If you are a Romney or Guiliani supporter, the Neocons at National Review probably love you and the Devil owns your soul: you either want a car salesman or a crime lord (former US attys make the best crime lords) to be President. Great, send them some money and see what you bought.
So, here we go, the old test. Leave your wallet, your girl and your car with:
The rich boy/car salesman type who never looks anybody in the eye when he’s answering a question and tops his waffles with waffles, or
The wife-cheater/one issue candidate who you are pretty sure owes big-time to the wrong people and has bad wingman judgment, or
The experienced old soldier, who loves and serves the best interests of America as he sees them but who makes compromises and can be swayed by special interests who may be smarter than he, or
The former preacher and crunchy-con, who you are pretty sure will do better in a debate then all-of-the-above, but who you know will be anti-big business and pro-big government, which really puts you off…
Both Thompson and Paul are pretty much gone, but hopefully Paul (by far the best man in the race) will at least be able to affect the platform at some level.
Ok, which one?
Oh yeah, Edwards is the only Dem in the race with original ideas and the ability to win a populist election.
An addendum to this post:
Someone said that this test is flawed:
"... Your test is flawed. You could have trusted Hitler with your wallet, car, and girlfriend. Or Castro. Or Mao. Or Stalin. The real scary people don’t care anything about those kind of things."
I have to say that the test in no way is flawed!
Each one of them would have appropriated my car and my wallet for the good of the community, and then thrown my (Jewish) much, much better half in a "detention" camp.