Ladies & gentlemen (and other assorted lowlifes who may be reading), it’s time for the Coulter Nation 2008 Roundup! My quick takes on the current crop of prospective presidents:

Democrats: The Miscreant Seven

Sen. Hillary Clinton (New York)
Three guesses on my opinion of Hillary. Anyone?

If I had to make a prediction, I’d say she’ll get the Dems’ nod. As for the general, it depends on who the GOP chooses, and whether he articulates genuine conservatism to the American people (I know about the polls that show McCain and/or Rudy beating her, but polls mean zip right about now; nobody’s done any real mainstream campaigning, debating, or comparisons, so at this point it’s all name recognition & incomplete media personas).

Sen. Barack Obama (Illinois)
Look, up in the sky! It’s a bird…it’s a plane…it’s BARACK OBAMA! Gimme a break. His moderate image is a smokescreen that hides an extreme, far-left record, and from the twenty-something pages of his book I flipped through, I didn’t exactly sense an intellectual juggernaut (David Frum agrees).

He’s got a chance at beating Hillary, however slight. Obama is reasonably handsome & charismatic, and knows that the “bringing Americans together” shtick has a powerful influence on the weak-minded (“Those aren’t the Dems you’re looking for…”). And I’m not sure whether or not “first black president” will be more tempting than “first female president.” At this point it’s too early to say whether he’d beat the GOP nominee.

Sen. John Edwards (South Carolina)
I can see the moronic & superficial racial/feminist reasons why people would swoon over Hillary, Obama & Richardson. But what does a rich, white, plastic-smiled, sleazy trial lawyer have to excite people other than the “Two Americas” class warfare and really, really bad hiring practices?

Gov. Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
Another garden-variety lefty with delusions of grandeur. Yawn. Despite being one of the supposed “moderate, respectable Democrats,” I can’t see Richardson getting the nomination. VP’s a little more likely, especially if Obama’s the nominee (I kinda doubt Hillary would accept anything less than top billing).

Sen. Joe Biden (Delaware)
Well, Biden’s candidacy will be an amusing little diversion if he keeps offering up these gems. (For the record, I don’t think he’s racist, just a fool.)

Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
The man brought a pie chart to a radio debate. ‘Nuff said.

Sen. Chris Dodd (Connecticut)
I hope nobody goes to too much trouble clearing their calendars for Dodd ’08 grassroots work.

Republicans: Is There a Reagan in the House?

Mayor Rudy Giuliani (New York)
There’s a definite movement right now to anoint Rudy as Republican standard-bearer, including some truly pathetic attempts to placate social conservatives. Bull.

Rudy’s pro-abortion, against a Marriage Amendment, has a questionable gun record, and sounds like a Bush clone on immigration (all illustrated recently in an interview with Sean Hannity—who seems ready to make excuses for him). Plus, as Alan Colmes pointed out (Colmes did something useful for a change?!), Rudy’s idea of a good judge could include Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so he doesn’t even have that guarantee to offer conservatives. We need a leader who’ll take the lead on these causes, someone who will use the bully pulpit of the presidency to hold politicians’ feet to the fire and lead public opinion. It’s not Giuliani. To put it bluntly: if you cannot see abortion for the national stain it is, you lack either the character or the competence to lead this nation.

The conservatives-for-Rudy argument goes like this: “Sure he’s not ideal, but we’re at war, and he’ll wage it.” I think this line of thought is all from our emotional reaction to the attack on his city, the leadership he displayed, and the fact that he kicked out Yasser Arafat (all genuinely admirable, but not sufficient grounds to make someone a wartime commander-in-chief). But there’s little real substance here. His answers to Hannity (which seem to me accurately-representative of all his past comments) don’t show any profound analysis of the war, and don’t show any meaningful improvements over Bush policy. Even if a Bush 2 is all we want (which I don’t), I can’t see what Rudy has to offer that distinguishes him from McCain or Romney.

I wonder if any of the talking heads gushing over Giuliani have ever considered how likely a Giuliani nomination is to devastate the morale of grassroots Republican campaigning. Friends, nobles, countrymen, hear me: now is the time to tell our party that Rudy Giuliani Is. Not. Good. Enough.

Sen. John McCain (Arizona)
McCain’s nomination will have a similar impact on the GOP grassroots, though I’m not sure if it’d be greater or lesser than Giuliani. I don’t want McCain to be our standard bearer, either. Campaign finance, voting against the Bush tax cuts, amnesty, hand-wringing over the dignity of terrorist prisoners, the “Gang of 14”…there’s a lot to dislike about him. But if McCain wins the primary, I’d be more likely to vote for him than Giuliani for two reasons: 1.) McCain has been consistent on the need for more troops in the Iraq war, and 2.) while not its best fighter, he at least isn’t an enemy of the pro-life movement and generally opposes abortion (it’s also noteworthy that he’s been pretty consistent on DC’s drunken-sailor spending ways. But I hope we’re not forced to make such a choice. Which leads us to…

Gov. Mitt Romney (Massachusetts)
Will Mitt Romney be the conservative standard-bearer this time around? The sharp, eloquent governor is certainly trying to be. As expressed to Kathryn Jean Lopez, he’s pro-life (and more significantly, explicitly anti-Roe), pro-marriage, anti-judicial tyranny, and seems to have a strong grasp on the war. His on-the-issues page also offers some promising tidbits, including his use of “jihadists” instead of “terrorists,” taxes & spending condemnation, no talk of a guest worker program, and the declaration that “it's time to split with our friends, the unions and the Democratic Party, and put our kids first” on education. A few months back on The O’Reilly Factor, I was also struck by the fact that he contemplated putting economic pressure on Russia & China to get results on Iran (I wonder if President Romney would also tell those two, “And while we’re at it, why don’t we talk about some humanitarian reforms”…).

The main charge (aside from the stupid Mormon tizzy…why isn’t Harry Reid’s Mormonism an issue?) against Romney is that he’s a flip-flopper who’s only turned rightward for political expediency. Is it possible? Yes, and I can understand social conservatives with reservations about him. But in his defense, he’s been pretty open & direct about admitting he was wrong in the past (certainly more so than the king flip-flopper), and how experience has changed his mind. In my view, he’s certainly earned a chance to prove his sincerity. If he holds true, then no problem.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say for a moment that Romney’s conservatism really is a sham. Let’s say he’s only taken these positions because he’s recognized the GOP’s hunger for a new Ronald Reagan. If he has, then he has to know a real effort to achieve results is expected out of him, in which case he’ll have to champion the causes he ran on if he expects to get a second term and leave a positive legacy.

Is he perfect? No. I don’t know what the impact of his Massachusetts healthcare plan will be, and we’ll have to see how aggressively he will fight for the things conservatives want & America needs. But all things considered, it seems to me he’s the best we’ve got. So…I hereby announce that Coulter Nation endorses Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Speaker Newt Gingrich (Georgia)
Newt’s probably not even going to run. No doubt he’d be a good conservative leader, but I can’t see his candidacy exciting anybody other than policy nerds who’re already voting Republican. Gingrich as the running mate, though, would be interesting…

Rep. Duncan Hunter (California)
A good man, from everything I know, and somebody whose campaign I could work for. But I don’t think he’s a realistic possibility.

Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas)
Another unrealistic candidate. I understand some of the social groups are touting him as the “genuine pro-lifer,” which I think is a wasted effort. Plus, he kinda seems like he’s trying to have it both ways on Iraq, which definitely gives me pause.

Gov. Mike Huckabee (Arkansas)
President Huckabee ain’t gonna happen. Which isn’t exactly a tragedy, all things considered.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colorado)
Would I work for his campaign in the general election? Certainly. Will I be? Uh-uh. Tancredo has said in the past that he knows his chances are slim, and is in the race primarily to force the other candidates to the right on immigration. If he’s successful in that endeavor, more power to him.

Michael Savage (California)
You read it right: that Michael Savage is talking about a run for the White House. Part of me thinks he’d do a lot of things this country desperately needs, but I do worry about his temper and his sometimes-inconsistent judgment. Not that it matters, because he won’t win.

However, he could have a considerable effect on the election. If he chooses to be a third-party candidate, I don’t think it’s inconceivable that he’d take enough votes away from whoever the Republican is to throw the election to the Democrats. It’s my impression that he dislikes all the GOP choices, but I hope he finds enough good sense to restrain himself and stay out.

---

It’s going to be an interesting two years ahead of us. As always, let me know what you think in the comments (but keep in mind Coulter Nation’s honest debate policy, by the way).