You're right Kevin on most counts, except expect to see Fred Thompson emerge. As a New Yorker, I only half expect Rudy to implode - not because of Rudy but because how loony the Republican party has degenerated into. Nothing would surprise me except to see Gingrich nominated, which I think is almost as likely as Kucinich being nominated. But watch Fred Thompson, I think he has a real shot.

After the flame-outs, Hagel will jump in just as it starts to become fashionable on the right to be in favor of a pullout (aka, "victory with honor").

Kevin Drum >"...I'm sure I'll turn out to be wrong about this. But I sure don't see how any of these other guys manages to muddle through."

Well you just don`t give enough credit to back room deals and the ignorance of the electorate. Rudy is the candidate (sacrificial lamb ?) that gets handed his head in the general. Then TPTB say "Sooo sorry Rudi !" and move on to the next ReThug in line.

Simple

"Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." - Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.

Mitt is my choice, mostly because of his (apparent) competence. If he gets the nomination, I think his moderate atance will make him formidable candidate, especially if his Mass. health plan hasn't blown up yet.

I'm concerned about McCain's age. Many think that Reagan suffered from early stages of Alzheimers during his second term. Reagan with Alzheimers was a better President than Carter at his best, but I would prefer not to risk it with McCain.

As Kevin says, Fred Thompson seems hard to take seriously. His backgrojnd is just too limited (although it's a bit broader than Obama's.)

I'm not so sure Guiliani will implode. So far he seems to be saying the right things. He has a surprising amount of support from conservative Republicans, despite disagreeing with them on abortion and many other issues.

Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

Guiliani for the Republican nomination!

I'll bet in 1999 you didn't expect George W Bush to get very far, either.

Well, I didn't expect Ken Blackwell to get far either.

I'm getting the feeling that Rudy! gets the GOP nom since he's the Capo Daddy the base can really rally behind. Then he gets pasted in the general because 'The Only Thing You Have To Fear Is Everything - So Vote For Me And Surrender Your Rights To The State' won't sell in most of America.

I think MaxGowan nails it. The R frontrunners are seriously flawed, but some of those flaws actually help them in the R primaries. As we have disastrously seen in this presidency, so much of being a modern conservative is about putting your thumb in the eyes of the liberals rather than about achieving a particular policy goal. This is why McCain is singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, BombIran" - he knows it makes him look less than thoughtful and slightly unbalanced, but he also knows all the liberals gasping and kvetching will help him with R primary voters (who, lets face it, seem perfectly happy to bomb just about anyone anyhow).

I think this is just a chance for Kevin to get a cheap shot on Rudy. I doubt that he is being honest when he claims to think Romney is the likely winner. I think he fears Thompson.

Rudy is a nut.

But the media's fawning adoration of him is likely to turn that into a positive. You know, "Guiliani demonstrated his steely resolve when he steadfastly refused to learn the difference between sunnis and shia! He even refused to learn where Iraq was on a map! He knew he was going to take flack for that, but he just had to be who he was. Do you think this display of strong manful integrity will hurt him in the polls?"

Fred Thompson is certainly a possibility, Vonnegut said the president is just an actor anyway. Why not have him continue on CSI:Baghdad or whatever the f'ing name of that show I have never seen. Wouldn't matter.

Fred Thompson is in some TV comedy, that one where a guy with a TN accent gets elected DA in Manhattan. I can't remember the name either.

Hegel and/or Brownback.

Do they want a chance to win, or is purity of essence the goal.

I feel like the Bratton incident is one that hasn't been properly covered in this race, and it's terrifying in terms of what it suggests as his governing priorities.

Bratton, by every account, was hugely responsible for the decline in the crime rate. He did a good job. And, when he got more press than Rudy, he was fired and replaced with Bernie Kerik. Who was not only not a good police leader, but a crook himself.

Essentially, he fired Bratton for excessive competence. Sorry, but a President who fires people because they get credit for doing a good job is a President whose Cabinet, whose Administration, is going to be staffed with incompetent loyalists.

Do we really need 4 more years of incompetent cronies running the country? Hasn't Bush showed us the pitfalls of that?

Vonnegut said the president is just an actor anyway.

I believe it's appropriate to pull out the old Fafblog post on this matter to amplify your point on the figurehead aspect of the Presidency:

No, Stephen, the media should not press a candidate - or an elected President, for that matter - on his wartime plans. Not because the public does not have a right to know - although this is questionable indeed - but because it is not the job of the President to invade Iran, or conduct a war, or decide matters of policy in general. No, Stephen, the President does not exist to make petty decisions such as these, to muddy his hands in the tedious affairs of state. He exists not to guide the nation to where it should be. He exists to project an image of what it wants to be.

America doesn't need a President to lead them; America needs a President who projects leadership. America doesn't need a President who's honest with his country; America needs a President who's honest with his wife. America doesn't need a President with a firm grasp of policy and a commitment to serving his country; America needs a President with the appearance of irrepressible optimism and Wholesome Heartland Values. America doesn't need a capable wartime President; America needs a President who makes himself look like war.

And President Bush has done a magnificent job of that. Indeed, he's even started a couple of them. Remember, it's not the President's job to finish or win wars - that falls into the lower realm of policy. But within the realm of Strength - or the apprearance of Strength - it is the Strong Leader who charges boldly into wars, undaunted by the humdrum webs of "post-war planning" and laborious "coalition-building" called for by "sensitive" policy-makers.

The job of the President of the United States is to forcefully emote the conscious and unconscious will of the American People. He is not the commander-in-chief. He is the Happy Warrior. He is the Priest-Avatar of the State.

Fred Thompson wins the GOP nomination. Fred Thompson may rise slowly but will end on top (Republicans simply do not like the current field).

McCain. Bushies hate McCain second only after Hillary. He's lost a lot of credibility pandering to the Religious Right (who will never take him back anyway), and people are starting to figure out that he's not the moderate they thought he was in 2000. Plus, Iraq.

Giuliani - too liberal (abortion, gay rights, and other Manhattan centrist positions will haunt him), his divorces won't sit well with the Religious Right, and he's too hot tempered for moderates.

Romney? Sorry, nobody was going to vote for someone named Vilsack (whose name might well have been Scrotum for all it mattered) and no one's going to vote for a Romulan. I know that sounds amazingly facile and non-serious, but you'll never go broke underestimating the superficiality of the average voter.

Plus, he's Mormon. That's a deal killer for Religious Right and a lot of other moderate Christians, not to mention that large segment of the nation that knows little about the Mormon faith. Spirit babies, magic underwear, Jesus sailing up the Mississippi, and old stereotypes of polygamy aren't going play well in Middle America.

And Romney's from the heart of evil, evil New England: Taxachusettes.

Fred Thompson is perfect for the GOP. They'll see him as the 21st centuries version of Reagan. He has presence, gravitas, speaking ability, and can convincingly play a military commander (not to mention a smart lawyer). He's "outside the beltway" (more importantly, he's been outside the beltway for several years when things really turned south). He's a Southerner. He's a blank slate that Republicans and lobbyists will love to define. What's not to love? Plus think of how much people will love hearing the new start to Hail to the Chief (it will start with the "thung-thung" sound from Law and Order).

Superficial? Sure. Copy/paste my last comment about the average voter.

Thompson is signed, sealed and delivered, barring any unforeseen revelations about his health or skeletons in his closet.

I'm not sure Rudy's inevitable implosion will hurt him in the primaries. My guess is he will be filmed during an angry and possibly violent anti-liberal tirade that would make sensible people blush. But the tirade will endear him to Republican voters even more and he wins the primary. He may even need such an implosion to overcome his cross-dressing pictures. It will doom him in the general election, but that may not make a difference with Iraq imploding to the point where even Ronald Reagan couldn't win.

And can we talk about the LISP for a minute?

Seriously, how can we think about electing a president with that mincing little lisp?

The man lisps like a three year old. How come nobody ever mentions that?

Rudy doesn't thound Prethidential!

I don't like Guiliani in the least, but I don't understand the question. If he WERE on anti-depressants, he'd be much less likely to melt down. So what's the issue with the meds? Isn't the issue with his temperament?

Susan makes a good point. I use anitdeps, and I'm tired of people throwing the term around like a synonym for being unbalanced.

As to Kevin's saying that the support for Thompson grows out of desperation. Well, yeah, but so what? It's not like the Republicans are going to get less desperate. And they don't mind nominating an empty suit.

But how did Rudi get elected Mayor?

I think that's the point of the anti-depressant comment. The reporter is surprised that Rudy has made it even this far, and he wants someone to ask Rudy if his relatively even keel is the result of medication. And I get the sense that the question isn't entirely in jest.

I'll be blunt: if Kevin is right, the GOP really is f___ed for 2008, because if their best hope if Romney, a guy the GOP base seems to see as a pandering, flip-flopping phoney from Tax Land (and they do have a point, as I see Romney as a souless empty suit who'll do and say anything to get elected), then they are out of luck.

I agree, though, that the GOP really has a bad hand for next year. All three of the top Dem candidates are serious contenders and several of the second tier crew (Richardson, Biden, Dodd) can make concievable Presidents. But the GOP field is a mess and everyone is flawed somehow:

McCain: Hated by the base, making tons of gaffes and falling into a death spiral.

Rudy: A walking time bomb wating to happen, too liberal and too many skeletons in the closet.

Mitt: See above.

Thompson: THIS guy is the second coming of Reagan? He looks more like an old crank about to yell at the kids to get off his lawn (read: Bob Dole).

Gingrich: Widely loathed outside the GOP base, as much skeletons as Guiliani, also walking time bomb.

Brownbeck: Religous right whackadoodle.

Huckabee: Not enough of a national profile, also too conservative.

Hunter: Who?

Tancredo: Like you even need reminding.

Wolff's article is kind of odd all by itself, leaving aside the evidence of Rudy's instability. For instance, it contains this line: "The instances — e.g., Howard Dean, Wesley Clark — when oddball candidates do get dinged ...." I mean, "oddball" is a stretch when applied to Howard Dean, but Wesley Clark? Oddball? Wolff has a completely tin ear. On the other hand, Jack Newfield taught him a healthy disrespect for Rudy (but only after Wolff had voted for him, apparently).

Sure, but Democrats have their troublespots too: Hillary is likely to throw a tantrum that is caught on a cellphone camera. And Obama's "Dreams from My Father" reads exactly like a literarily-gifted depressive's memoir -- kind of like an unfunny Evelyn Waugh. Don't be surprised if Obama's campaign loses steam as he comes down off his recent upswing and his naturally sensitive and introspective personality reasserts itself.

Of course, the media managed to avoid mentioning in 1992 that Ross Perot was undergoing a classic manic-depressive cycle, so you'll have to read between the lines.

Hillary's campaign attack squads will destroy all the other candidates one by one, then Hillary will collapse under the weight of her own baggage into something resembling a very small neutron star.

The Republicans don't have to come up with a brilliant candidate. Just like the last election, they just have to have someone worse running for the Democrats.

Damn are you trolls late today. Long after lunch staff meeting?

The question that needs to be asked is "Will you make you medical records available for review?" If not, the antidep question comes into play.

Hey everyone!

Great idea!

Let's start a draft Jeb Bush movement!

Like the nick says:

The question that needs to be asked is "Will you make you medical records available for review?"

Democratic presidential candidates have had no trouble completely dodging this question. Why should Republicans?

I really don't see why you're so flippant about Thompson's chances. The party that gave us Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and George W. Bush has quite amply demonstrated that competence, intellectual depth, and so forth are, quite simply, not relevant to who they nominate.

They like to play dress up as tough guys. First and foremost, that's what they're concerned with. Thompson fits the bill.

The party that gave us Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and George W. Bush has quite amply demonstrated that competence, intellectual depth, and so forth are, quite simply, not relevant to who they nominate.

Good lord I hope we don't elect an Austrian immigrant as Fuehrer.

*shudder*

Willard the Mormon hasn't got a chance, Kevin. The day that Americans elect a Mormon named Willard with a nickname like a baseball glove is the day pink and yellow winged monkeys fly out of my ass. It will be Hillary in a landslide, although I am not exactly jumping up and down for joy at the prospect.

There is something mildly creepy about every president for the past 20 years being named either Bush or Clinton.

Mitt was the last and possibly worst in a series of MA Republican Governors who was seemingly bored with the office before he sat down in the corner office. He doesn't have the sand or the stature to last the race. He's going to fade very quickly.

Hagel and Huckabee are the two Republicans on the national scene who could possibly be interesting to independents and thus make it a real race.

Kevin,
I'm with you part way. I agree that Giuliani is hopeless. I also think that Romney just has less than zero chance of being elected.
He's an effete fop, he's a Mormon, he's a graceless flip-flopper, and the kicker is that he probably will never poll well against a Dem (Hope that's true so far.. hehe).
I think McCain will be rehabilitated by the press, as much as possible, because he's the only possible candidate. The real story here is that the GOP has noc chance in 2008. I think if McCain really does stay in the basement, you'll see the REpublicans get REALLY desperate, because it will appear before 2008 even begins that there is no viable GOP candidate for President. We're really in a unique situation. Bush has fucked up the Republicans so bad, there's almost no hope.

Thompson's too old. He doesn't have even the appearance of energy like Reagan.

About McCain and Giuliani having blowups.
Giuliani just looks nuts, but McCain is VERY canny about the press. His "bomb Iran" song was quite clever on his part, in my opinion---very Reaganesque. Notice he's doing better in GOP polls?
McCain is the only one who could beat Dem, so let's hope he flames out in the primaries.

No Mormon can win the Republican nomination. As things stand right now, I think Thoompson is the only one who can get it.

It's going to be Thompson. He's the perfect Republican candidate. He's an actor who is comfortable playing leaders with gravitas, and half the electorate with think they're voting for Arthur Branch. He was also instrumental in bringing Nixon down, so they can portray him as a maverick, and distance him from the losers who have been voting lockstep to protect Junior.

Is anyone gonna ask Rudy why he is a hypocrite over Hugo Chavez? He blasted Chavez today, yet his company does business with him. Nothing like Republicans, money always comes first, principals come in last.

Ever since I thought it was unlikely George Bush could win his primary, that it was improbable he could win the election after the first debate with Gore, and utterly impossible he could win re-election after Iraq, I've given up making any sort of predictions about elections. I have no idea how the electorate makes it's decisions, only that it is extremely untrustworthy.

--Rick Taylor

Actually, Gingrich is probably better liked by the base. But Thompson is far more photogenic due to his acting career and a better public speaker.

I'm still amazed that Hagel isn't given a serious thought by Republicans. He is an actual conservative, in most of the good ways, and he is right on the Iraq issue. If the Republican Party is to hold on to any degree of power they need someone who offers a clean break from the Bush wing of the party and Hagel is the only one who offers that.

That said, who am I to argue with the late Mr. Vonnegut? The only real thing of interest to me in the race for the Republicans is how low & dirty McCain will be willing to go.

Thompson “instrumental in bringing down Nixon?” That’s laughable. Thompson, REPUBLICAN chief co-counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, asked Alexander Butterfield about listening devices in the Oval Office. He asked a fucking question, no doubt hoping Butterfield would dispel the rumor.

It is also said Thompson was responsible for Howard Baker having asked his immortal question: What did the president know, and when did he know it? So what if he was? In asking the question, Baker wasn’t being tough on Nixon. He was putting the onus on John Dean to prove to the committee that Nixon had prior knowledge of the break-in at the Watergate on June 17, 1972. Baker considered Dean a snake for ratting out his old boss and showing no remorse over it.

Thompson wasn’t there to “bring down” Nixon. In July 1973, most Republicans desperately wanted to believe Nixon wasn’t involved in Watergate.

Hagel is the only Republican in the field who could draw independents and moderates, due to his relative competence regarding foreign affairs. And I still think most GOP voters are going to be reluctant to hand the nomination to someone from Massachusetts (which may be wise on their part, given how poorly Democratic candidates from that state have fared in the post-Kennedy era).

The only people who want a Giuliani-Hillary race are the editors of the New York tabloids. (If Edwards can survive "hairgate," he'll still be a viable contender even if the media would prefer Ms. Clinton or Obama.)

First, Rudy was never as unpopular as you assert http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1302.xml?ReleaseID=631 - even behind enemy lines in NYC. He was unpopular with criminals, unions ( but I repeat myself) special interest groups, mafioso, and Yasser Arafat. Since the majority of Americans are none of the above, doesn't seem a problem. You forgot to mention that he consistently beats Hillary in the polls, even in swing states. And temper? Not any worse than Bill's famous purple faced, vein popping rages, or Hillary flinging ashtrays.

ROTFLMLiberalAO is the only one who has it right. Every one of the Republican front runners will implode, each in his own way. They're all fatally flawed.

Then just when it seems bleakest for the Repubs, in rides Jeb on his white horse to save the day. The Repubs will swoon with delight knowing that someone with the aristocratic Bush pedigree will become their new authoritarian father figure and replenish their empty souls. The fact that he's the third Bush to strive for world domination isn't a problem - it's a big plus. Republicans are drawn to the aura of inherited wealth and power like earthworms to beer. Love and adoration will fill the air (literally thanks to the MSM).

aa

Must admit, every time I get a little down about Democratic nominees I just look at the republican field and perk right up. I think Kucinich could probably beat some of those guys.

Why doesn't the GOP just nominate Brownback? He's the only consistently unapologetic conservative in the lot with strong strong moral fiber. Why vote for a compromise candidate when the American people so obviously can't get enough of conservativism? They love the stuff! And if you have a religious right-winger, well, so much the better! Just Jesus and Reagan all the time, that will do nicely.

The Republican Party has a duty to God and our nation to nominate Sam Brownback. Otherwise, what are you people, Lite Democrats? Hillary-style "triangulators"? How sad.

Kevin:

Why do you support the top three Democratic Contenders who were too timid (or cagey)to oppose the Bush War in Iraq? Why not support the Democratic Leaders like Rep.Kucinich, the only candidate who voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2002, and former Senator Gravel who consistently oppose the war and want to impeach the current administration? Why not reward foresight instead of apologetic hindsight? You think that the Top Three will get it right the Next Time? Isn't this a version of faith-based politics?

It's not a scientific survey, but I find this astounding: take a look at the presidential straw poll on the front page of the American Family Association (Donald Wildmon's Christianist group) site www.afa.net.

Fred Thompson 43,376
Newt Gingrich 17,056
Mitt Romney 13,691
Rudy Giuliani 10,038
John McCain 8,348
Sam Brownback 5,119
Mike Huckabee 5,113

Not that a Democrat had a chance here, but the leading vote-getter is John Edwards at 3,491, just behind Ron Paul and just ahead of Tom Tancredo.

Rep.Kucinich, the only candidate who voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2002,

Ron Paul also voted against the war.

Among the Republicans, though, it's simpler: McCain is spiraling into irrelevance and seems clearly doomed; Rudy is a walking time bomb; and it's nothing more than a measure of GOP desperation that Fred Thompson is considered anything but a joke. So that leaves Mitt Romney.

Guilani: check. He's the guy you put on top of the fascist ticket.

McCain: kneepads, press. No hope.

At this point you're arguing that Romney wins because he's the only one that can, but honestly, Romney is in bad shape all around for more reasons than either Guilani OR McCain. So....

That leaves Fred Thompson, since nobody else in the field has traction inside or outside the party. I don't know why it seems like a joke; Bush had been Govenor for 5 years when he started running for President. Hillary has been a Senator for 6+ years and the only reason she's a Senator or running is because of the guy she's married to, Obama was a state legislator and has been Senator for 3 years. Thompson was a Senator for 12, if I remember correctly. (Edwards wasn't Senator for long either.)

If you said that was a dearth of experienced talent all the way around in the race I'd be with you. But as it stands, outside of Gingrinch and Biden (Dodd?) I think, Thompson is the most experienced guy who might be in the running.

Way back in Spetember 1998, when Bush was running for re-election as Gov, I said that IF he ran, he would get the nomination, and win the general. I posted that publically. (Link coughed up on request). I allowed myself to be mislead by some campaign flim-flam meant to protect Bush from charges that he wasn't serious about being Gov. (Important, since he wasn't serious about being Gov.) I also thought he would be a really, really bad President, but I didn't say it in the prediction.

So I'll say two things here: 1> if Clinton got elected, she would be a really really bad President ('Ha! Bush was just a pretender; let me show you the awesome power of this fully-operational battle station!'). 2> If Thompson runs, Thompson gets the nomination and the general. (The only situation where I would have my doubts would be if Edwards got the nod. Edwards lacks negatives too!) He's not involved in the Iraq-a-thon, he's not attached to Bush, so he's exactly the right kind of non-entity entity. No negatives.

m, that's all

Thompson was a Senator for 12, if I remember correctly.

Correction. 8 years. But he's still ahead of Edwards, Obama and Clinton.

m, some year they'll nominate somebody I like

Thompson was in the Senate for only 8 years, not 12.

The man is divorced and remarried a women 25 years his junior, younger than his kids from his previous marriage (YUK!). One of his daughters died from a drug overdose. James Dobson doesn't think that he a real Xian. He also has an incurable form of lymphoma.

Fred pretty much has all the negatives of all the other losers in the GOP field combined. All he has that stands out is his gravelly drawl.

ex-thinker: "Reagan with Alzheimers was a better President than Carter at his best..."

That just says volumes about how much you care about this country, and your own pathetic mindset.

Rudy is running on Bush luv, as is McCain.

The Repugs just don't get it. They insist on running as Bush yes-man, every single one of them.

This Broder mindset that "conservatives love Bush" is really quite wrong.

anonymous: "[Rudy Giuliani] even refused to learn where Iraq was on a map!"

Real men never ask for directions, nor do they read them. They will, however, apparently follow them without question when ordered by other manly men like themselves. Hence Rudy's blurb to soon-to-be-indicted former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik in the midst of chaos on 9/11: "Thank God George Bush is the president!"

Only a fool reveling in his or her own beknighted ignorance, i.e., the 30% who still think Bush is doing good job, would vote for an opportunistic, autocratic, self-absorbed political buffoon like Rudy Giuliani.

But then again, I'm sure there were many Italians in 1920 who didn't think the pompous and arrogant Benito Mussolini would ever become Il Duce, either.

Rudy! bears close watching, espcially if a fawning mainstream media goes out of its collective way to ignore and dismiss the incessant ringing of alarm bells begging for a closer public scrutiny of this guy's record and behavior -- as had happened with the emotionally-stunted fraternity brother who's currently occupying the White House.

Guiliani - I just can't see southerners going for the great white flake of New York City.
Everything about Rudy screams bible belt pestilence.

After the flame-outs, Hagel will jump in just as it starts to become fashionable on the right to be in favor of a pullout (aka, "victory with honor").

Posted by: Disputo

NOT the man Murdock would have picked, but Chuck is ONLY hope Repugs have - they HAVE run an ANTI-Bush campaign, even to start the cleanup project the GOP MUST DO in order to even have a pray ever again. AND my ole my, that will sure make the Bushies mad, but it's GOP's only option.

Its that or be nothing.

But I sure don't see how any of these other guys manages to muddle through.

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. You've GOT to be kidding. I hear the GOP also wants to run an illiterate with 3 years of public service in addition to a history of corporate mismanagement and insider trading who went AWOL during the Iraq War and was taped mocking the clemency plea of a woman scheduled to die in the death chamber, who also has a history of cocaine use and is a "recovering" alcoholic who attends no type of treatment program or support group...

What'll these morons think up next?

It isn't that Rudy has a temper.

It is that he is a bully. One of these days he will have an Arthur Godfrey - Lonesome Rhodes moment on camera.

The insecurities of our time are socioeconomic, which favors Democrats.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Mitt is my choice, mostly because of his (apparent) competence.

That doesn't make any sense -- since when has "ex-liberal", Bush water carrier deluxe, valued competence?

Re Guiliani: Yeah, Guiliani (who has actually been a good leader of the most happening city in the world) doesn't have the benefit of endless magazine and newspaper glamorous front page photos and cover stories like Obama (accomplishments?) and Edwards (accomplishments?).

As for your handicapping the Republicans, there's nothing like watching a Dem outsider act like they know what they're talking about. priceless.

Re: your Dems. I admit it must be tough distinguishing amid the endless glamour poses, and the focus-group tested one-liners that make a liberals heart melt (two americas, etc). Which pretty Dem is best? I'm just as befuddled as you.

I still don't get why pundits and bloggers keep touting Romney's chances when he trails miserably in all the polls, comes from Massachusetts, has supported positions that are wildly unpopular with the Republican base, and is Mormon!

As I understand it, Romney is in fact a fairly competent guy. But he's not going anywhere. The Republican base will never vote for him.

My position is that it's Rudy's race to lose, but should he choose to do so, Thompson is the one to watch. He's good at seeming authoritative on TV, and as we saw with Reagan, that skill goes a long way with Republicans. But more importantly, there are no doubts about his conservative credentials, as there are with Romney and McCain.

Heh, someone has to be president. None of the Republicans has a chance. Clinton and Edwards are unacceptable because of their Iraq war votes and subsequent utter bullshit. Obama was still a state senator three years ago and is also full of shit. But these are the candidates the corporate media/campaign finance plutocracy will allow. Whatever. I just live here.

As an (almost--less than a mile away) New Yorker for many years, I also am incredulous that the obviously unhinged Giuliani could be seriously considered for president. Related to his unhingedness, he is a natural authoritarian, better suited to be a caudillo in a bananna republic than to lead a genuine republic. (Well, the distinction between a bananna republic and what we now have has become less sharp in recent years.) What I wonder is how much traction the eventual negative exposing the abundant evidence of his loopiness will have. You don't have to add commentary. You just have to play the tape.

A father who did time in Sing Sing. A former Democrat. Three wives. A nasty, brutal, and publicly aired divorce. Pro choice and pro gay rights, regardless of what he says. Keeping his mistress at his wife's home while she's away. Bernie Kerik.

How in the heck can this guy get the Republican nomination?

I suppose stranger things have happened in politics, but I can't think of any.

Fred Thompson gets the nomination. You forget how America goes ga-ga for stars and celebrities. Just about anybody on TV or in the movies would be elected in a walk. President Pitt, President Oprah, President Hanks, all by landslides. The second and third tier would have to work a bit harder, but unless their opponents have equal star qualities (big personality, projects well), they win. Remember that B actor who became president? He was a also a joke to the cognoscenti in the beginning.

He [Giuliani] was unpopular with criminals, unions ( but I repeat myself) special interest groups, mafioso, and Yasser Arafat.

Is this what poker players call a 'tell'?

"I'm just as befuddled as you"

Perhaps, that is why so many Repugs were going around yesterday on May Day, yelling Mayday, Mayday.

As a Massachusetts resident who has suffered under this arrogant dilettante for too long, I so hope that you're wrong.

However, Guliani would be a *wonderful* choice for the nomination. Mitt is capable of appearing calm and reasonable enough to fool people; I doubt that Rudy is.

Considering the way in which the wheels keep falling off Shrub's Golden Carriage turned Black Maria, the Repugs should find someone schooled and trained in auto mechanics.

I don't think any of these "personal life" items are goin' to be an issue. I don't think they are important to peopel anymore. Who really cares if al gore is on anti-psychotics or anti-depressants, this stuff is pretty mainstream.

I expect Rudy to crash, but not for any reasons listed here yet. I think, like most other early entrants, he'll wear himself out (and won't face these questions directly and bluntly) and also surpass the saturation point public attention and be rejected.

I'm not willing to rule out the possibility of Bloomberg coming in under the radar. He won't get play in the conservative blogosphere because of his anti-gun antics, but I don't think those will necesarrily prevent him from a successful campaign.

Rudy won't last only becouse of his women's dress wearing habit - it doesn't look masculine for macho loving republicans

What's this 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0 that Rudy has been talking about recently?

It really is too bad for the Republicans that Arnold can't run because of a "minor" technicality such as country of birth and I'm kind of half-surprised there isn't a movement within prominent Republican circles to find a way around it. Fred Thompson isn't a star, Arnie is a star and if they aren't going to go for an honest-to-goodness conservative who is clearly not licking the boots of the soon-to-be former spineless commander-in-chief, such as Hagel, then they need somebody everyone recognizes, someone who can project, or play the role of, a strong but sympathetic leader. Arnie would be ideal for this crowd even if he is as liberal a Republican as Rudy! Sure he has those nasty Nazi comments in his past and he has always liked the ladies but he esentially told Ariana Huffington in a debate that if he had the chance he'd kill her and that has got to count for something with that crowd. Still, barring a change to the Constituition, which we all know is just a an old, out-dated piece of paper to a lot of Republicans, at this point in time, I'm thinking Thompson.

Rudy is a walking time bomb;

Perhaps he is, but that doesn't mean he'll go off before the primaries, or even before the general election. There's a good chance he will, but there is also a chance he won't.

Also, particularly with a fairly weak field, there is still plenty of time for a candidate to jump in: the upthread suggestion of Hagel is a not-entirely-unlikely one.

Brownback. The religious candidate is still in the running and he has the most dedicated of supporters of any in the Republican race.

And don't forget: The Republicans haven't made a single move to distance themselves from Bush and the last seven years. In fact, that is what they have to run on.
The US National Reserve of Kool-Aid will be tapped and liberally sloshed around.
I suggest an inflatable boat, that stuff is sticky, and you don't want to swim in it.

RE: Hagel

NOT the man Murdock would have picked [...]

Certainly true; Chuck Hagel is not Hillary Clinton.

Romney is a walking oil slick. He'll say what you want to hear and then turn around the next day and contradict it. Flip-flopper and liar, that's our Mitt.

Gregory: That doesn't make any sense -- since when has "ex-liberal", Bush water carrier deluxe, valued competence?

In 2000, Bush's record showed considerably more competence than Gore's. Both were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Compare what they achieved with their advantages:

-- Bush graduated from Yale with bad grades. Gore graduated from Harvard with worse grades

-- Bush successfully got an MBA at Harvard. Gore flunked out of journalism school and flunked out of divinity school.

-- As Managing Partner of a baseball team, Bush earned millions of dollars for himself and for his partners. Gore had no particular achievements outside of politics.

-- Both did well in getting elected.

A comparison with Kerry also showed more achievements by Bush. After many years as a Senator, Kerry had no achievements at all to point to. As a governor, Bush could point to successful educational reform in Texas. As a first term President, Bush had lot of achievements: cut taxes, ended the recession, added pharmaceutical coverage to Medicare, defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, defeated Saddam. Of course, he had some failures as well, such as mismanging the occupation of Iraq and signing McCain Feingold campaign finance reform.

The Republicans may be reaching the position they have so richly deserved for years: What the candidates have to do and say to win the nomination will make them unpalatable in the general election.
Of course the MSM will render all the services of a publicity company in controlling the message, and do it for free.

how many championships did the Rangers win with Bush at the helm? That's his big private sector achievement--using his family's money to buy into a baseball team, trade its best player, and make money by forcing citizens off their land to build a new stadium? Typical conservatard idea of "success"--"we made our money, so screw you".

and the Bush education "success" story, his only "achievement" as a part-time governor for six years--

- Texas ranks last among all 50 states in teacher salaries (check out how poorly Texas does in other categories)
- 43% of Texas teachers plan to leave or are considering leaving teaching. [Fort Worth Star-Telegram/AP, 4/28/00] See TSTA - In The News
- Money that could have gone into raising teacher salaries went into tax cuts for the rich.
- The high school dropout rates in Texas are 30% overall
- The high school dropout rate in Texas is 50% among minorities
- Missing students and other mirages in Texas enrollment statistics profoundly affected both reported dropout statistics and test scores.
- The gains on TAAS and the unbelievable decreases in dropouts during the 1990s are more illusory than real.
- At the start of every school year, school begins with literally hundreds of classrooms without teachers
- Governor Bush appointed a teacher certification board that, instead of working on improving the standards for the teaching profession and improving teacher quality, has decided instead to allow people who have poor credentials to enter into the teaching profession
- One in five Texas high school teachers are not certified [Dallas Morning News, 1/25/00]
- The New York Times reported that in February 1999, officials with the University of Texas system presented a report to a Texas House subcommittee complaining of "marked declines in the number of students who are prepared academically for higher education."
- Lesley Stahl of "60 Minutes" reported that one minority high school in Houston had no library but had spent $20,000 on test-preparation materials. An education professor at Rice told Ms. Stahl that even high school students who pass the Texas test couldn't necessarily read.
- About 41,000 of 63,000 vacancies in Texas public schools were unfilled last year [Ft Worth Star-Telegram, May 10, 2000]
- At the start of every school year, school begins with literally hundreds of classrooms without teachers [video]
- Since about 1982, the rates at which Black and Hispanic students are required to repeat grade 9 have climbed steadily, such that by the late 1990s, nearly 30% of Black and Hispanic students were "failing" grade 9.
- Texas charter schools were even poorer than public schools. Even though the racial mix was skewed to non-white, and the number of schools (66) is small, the economically disadvantaged rate was very similar, the percent of special ed students was less in the charter schools, and the test scores were uniformly substantially lower.

ex-lib, I'm sure that line of specious argumentation works well with the ignoramuses that you associate with in real life, but none of us have any tolerance for those dishonest and false arguments here. Please be quiet.

ex-lib, I'm sure that line of specious argumentation works well with the ignoramuses that you associate with in real life, but none of us have any tolerance for those dishonest and false arguments here. Please be quiet.

more on Bush's successful education reform in Texas--

Education 'Miracle' Has a Math Problem
Bush Critics Cite Disputed Houston Data

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 8, 2003; Page A01

HOUSTON -- When the state of Texas bestowed "exemplary" status on Austin High School in August 2002, ecstatic administrators compared the honor to winning the Super Bowl. There was more cheering and pompom-waving a few weeks later when a private foundation honored Houston for having the nation's best urban school district.

Just a year later, the high school has been downgraded to "low-performing," the lowest possible rating. And the Houston Independent School District -- showcase of the "Texas educational miracle" that President Bush has touted as a model for the rest of the nation -- is fending off accusations that it inflated its achievements through fuzzy math.

Austin is one of more than a dozen Houston high schools caught up in a burgeoning scandal about the reliability of their dropout statistics. During a decade in which, routinely, as many as half of Austin students failed to graduate, the school's reported dropout rate fell from 14.4 percent to 0.3 percent. Even a Houston school board member calls the statistic "baloney."

If this were any other school district in the nation, few people would pay much attention. But Houston is the political springboard for U.S. Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige. He was school superintendent here before moving to Washington, and what originally began as an argument over dropout data has expanded into a debate about the administration's entire approach to educational reform.

Opponents of the Houston system of business-style accountability have seized on the dropout scandal as evidence that some of Paige's most cherished accomplishments -- including narrowing the "achievement gap" between white and minority students -- rest on false or manipulated data. They have raised questions about the validity of test results that purport to show spectacular progress by Houston students in reading, writing and arithmetic.

"It is all phony; it's just like Enron," said Linda McNeil, a professor of education at Houston's Rice University, referring to the bankrupt Houston-based energy services company that boosted its stock price by covering up losses. "Enron was concerned about appearances, not real economic results. That pretty much describes what we have been doing to our children in Houston."

and Bush's big success in Arglington--not only did he screw landowners, he screwed taxpayers--

Usually parked in a front-row seat by the dugout, with his feet up and a bag of peanuts perched in his lap, Bush put a congenial face on a crooked deal, at the heart of which lay a complicated land play.

When they bought the team, the Rangers were playing in an old minor-league stadium. It didn’t have the fancy sky boxes and other amenities that helped make other franchises much more profitable. As a result, the team couldn’t compete with other big-city teams for good players. But the new owners weren’t willing to finance the construction of a new ballpark . They decided to hit up taxpayers for the money.

First, the new owners threatened to move the team out of Arlington, Texas, sending local officials scurrying to put together a deal they couldn’t refuse. Under the resulting agreement, the taxpayers of Arlington would raise $135 million, the bulk of the cost of construction, through a hike in sales taxes. During a campaign to sell the sales tax increase to Arlington voters, then-mayor Richard Greene said the team owners would put $50 million of their own money into the deal up front. It didn’t quite work out that way; the owners raised a hefty portion of their down payment from fans, through a one dollar surcharge on tickets.

Sales Tax Hike Approved

The city spent $150,000 on an advertising campaign to persuade voters. Opponents of the deal couldn’t compete with glossy brochures, telemarketing calls, and a “Hands Around Arlington Day.” On Jan. 19, 1991, citizens of Arlington voted two-to-one to approve a sales-tax increase dedicated to building the new park.

Between the sales-tax revenue, state tax exemptions and other financial incentives, Texas taxpayers handed the privately owned Rangers more than $200 million in public subsidies.[emphasis mine, you gotta love that private sector ingenuity] Taxpayers didn’t get a return from the stadium’s surging new revenues, either. The profits went almost exclusively to the team’s already wealthy owners.

The stadium’s lease is a case in point. Unlike an apartment tenant, the rent that the team’s owners pay is applied toward purchasing the stadium. The maximum yearly rent and maintenence fees for the Rangers are $5 million; the total purchase price for the Ballpark at Arlington is $60 million. Thus, after 12 years the owners will have bought the stadium for less than half of what taxpayers spent on it.

But Bush and his partners weren’t satisfied lining their pockets with average Texans’ hard-earned cash. They wanted land around the stadium to further boost its value. To that end, they orchestrated a land grab that shortchanged local landowners by several million dollars.

As part of the deal, the city created a separate corporation, the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority, to manage construction. Using authority granted to it by the city, the ASFDA seized several tracts of land around the stadium site for parking and future development.

Puppet for Bush, Partners

While on paper the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority was a public entity, in practice it was merely a puppet for Bush and his partners. According to documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, the owners would identify the land they wanted to acquire. A Rangers owner, Mike Reilly, a Realtor, would then offer to buy the parcels for prices he set, which in several cases were well below what the owners believed their property was worth. If the landowners refused to sell to the Rangers at the offered price, the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority could take possession of their land and leave the price to be determined in court.

Several of the landowners took the authority to court over the seizures and won settlements totaling $11 million. In a final insult to taxpayers, the Rangers resisted paying the settlements, trying to pass off yet another cost to Arlington residents. (The Rangers, under new ownership, finally agreed to pay up last year.)

When confronted with the seamy details of the land grab, Bush professed ignorance. But Schieffer, the team’s former president, has testified that he kept Bush aware of the land transfers. In October 1990, Bush also let this slip to a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “The idea of making a land play, absolutely, to plunk the field down in the middle of a big piece of land, that’s kind of always been the strategy.”

It was a strategy that would have an enormous payoff for Bush personally.

After he became governor of Texas, Bush put his all of his assets into a blind trust, with one notable exception: his stake in the Rangers. Schieffer kept Bush apprised of the owner’s efforts to sell the team to Thomas O. Hicks, the chairman of Hicks, Muse, Tate and Furst, Inc., a firm that specializes in leveraged buyouts and until recently owned AMFM, Inc., the nation’s largest chain of radio stations. Hicks and employees of his companies are Bush’s No. 4 career patron, having given him at least $290,400.

25-Fold Return on Investment

In 1998, Hicks helped provide Bush with an even greater windfall. He bought the Texas Rangers for $250 million, three times what Bush and his partners had paid 10 years earlier. The new stadium and the real estate around it greatly boosted the final sale price. And, since his partners had upped Bush’s stake in the team from 1.8 to 11.8 percent, his cut from the proceeds of the sale was $14.9 million, a 25-fold return on his investment of $606,302. Rainwater, who had put far more money into the team than Bush, made $25 million.

Just as important as the cash, however, was the cachet that came with the deal’s success. The Ballpark at Arlington finally opened in April 1994, just as Bush was running for governor. He touted the new stadium as a win-win proposition for taxpayers and the team. “Am I going to benefit off it financially?” he asked reporters. He answered his own question : “I hope so.” Four years later, everyone would know by how much.

Excerpted from The Buying of the President 2000 (Avon), by Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity. Annys Shin contributed substantially to this report while a senior associate with the Center.

haha, you may be right that Bush's achievements outside of government are overstated. But, Gore didn't even claim to have any achievements outside of government.

Kerry had only one achievement outside of government: his dishonest and anti-American testimony falsely accusing our soldiers of horrendous atrocities. Although Kerry was providing incorrect information, I do give him credit for effectiveness. His dramatic testimony played a significant role in convincing the US to withdraw form Vietnam.

I don't think that Fred is going to be the nominee - have you seen his wife? I know she is an attorney and a republican strategist - but she is 25 years younger than he is. When you see them together you think he is out with his grandaughter. There is no way that middle aged republican women are going to vote for a guy who went out and got himself a trophy wife.

... falsely accusing our soldiers of horrendous atrocities.... ex-lax at 1:49 PM

Ex-Liberal: Most Americans, nearly HALF A DECADE before Kerry's testimony, before Tet, concluded it was a mistake to be in Vietnam. The liar wasn't Kerry, the liar is yourself.

Nice work, Mike. Just like the Bushies,Ex-Liberal is so vituous, even his lying is virtuous!

Also, people forget the Fourth Article of Impeachment - the secret bombing of Cambodia. That killed an estimated three-quarters of a million innocent civilians. Wanna talk about atrocities? So, to get back on topic (on another thread), this really marked the beginnings of Banana Republicanism.

MaxGowan, yes, many or most Americans thought it was a mistake for the US to be in Vietnam. I thought so.

The lies were Kerry's list of horrible atrocities that he claimed American soldiers had committed. Bya nd large, no one was ever able to demonstrate that these atrocities had actually taken place. Kerry later excused his false testimony by pointing out that he was merely quoting other people.

But, Gore didn't even claim to have any achievements outside of government.

Perhaps because he hadn't tried? And neither had Kerry.

Presently Gore is nominated for the Nobel Prize and George Bush may well find himself on trial at The Hague.

Criminal competence isn't the same thing as competence.

NO, Ex-liberal, according to Gallup pols, MOST Americans, by November, 1967, has concluded the war was a mistake. By '69, it was over 60%. Nixon got to run twice as a peace candidate. My Vietnam vet buddies, back in '71-'72, were not in disagreement with Kerry. When they would talk about it. But they were not in disagreement. Do you honestly believe My Lai was a one-time event? If so, there is a bridge I'd like to sell you. Americans have a history of being savage occupiers. If you bother to read history.

I think its funny that "ex-liberal" is propogating rightwing Vietnam myths. Hey ex, when were you a liberal? During the New Deal?

I think Thompson has an excellent shot, because he is much less unsuitable for the job than the other candidates: not crazy like Guiliani, not in a meltdown like McCain, hasn't changed his position on everything at least twice like Romney, not despised by the electorate as a whole like Gingrich.

JoshA - I was anti-Vietnam war. I demonstrated. I was a campaign worker for Eugene McCarthy. Kerry's testimony helped end US involvement in the war.

I want to respond to McGowan's point. No doubt some American soliders committed atrocities during their service in Vietnam. It's fine to publicize and complain about American atrocities.

But, one should keep one's sense of proportion. American atrocities in Vietnam were not remotely comparable to Viet Cong atrocities. For us, atrocities were an aberation. For them, it was standard operating procedure.

There's been a similar lack of perspective about Abu Graib. What the Americans did there was infensible. But, what Saddam had done there for many years was a thousand times as bad. His thugs really did torture people to death with the barbaric types of torture.

This point isn't meant to excuse American atrocities. It is meant to show that the US deserves enormous moral credit for ending Saddam's reign of terror.

I wish I could share Ex-Liberal's view of American Exceptionalism. It does exist sometimes, like the Marshall Plan. ONOH, one hundred years ago, America was in the midst of killing an estimated one million Phillipinos, putting down the uprising against our occupation. (Where is that in my kid's school history books?) Ex-liberal, you cannot ignore the bombing of Cambodia, and what resulted thereafter. There are an estimated 4 million dead from that war. We have so much blood on our hands. Nor do I mean to excuse the atrocities of the Viet Cong. Look at Hue after Tet, the executions after their victory in '75, etc. But we're less different than I wish we were or your own perception. Is Abu Graib any worse or better than the fact that we have killed an estimated 650,000 Iraqi's since '03? (And for me, who like you worked for McCarthy, Abu Graib represents THE most shameful episode of American foreign policy in my lifetime.)

"Lack of perspective on Abu Graib"? But WE are supposed to be the good guys. If we claim to be above the Viet Cong or Saddam, than we can't say stuff like that, period.

MaxGowan: we have killed an estimated 650,000 Iraqi's since '03

First of all that number is controversial. More importantly, we didn't kill those people; our enemies killed most of them.

You want the US to step a allow the killers to keep on killing. I want the US to defeat the killers.

ex-liberal, There's been a similar lack of perspective about Abu Graib. What the Americans did there was infensible. But, what Saddam had done there for many years was a thousand times as bad.

Which fails as a point because 1) we weren't fighting Saddam and 2) because if someone else does something that doesn't mean it's either correct or that we should do it, even a little bit.

Your own, often expressed, lack of perspective suggests a deep intransigent need to present false equivalencies and justifications for nearly any Republican pratfall.

What do they have on you, ex-liberal?

That 650,000 has been reviewed and re-reviewed. It has emerged as the accepted number. This is blood on OUR hands, our bombing. Stop trying to dodge accountability. Notice how you ignore everything else I write. I'd love to defeat the killers, but as even U.S. generals are noting, we couldn't do it if we had a million troops there.

This is an administration where no one, not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of these war criminals couldn't even bother to learn the difference between Sunnis and Shiites before launching this catastrophe.

The insidious thing about the accurate figure is that it measures premature death. Deaths that could have been prevented. Deaths from infections and chronic diseases like diabetes and asthma and untreated cancers and a whole host of other causes.

Now tht we have cleared that up. Yet Again...I can't let this little bit of a drive-by slander go unchallenged:

You want the US to step a allow the killers to keep on killing. I want the US to defeat the killers.

Stop. Ascribing. Motives.

We have been over this before, ex-lib. You don't speak for me. And it is a god-damned slander to portray a side you refuse to see as wanting the killing to go on apace.

You want to stop the killers. Best way to do that, seems to most reasonable people, would be to get the hell out of the way.

Occupiers don't win. They occupy until such time as they leave - either because they are worn out and beat down, or the occupied land has been sufficiently exploited to the point there is nothing left to steal.

ex-liberal: "A comparison with Kerry also showed more achievements by Bush."

LOL! Can you really big this big a fool or are you just in it for the public humiliation? Kinky!

As for Kerry's accurate assessment of Vietnam atrocities (watch "Winter Soldier" and then get back to us), you clearly care nothing about the new ones perpetrated in you name every day.

cld: Which fails as a point because 1) we weren't fighting Saddam and 2) because if someone else does something that doesn't mean it's either correct or that we should do it, even a little bit.

cld - if you wnat to focus only on areas where America did wrong, be my guest. Maybe your moral preening will convince God not to hold you responsible for America's sins.

However, here on earth one ought to consider the real-world alterntives. The US isn't perfect, but we're a whole lot better for the Iraqi people than any realistic alternative. The Iraqi people will be much worse off if they're again ruled by people who follow Saddam's cruel approach.

Blue Girl: You want to stop the killers. Best way to do that, seems to most reasonable people, would be to get the hell out of the way.

We will just have to agree to disagree. History says we stopped the Ku Klux Klan by action, not by getting the hell out of the way. Same goes for Imperial Japan, Grenada, the the Soviet Union, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam, and Hitler.

The Lancet Study actually used fairly conservative methods, accepted in epidemiology, for estimating excess deaths. The merits of the estimate have not really been creditably attacked. Daniel Davies (Crooked Timber) has examined the allegations that the study erred on the high side, and he explodes them conclusively.

Alleging that Kerry's testimony ended US involvement in the Vietnam War is not really a reasonable interpretation of historical events. The Thieu government collapsed. It was indefensible. I'm wondering if Ex-liberal, repining about McGovern, wishes that US troops remained there today. The antiwar movement had only a slight impact on the actual conduct of the War. Incidentally, I drew this conclusion from books on the conflict published by war college instructors (among other people).

Kerry reported what was testified to him. It was the job of the authorities to investigate the conduct of the War and war crimes. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Kerry's testimony was untrue, there is still the question--why does the whistleblower get blamed when people believe him? Ex-liberal would have us believe that there was no alternative source of information about the conduct of the war. Why, then, is he so confident Kerry's testimony was an exaggeration or lie?

And relaxing our assumption, Ex-liberal, killing 6% of the population of a country (in a civil war, in a country forcibly divided by foreign powers) IS AN ATROCITY. Only a tiny number of those killed were combatants, and it was not the place of any US institution to impose its will in this way.

MaxGowan, imperialism is bad. The political left has an addiction to demonizing Americans per se, which is why it always loses. Benevolent Assimilation is a singularly harsh account of US imperialism in the Philippines, but its estimates of the death toll there don't approach a million. Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts is a more generalized account of European imperialism and its death toll; there's also Sven Lindqvist