Thompson as that man given his role as lobbyist for certain abortion clinics.

Thompson actually won the major pro-life endorsement prior to the primary season getting under way. Given his record as the most consistently conservative of the presidential candidates, his nomination for Vice President would go a long way towards reconciling the "National Review" Republicans to a McCain nomination.  His problem is his seeming lack of vitality and his age.
Two grumpy old men are not ideal at the top of the ticket, especially if a miracle happens and Obama wins the Democratic nomination.

In contrast, Huckabee, who I've seen frequently called a "pro-life progressive" would be a terrible choice.   McCain needs someone with a more conservative economic record for the second slot. Anyway, Huckabee's pull amongst evangelicals is not that strong. I believed he tied McCain for second place behind Romney  amongst evangelicals in Florida.  

If McCain runs against Hillary Clinton, which unfortunately seems most likely at this point, choosing Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas might work for him. Conservative enough, southern enough, female (to try to prevent conservative female demographic from flocking to Hillary Clinton for gender reasons), and only four years older than Hillary Clinton. Republicans don't really care about racial or gender balance, but they probably want someone from south since that has become party's geographic base and Clintons have some appeal in south of their own. Plus, her replacement in Senate would be chosen by Republican governor, so nothing would be lost.

Vice Presidents really don't have to have been presidential candidates. Sometimes it pays to reach outside that particular box.

In contrast, Huckabee, who I've seen frequently called a "pro-life progressive" would be a terrible choice.

That's my feeling too - although I thought Edwards was a pretty lousy choice for Kerry, and that Lieberman was a bad choice for Gore, so what do I know? Thinking outside the box of current candidates - who else would be a viable VP for McCain? There don't seem to be very many appealing governors, and McCain's relationship with other Senate Republicans has always been kind of questionable, so I can't see him tapping one of them. A member of Bush's cabinet might be an option, but I'm not sure how much McCain would want that sort of association in the general election, where it might be a huge liability. Plus, the strongest possibility there is probably Condi Rice, and her strengths (foreign policy, attractive to independents) are almost exactly the same as McCain's. That seems to really limit it down to this year's losing candidates. Of those, Thompson just seems like the best fit. Giuliani suffers from the same problem as Rice (just too much like McCain) and you've already pointed out Huckabee's flaws. The idea of a "Grumpy Old Men" campaign can't be appealing either, though, as you've pointed out. Any dark horse possibilities that you can think of? Nobody's really coming to mind for me, but I guess that's what makes them a dark horse, right? - not well known by the mainstream. Anyway, any thoughts?

Any dark horse possibilities that you can think of?

Although I find Secretary Rice to have been incompetent in both her tenures at NSC and the State Department, she is an intriguing choice--she's popular with Bush loyalists, and she doesn't infuriate the rest of the Republican party. Other names that I haven't seen bandied about here include Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a McCain ally and pretty conservative Senator. He did participate in the House proceedings of the Clinton impeachment, but compared to some of the other House Republicans, he was one of the adults in the room at those hearings.

I don't think that McCain has the stones to nominate Joe Lieberman, but there's a perverse logic to that thinking--steal some northeast blue states, plus lock down Florida.

Newt Gingrich is still out there lurking, and he's even saying uncrazy things in a calm voice!

If Bloomberg sits out, Hagel is still out there.

Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS) is out there as well--party insider, red state Bible Belt governor, media savvy.

I wouldn't be shocked at all at a McCain-Leiberman ticket. Weirdly, I think Bloomberg/Hagel throwing their hat in the ring could actually increase the likelihood of that happening, although I don't think those two go for as indies against a field of McCain and Obama.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

- who else would be a viable VP for McCain

If Thompson were 10 years younger, I think he would be a lock for the VP slot.  Its a difficult dilemma, as McCain's age means that the VP candidate will have to appear ready for the Presidency, but he or she can't make the already inevitable age meme worse.

As far as longshots go, I think former representative J.C. Watts of Oklahoma would be an interesting selection against a Clinton led ticket. He was in the House leadership before retiring and would help placate the Republican base. Although ,against Obama, adding a black man to the ticket would reek of desperation.

I think Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota will receive significant consideration. Although I'm not that familiar with him, he is a young governor of a blue state that has been in play the last two elections and is popular in his home state.  

A real long shot would be former Colorado governor Bill Owens. Colorado is a must win state for the GOP and Owens was a popular two term governor. Plus I recall National Review calling him the best governor in the country four or five years ago, so he would likely be acceptable to movement conservatives.    

Yes, the assumption is that Romney and Huckabee are sharing the same voter pool, as are McCain and Giuliani.  If this were the case, then Giuliani dropping out while Huckabee did not would decisively throw the Feb 5 results to McCain.

Apparently the exit polls asked who voters' second choices were, in Florida as well as in South Carolina.  I've been unable to find good sources on this, but the reports are counter-intuitively showing that the second choice of Giuliani voters was narrowly Romney, while Huckabee voters narrowly had a second choice of McCain.  Perhaps this represents regional loyalties trumping ideology.

Roughly half of the Feb 5 states have open primaries.  This should both favor both McCain and Obama.  McCain's presumptive win of the nomination should take some voters from McCain to Obama.

Edwards dropping out of the race gives Obama more votes than Clinton, but makes it easier for Clinton to win the race outright and avoid a brokered convention.

maybe John McCain was most conservative man who could possibly have been elected President in 2008

That may well be true.  But we'll never really know.  Personally, I don't think actual policy positions are all that important in elections, especially in the primaries.  The most important factors to a candidate's success is name recognition and branding.  McCain is successful because of his almost universal name recognition and its association with his war hero status and his reputation for straight talk.  

By contrast, the two traditional conservatives in the race were saddled with negative brands that they couldn`t escape.  Romney is the flip flopping rich Mormon. Thompson was the lazy actor who couldn't be bothered to campaign.  Personally, I gave up for Thompson's campaign when I read the local entertainment columnist's review of the seasoning opening episode of Law & Order. The guy spent half his column deriding Senator Thompson as lazy and stupid.  Once a popular narrative is defined for a candidate, its almost impossible to reverse.

Basically, I think a hypothetical movement conservative could be elected, if he or developed a favorable brand.  Sadly for me, none really exist at this point. As McCain demonstrates, positions on two of the most divisive issues in the political arena, abortion and the war, don't really effect a candidates popularity or delectability in a general campaign.  Its McCain's positions and self righteousness on ancillary issues like campaign finance that piss off the small percentage of voters who are movement conservatives and who pay close attention to politics.  The vast majority of voters will not vote for or against McCain because of those types of issues.

war-crazed liar who wanted to repeal Constitution, install himself as "unitary executive", and establish fundamentalist Christianity

That's a mighty fine display of paranoia. You forgot to mention the part where Bush personally planned the 9/11 hijackings.  

Oops, sorry.

And personally planned the 9/11 hijackings!

Does anyone really believe that Romney suddenly became ultra-conservative after his service as Governor of Massachusetts? Does anyone really believe that Thompson cared one iota about becoming President? As for Huckabee, he would have torn Republican coalition in half and told corporatists and fiscal conservatives to get lost. When no real "movement conservative" emerged in primaries, you should at least ask yourself why. Coincidence or bad luck seem like pitiful explanations.

Does anyone really believe that Romney suddenly became ultra-conservative after his service as Governor of Massachusetts? Does anyone really believe that Thompson cared one iota about becoming President

That's my point. Everyone "knows" that Romney is faking his newfound conservatism and that Thompson didn't really want to be President even though no one actually knows any such thing.  Given Americans general lack of interest in politics, conventional wisdom can be a real bitch.  

Huckabee, he would have torn Republican coalition in half and told corporatists and

Since when have corporatists been a member of the Republican coalition? If anything, I think Huckabee would probably be the most sympathetic of the Republican candidates towards corparatism.

Since when have corporatists been a member of the Republican coalition?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think they do a great deal of the funding.

If anything, I think Huckabee would probably be the most sympathetic of the Republican candidates towards corparatism.

Actually Huckabee, while scarily extreme in his religious convictions for the vast majority of mainstream Americans is highly principled in those values and has not sold out those values like the traditional Religious Right that is associated with the Republican party. His call for the elimination of the income tax does not sit well for corporate mainstream and aside from Paul is one of the few small business candidates. In fact, his "economic populism" is comparable only to Edwards:

Both Obama's campaign and Clinton's campaign are the recipients of enormous amounts of cash from our nation's largest corporate interests which control much of what happens in Congress. The same is true for Giuliani and Romney. By contrast, the three candidates whose candidacies are steadfastly downplayed if not scorned by the press -- Edwards, Paul and Huckabee -- have received very little money from those realms, and instead, the vast bulk of their contributions are from small donors and individuals

This is one reason why I said elsewhere that I think a Huckabee-Paul debate would make for a fabulous outlay of some real issues.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I think we are talking about two different things.  I was using corporatism in the more traditional sense, which  The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right defined as "the collective management of the economy by employers, workers' representatives and state officials using formal mechanisms at the national level."  I know it has become popular on the left to redefine the word in recent years to something akin to "rule by corporations", but as a conservative, I'm sticking to the original definition, damnit.

That's why I said Huckabee, who I agree has strong tendencies toward economic populism, appears to be the Republican most favorably inclined to corporatism.

    While I haven't followed the races as much as others, I'm probably ahead of the general public when it comes to finding sources beyond cable television news. Were/are Thompson and Romney being screwed by media CW? As my title indicates, I don't think all the blame lies with the MSM. Judging by his actions, Thompson may have been intensely interested personally in being president- you're right that neither of us are mind readers- but didn't seem to want to do the kind of work needed to actually win. Disinterest? Sloth? Both narratives fit the data, at least from this keyboard.
    As for Romney . . he's getting screwed because his own party turned changing your mind into a sin last election. I don't "know" how sincere he is (he certainly comes across as very manufactured, much like Edwards), but given the ground rules created by his own side of the national debate, his words and deeds as governor are very serious considerations. Conservatives are certainly having no trouble judging a prospective McCain presidency a potential disaster based on past performance-- why should Romney get a pass, but not the senator?

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

I probably confused my point by discussing the actual fairness of the narratives attached to Romney and Thompson.  While there is certainly at least some truth to both narratives, its not really relevant to my original point that neither Romney or Thompson's campaign failed because they were too conservative.

Although the campaigns failed for a variety of reasons, their inability to overcome the negative conventional wisdom has to rank near the top of the list.  To many people, Romney is simply the "flip-flopper," and the analysis ends there. At the end of the day, I don't think the average Republican or Democratic voter spends much time mulling over the candidates' positions on NAFTA.  

Your Post 28 makes it plain that we don't use same definition of "corporatist". I merely meant "big business" and "finance capital". Those groups hate Huckabee, which redounds to his disadvantage because they own media.

So you believe Romney's change of heart? (You fully realise how huge that change of heart has been, right?)   Maybe you really can depend on him not to change horses if he wins Republican nomination as "movement conservative", but maybe he adjusts to whatever he thinks public really wants after he wins office. I think people who buy into Romney just hate McCain so much they can no longer think straight.

And maybe Thompson really wanted to be President and was just too old to put in as much effort as it would have taken to succeed. Pro-Thompson news sources were saying that people didn't want someone who seemed like workaholic, that people who work less work more effectively because they delegate. Almost no one bought that story either. Sometimes "conventional wisdom" an be accurate.

McCain is successful because of his almost universal name recognition and its association with his war hero status and his reputation for straight talk.  

By contrast, the two traditional conservatives in the race were saddled with negative brands that they couldn`t escape.  Romney is the flip flopping rich Mormon.

Thing is, McCain is almost as much a flip-flopper as Romney. Almost a year ago, there was a bunch of articles and (YouTube videos) all over the place noting how much of a flip-flopper he'd become. Hell, I even blogged about it, myself. If Romney's hacks were smart, they'd start matching claims from McCain on Romney's flips with McCain's actual floppage denoted for comparison. It's all so much poo-flinging, but, that's how it goes.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

I'm seeing shades of both Bob Dole and John Kerry in the current incarnation of the McCain candidacy. There seems to be a lot of the old Republican saw of "he's been around he deserves it" that got Dole nominated combined with some of the "he's most electable" that got Kerry fatefully nominated. The man has holes the size of a (straight talk express?) bus in both his record and his image. His high water mark was in the run up to the SC primary in 2000 and his congressional record since then simply doesn't match up to the image. He is easily paintable as both old and racist. With two Senators in the democratic race, nominating a senator would be giving up the huge advantage of nominating a governor with executive experience and no congressional voting record. I still shake my head that he could get the Republican nomination. This race has seen so many ups and downs, I believe it's got another swing in it on the Republican side at least.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I agree it will be very close. Clinton nostalgia and knee-jerk votes by otherwise conservative women may be enough for Clinton to pull it out, especially if she gets sort of help in Ohio that Bush got in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 now that Democrats run that swing state. Economy and Iraq will probably decide, as you say.

Perhaps I am jinxing myself, but there's just no way we'll get a McCain in the White House. Put him in the bright spotlight of a Presidential election today and he looks like an older Bob Dole wrapped in the Confederate flag. Memo to McCain's people: don't let the man hold any pens!

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.