences of electing someone completely unexperienced to the highest office in the land, who talks freely about giving credibility to the worst tyrants and bloodiest dictators in the world today, by meetind with them for photo-ops and “talks”.
So, the obvious answer is that if we, as a society deem someone mental imcapable of making a rational decision about something as minor as Alcohol consumption before they are 21 - and while medical studies confirm this judgement - it is irrational on our part to allow them to make what will most likely be - based on medical evidence of mental development - a bad decision.
Repeal the 26th Amendment. If we think 21 is old enough to buy a beer, then it should be OK to let you vote.
But trying to have it both ways - saying that at 18 you can’t make a considered decision about personal alcohol consumption, but you are mature enough to help decide who the leader of the free world (and keeper of the keys to the Nuclear Button) should be - is less than rational.
Well, with Fred Thompson resigning from the race, I found myself groping around for a candidate to support.
John McCain is out. For many reasons, not the least of which is that he is more of a Democrat than a Conservative, Republican, or Libertarian.
Likewise, Mike Huckabee is a liberal in conservative clothing.
I like Rudy Giuliani, but it just seems like he doesn’t want it enough. This isn’t europe, and we don’t coronate a leader by virtue of his past service.
So, of the people left in the race on the Right, I find myself left with Mitt Romney.
What do I like about Mitt? All of his stands today are pretty much my stands.
What DON’T I like about Mitt? Many of his past stands are NOT his current stands.
Some people say that he has Grown In Office. I consider it political opportunism at best; flip flopping at worst.
But he is running an over-all positive campaign; he is saying and running on the right things now; and he has the financial resources to stay in the race, despite the best (or worst) efforts of the Press, and their fellow travellers on the left.
I can, in good conscience, support Mitt.
I cannot, in good conscience, support McCain or Hucakbee.
Should the eventual Republican Nominee be McCain or Huckabee, I will not support them, and will, in all likelyhood, vote for a third party, or write in candidate.
The Business and Media Institute has a report on a recent speach by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright (once seen dancing with North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, as he whispered into her ear that he wasn’t developing nukes)…
Quoth Albright:
Albright’s message centered on the need for equality – not just domestically, but also on a global scale.
“If we were all rich, that would be very nice,” Albright said. “If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same. What the problem is now is the poor know what the rich have as a result of information technology and the spread, generally, of knowledge. And, it creates a whole new host of problems in terms of disquiet and anger.”
I just don’t know what to say to that. Let’s hear the money line again:
If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same.
Wow. And this woman was in charge of Foreign Policy for the US.
Oh, and who is she supporting for President?
“I know Hillary Clinton very well and she is strong and has lot of resolve and I think would be a great commander-in-chief,” Albright said.
Yeah.
Oh, and one more thing, from her bio on Wikipedia:
She and her parents fled …when the Communists assumed power over Czechoslovakia, moving to the United States of America in 1948.
I wonder how her father would feel today, knowing that he risked everything to get his family out of the Communist path, only to have his daughter become the very thing he feared?
You may notice some Fred 08 ads on the left side of the page.
As always, it seems, my pick for President is not my first choice, but is the lesser of all the other evils. I have not had a candidate that I whole heartedly supported since Reagan - and I didn’t even support him in his first run; he earned my respect and support during that term.
Of the Republican front runners, I can still see myself supporting Rudy or Romney, though I have reservations about each. I think that Rudy is finding that being America’s Mayor is not the same thing as being President would be, and I honestly think he is losing the “fire in his belly” for the run. Don’t get me wrong - I still believe that he could take the race if he wanted it, and do a great job. I just don’t think that in his heart of hearts he really wants it. He’d be a tremendous Attorney General or FBI director, though.
I have serious issues about Romney’s flip flops, and looseness with the facts. While this is not a deal killer, it does prove that he is more of a politician than a leader.
Of the others; I cannot support John McCain. I am very unhappy with his Senate record, and his constant pandering to the Left. But I might be able to get over that, if not for one glaring item from his past: He was held as a POW in North Vietnam for 5 1/2 years. Now, please don’t misunderstand me on this: I have unbounded respect for John McCain for his service to this nation, and for the sacrfice that he made for us. I believe that this nation owes him a a debt we can never repay for his service and the hardships he endured for us. But I believe that very experience should - no, must - disqualify him from the highest office in the land. It is inconceivable to me that someone who has been through that kind of hell would be entrusted with the command of our military forces, and the war that we now find ourselves in, for the future of western civilization. I do not believe that a man who has suffered what John McCain has can make the decisions necessary to fight and win this conflict. He deserves, and has every right to expect, our respect, admiration, and support. But he cannot be allowed to be the commander in chief.
I was OK with Mike Huckabee when he was the odd ball dark horse, back there with Ron Paul. This is a big tent party, and we need people from across the political spectrums. I have no problem with Huckabee’s religious perspective, anymore than I do with Romney. My problem with Huckabee is that he is NOT a Conservative. Take away the Religious component of his persona, and he would be giving Hillary, Obama, and Barbie a run for their money for the Socialist vote. Of all the people running for President on the GOP side, Huckabee is the most French (in the Welfare State, Big Government, Cradle to Grave, Nanny State meaning of the word). Huckabee would make GW Bush look like a domestic policy genius. Couple of links: here, here, here.
I actually supported Ron Paul in a previous run for the White House, when he had changed to the Libertarian Party. I was a Libertarian for many years, and still consider myself more Libertarian than anything else. But I have grown up over the years, and come to realize that the Libertarian Party, like so many others, does not have a firm grasp on the realities of how people tick. They can see part of the picture, but not the whole gestalt. They appeal to certain aspects, and get support from those people who the mesaage resonates with. But they will never be a majority party. The Libertarians, strangely enough, have the same blind spot that the Democrat party has on Human Nature: they both believe that if we just leave other nations alone, or are nice to them, they won’t hate us. This is in full view of all evidence to the contrary (indeed, the Europeans hated us long before GW Bush - and always will. They will never forgive us for saving them from the Nazi’s… And the Jihadi’s will hate us until we convert or die, or become dhimmi). I won’t even bother with Paul’s ties to white supremecists groups. You can read your fill on that over at LGF.
Fred Thompson is not Reagan. He is not perfect, and he has made mistakes. But he is now - and has for years - said the right things, and voted the way he talks in the Senate. I like the vast majority of his stands on this issues; and he is upfront with those stands, and unwavering. He has realistic and achievable plans to fight this war; constructionist views on the courts; reform of the tax code; and much more. Unlike most of his opponents, Fred’s positions are spelled out.
In the end, the most important thing is that I can personally feel GOOD about voting for Fred. He isn’t my dream candidate - be he is the best in the race today, and he should have the support of anyone that considers themselves a patriot, a small goverment conservative, or a constitutionalist.
From the mouth of the enemy (AP);
Analysis: Clinton calm in hostage crisis
When the hostages had been released and their alleged captor arrested, a regal-looking Hillary Rodham Clinton strolled out of her Washington home, the picture of calm in the face of crisis.
Easy to be poised and calm, when you were hundreds of miles away from the incident. I mean, c’mon, it’s not like she was office where it nutbar was threatening the lives of people Hillary has probably only met in pasing, if at all.
The image, broadcast just as the network news began, conveyed the message a thousand town hall meetings and campaign commercials strive for — namely, that the Democratic presidential contender can face disorder in a most orderly manner.
“I am very grateful that this difficult day has ended so well,” she declared as she stood alone at the microphone….
It was a vintage example of a candidate taking a negative and turning it into a positive. And coming just six weeks before the presidential voting begins, the timing could hardly have been more beneficial to someone hoping to stave off a loss in the Iowa caucuses and secure a win in the New Hampshire primary.
Okay, that last line is about the only thing is this whole puff piece that could even remotely be considered “objective”…
Aides said Clinton was home Friday afternoon, getting ready to deliver a partisan speech in Virginia to the Democratic National Committee, when she was told three workers in her Rochester, N.H., headquarters had been taken hostage by a man claiming to have a bomb….
The aides said Clinton immediately canceled her trip and began working the phones. She later told reporters she had New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a fellow Democrat, on the phone in eight minutes.
Over the ensuing five hours, as a state trooper negotiated with the suspect and hostages were released one-by-one, Clinton continued to call up and down the law enforcement food chain, from local to county to state to federal officials.
“I knew I was bugging a lot of these people, it felt like on a minute-by-minute basis, trying to make sure that I knew everything that was going on so I was in a position to tell the families, to tell my campaign and to be available to do anything that they asked of me,” the New York senator said.
THAT is how she is “Calm in the face of a crisis”? By pertering the first responders, who were just a tad busy trying to save lives? But then she quickly recovers:
“They were the professionals, they were in charge of this situation, whatever they asked me or my campaign to do is what we would do,” Clinton said.
But the reporter still has to give the impression that Hillary was in control:
Along with taking charge while giving the professionals free rein, Clinton offered up a third dimension to her crisis character: humanity. She said she felt “grave concern” when she first heard the news of the hostage-taking.
“It affected me not only because they were my staff members and volunteers, but as a mother, it was just a horrible sense of bewilderment, confusion, outrage, frustration, anger, everything at the same time,” Clinton said.
Ah yes, play the mommy card.
It was a thawing moment for a stoic figure who once snapped that she opted for professional life instead of staying home to bake cookies…
You can just imagine the reporter casting a longing gaze at a freeze frame of Hillary from the news conference as he writes the piece.
And them he implies that Hillary has “schooled” us:
Class dismissed.
It’s too bad that the “class” wasn’t on journalistic ethics and objectivity.
A quick search of “Glen Johnson AP” beings up a number of his pieces for that news service. From a glance at the first page of results, I see a number of negative pieces on Mitt Romney, and one positive on Rep. Barney Frank (D- GLBT).
From GOP.Gov:
Today, House Republicans offered a resolution censuring Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-CA) for accusing our troops of “blow[ing] up innocent people” and suggesting the President finds “amusement” in the injuries and deaths of our troops. Watch Rep. Stark’s comment in full here.
The censure resolution states:
“Resolved, that the Member from California, Mr. Stark, by his despicable conduct, has dishonored himself and brought discredit to the House and merits the censure of the House for the same.”
But today, 196 House Democrats voted to kill the resolution censuring Rep. Stark. (Vote #986, 10/23/07)
Disgusting. Even the San Francisco Chronicle thought Stark was out of line:
“A new low point … The Ugly Moment of the Week goes to Rep. Pete Stark, the Fremont Democrat who has made a career out of minimalist accomplishment and optimal bombast.”
But my point here is to note which Washington State Congress-critters voted to Censure Stark:
-Hastings
-McMorris-Rodgers
-Reichert
And those that REFUSED to censure his remarks:
-Baird - disappointing, thought not really surprising, after the beating he took over his comments that Iraq was turning around.
-Dicks - even more disappointing. Several US Navy installations in his district.
-Inslee - Sub Base Bangor, and Naval Undersea Warfare Center in his district.
-Larsen - Has Naval Station Everett and NAS Whidby Island in his district.
-McDermott - I am only surprised that it was Stark making the slur, not McDermott.
-Smith - This is the guy with Fort Lewis and McChord AFB in his district.
Note that the Washinton State Reps voted by strict Party line.
I’ll say it again - Disgusting. And the constituents of those voting against censure should remember these D’s supported Stark’s slurs next election cycle.
The Fred Thompson campaign has posted their Border Security and Immigration Reform Plan.
My favorite parts:
No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.
Darn Skippy. If you cheated to get here, you GOTTA leave.
Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security:
Cut off the jobs, and they will stop coming. Those here will leave.
Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country:
- Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.
- Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).
If your Community/City/State/Whatever refuses to follow the Federal Immigration rules, you don’t get the Federal money.
The United States is a nation of immigrants. We must continue to welcome immigrants and foreign workers who come to our country legally, giving priority to those who can advance the nation’s interests and common good. Immigrants and foreign workers who play by the rules need to be rewarded with faster and less burdensome service, not delays that last years. Advancing the following initiatives will require close cooperation between all levels of government, the business community, and concerned citizens:
- English As Official Language. Make English the official language of the United States to promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status.
- Freedom from Political Oppression. Preserve U.S. laws and policies to ensure that the United States remains a beacon and a haven for persons fleeing political oppression, while assuring appropriate admission standards are maintained.
- Service to Country. Place those foreign persons who are lawfully present in the country and who serve honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States on a faster, surer track to U.S. citizenship.
Point for Fred in my book.
Checked Rudy’s website. Nothing on Immigration; Minus TWO Points. Romney has a Video clip from a “town hall” meeting. One point against Mitt for not putting it in print. Mike Huckabee has some points, and a clip - only 1/2 a point, for lack of specifics.
Didn’t bother to check on McCain - he is as unelectable as Hillary, so I don’t really care.
So, my current rankings (which I just started, so these are the base numbers):
Fred Thompson: 1
Rudy Giuliani: -2
Mitt Romney: -1
Mike Huckabee: .5