And what of the Republicans

Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Paul, Thompson, McCain...who will the Republicans choose?

The purpose of the primary system seems to be a Darwinian method for reaching an electable choice for the two parties. This process is ugly to outsiders but familiar to Americans. For some reason, we begin with the teeny tiny states first. For years, it was New Hampshire that started the process. In recent decades, Iowa and South Carolina have joined the brood.

Actually, the process works much better than people think. By starting in small states, it forces the candidates to get closer to the people...something the winner will get few chances to do one they become president. So we see candidates begging for support at bake sales, pancake breakfasts, and town halls. We are treated to "critical" endorsements from the Union Leader and the Des Moines Register.

So where do the Republicans find themselves? Curiously, they are in full "Tale of Two Cities" mode. It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. The stock market is near all time highs, the war in Iraq has turned surprisingly positive, and the Democrat congress is polling in record depths of unpopularity. On the "worst of times" side, the 6 years of wartime presidency of George W. Bush have seen a long time of negative poll numbers for the president and the credit markets in holding it's breath over the sub-prime market challenge. Even true blue Reagan conservatives have seemed to desert the president, and the current crop of candidates are now distancing themselves from him and trying to portray themselves as the inheritors of the Reagan mantle. No seems to want to be the heir apparent to Mr. Bush even as some begin to ponder whether history will record his eight years more favorably than his peers have.

So...who will it be? Only Ron Paul seems to be a true non-hopeful. While he is able to raise large sums of money based on his 40's era combination of libertarianism and isolationism, it is little more than an irritant to the others at debate time. John McCain has received some nice media endorsements recently but he has always been a darling of the media more than a choice of the Republican base. He is seen by the faithful as the Democrats' favorite Republican. That may be one of his biggest negatives, along with his unpopular stands in favor of more taxes, lax immigration policy, and support of moderate judicial nominations. Add in his age and past bouts with skin cancer and McCain seems the most unlikely choice to gain any kind of momentum over the next several weeks of big primary contests.

Mike Huckabee, the former minister/governor, is the latest flavor of the month. While he has caught fire with many of the evangelicals in the Republican party, meteors tend to burn bright at first and die out quickly. I think there is too much in his policy attitudes to lead to a lot of the Republican base to pull his lever at voting time. His criticism of President Bush will not help him with the Republican base. Perhaps I am wrong...we shall see.

Mitt Romney is showing himself to be presidential, cool under fire, and an attractive TV presence. Don't kid yourself, those things do make a big difference to the general public. They don't follow policy disagreements like the hard core party faithful who vote at primaries do. If Romney, that strange combination of conservative and New Englander, can convince the Bible Belt Republicans to support him he could be the one. While most people will deny that the Mormon factor is relevant, what people do once they are in the voting booth is very private...and often in distinct opposition to their public pronouncements. Romney may be the best face to present in the general election. The next few weeks will tell.

And what of the Hero of 9/11. Well, the War on Terror is less of a factor now that Iraq seems to have calmed down. Republicans are often portrayed as holier-than-thou judgmental hypocrites. Lord knows, we all have known someone who fit that stereotype. But they truly don't like their standard bearer to have the same kind of personal foibles that the Democrats seem to be more tolerant of. They prefer them to have different foibles! The damage done to Rudy with the revelations regarding the public money used to enable his trysts with his then mistress is significant. If anyone is liable to be badly damaged for the coming weeks it's Rudy. He could end up being one of the first casualties of the process...this cycle's Howard Dean.

That leaves one. A former actor, westerner, conservative, who is comfortable on TV, quick with a witty comeback...no...not Reagan. Of course, I mean Fred Thompson. Westerner? You must forgive me, as a teacher, I see Tennessee as the west. I think of the state of Andrew Jackson as part south, part west. There is an independence and easygoing frankness that Tennesseans cultivate. Thompson's main rap so far has been his "tortoise vs. hare" approach to modern campaigning. He hasn't seemed to want it as bad as the others.

On the other hand, Americans as somewhat suspicious of candidates who seem to want it TOO bad. We like to see them as feeling chosen or, better yet, called to service. Is Fred really wanting this? The man has a young family and his Law and Order residuals should certainly keep the wolf away from the door financially. Is he willing to do what is necessary to win? And then govern? If he is, he could surprise. Look at the description I used at the beginning of the previous paragraph. Sound familiar?

He perhaps had his "Nashua moment" in last week's Iowa Debate. He refused to get into "hand-raising" when asked whether he believed in man-made global warming. Stating that it deserved a full answer, he asked for the 60 seconds they were being given for answers. When denied that opportunity, he declined to participate in a hand-raising vote on the issue. To those who remember Ronald Reagan's 1980 primary run, it brought back memories of his "I paid for this microphone" moment. At the time, the country was going through an international humiliation brought about by the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran. They were looking for a take-charge guy who would run the USA like the superpower it was. And Reagan was elected in a landslide on that basis of that perception.

As I once said, perception is reality in politics. How will Republican primary voters see Fred Thompson? Lazy, as he has been portrayed in the media, or Reaganesque? The next few weeks should be fascinating.