Anyone who is truly interested in the future of this country should spend time examining the ideas, positions and plans of each of the candidates, and make up their own mind as to which is best for them. Supporting someone because he's an evangelical, while ignoring his record and his inability to formulate even a rudimentary approach to foreign policy is myopic and nothing more than a self-reassuring statement of one's religious beliefs, not an informed decision with the country's best interests in mind.

For me, the candidate with the most comprehensive and well-thought-out plans for our future is Fred Thompson. Given, he's not a traditional campaigner. Perhaps that's because he's not interested in BEING someone important. It appears he's far more interested in DOING something important, and making our country stronger, safer and more prosperous. He's not in it for himself, but for what he can do for all of us, with a vision toward making a difference for generations to come.

Check it all out for yourselves. Think about what's best for all of us. Be honest for once and really vote on the issues, not just cast a ballot that makes you feel good about affirming what belief group you're a part of.

That's quite laughable considering that McCain isn't exactly the most loved GOP member.

Um, I never said he was the most loved, only that he was the least hated - a vital difference when deciding which primary candidate to hold the nose & vote for.

I like JohnG's reasoning, tho - I hadn't considered the brown-nosing aspect to the IA and NH campaigns. Perhaps making oneself attractive to those crowds turns the rest of the country off.

You win Iowa by brown nosing in person, and issues seem to be less important despite what Iowans say. That doesn't necessarily transfer to voters in other states where there is no expectation for in-person butt kissing and so voters have to look for something other than how friendly the candidate is to him and how the candidate will see to each indivdual voters individual needs.

Iowa is predominately a liberal bastion/blue state. For a GOP candidate to win in this state may go a long way to show a viable electable likable GOP candidate to the Dems.

Granted, Romney had money to throw around in Iowa, but just because Guliani, and McCain stayed away doesn't exactly make them smarter people.

Legion, I disagree that McCain will be the last man standing and that the GOP doesn't have anyone else who is electable. That's quite laughable considering that McCain isn't exactly the most loved GOP member.

I believe I was reading an American Thinker article from a writer who stated "I can name 6 things that should make you run away from every candidate". That to me is someone who is interested in politics and votes for the lesser of two evils.

All of us should be that well versed and stop listening to the talking points that pundits, so called experts are spewing at you ad nauseum.

Look at the results from Iowa tonight, and if your people didn't do so well, that doesn't mean they're out, just that they have more to prove if they are to land a nomination.

If anything, it means that people like Ron Paul will run as independents.

In previous years, the Iowa winner frequently went on to lose to a more established candidate.

Indeed, winning IA and NH seems a lot like winning the Heisman Trophy... those that do don't often go on to a huge NFL career - at least not initially - because of a) increased expectations and b) increased attention from their opponents. Both pitfalls also apply to the political arena.

I too think McCain will be the 'last man standing' from a lot of this, but I think it's largely because the GOP quite literally has no candidate who is really electable (though McC has the fewest people who truly despise him).