You missed a couple items.
Unless what it takes is conditionally principled, pro-gun, USAF veteran, anti-abortion and anti-Iraq War obstetrician shrimp pimp Congressman (L-Texas) Ron Paul.
The anti-Iraq War standing removes Ron Paul from serious consideration. His shrimp-ocrisy simply shows his principles are as deep as an Aransas Bay mudflat at low tide.
This is a bit misleading. We can’t even get Ronpaul to say that removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing. It’s not that he’s against the War in Iraq - it’s that he against any form of involvement in the world whatsoever, no matter what, period. The man said that America has never needed to fight a war even dating back to WWI. Heck, even Pat Buchanan said we needed to get involved in WWII after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor!
There is anti-Iraq war, and then there is anti-U.S. defense. Ronpaul is the latter - noone can seriously expect that in the 21st century we can simply build a forcefield around the country and never have a troop stationed overseas. No reasonable person can possibly believe we can have a real National Defense by staying entirely within our borders in this day and age.
That’s the difference - we’re not talking about just an Iraq disagreement here, we’re talking about setting back national defense and interests 150 years in the name of total isolationism.
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 35% of Republicans and 70% of Independents, not to mention 90% of Democrats, are opposed to a “stay the course” approach in Iraq.
And if Giuliani is nominated, anti-abortion, pro-gun, and pro-family Republicans will stay home.
Does that sound like math that adds up to a Republican presidency in 2008?
Didn’t you learn anything from the 2006 congressional elections?