Militant Ginger states the obvious: Donald Trump isn't presidential material.

Currently, Wotsit-colored TV personality Donald Trump is leading the polls for the Republican Party's 2012 presidential candidate; which pretty much says all that needs to be said about the crop of candidates the GOP are fielding.

To come up with a list of why Donald Trump is an absurd candidate for the White House would be a waste of time – far better journalists than I have already done so.

But perhaps one point that hasn't been addressed is how Donald Trump is absurd not just as a presidential candidate, but as a Republican in general. I mean, has anybody listened to what this blowhard's been saying? It flies in the face of everything the Republican Party is supposed to represent.

The most recent example? Donald Trump's plans to tackle China's increasing dominance of our imports with a 25% sales tariff.

The logic "The Donald" is using is that a 25% import tax will 'balance' China's more competitive prices on manufactured goods. The problem is that this policy violates three of the most sacred concepts in the Republican economic playbook:

• It's a tax hike – Republicans are supposed to be about lowering taxes, yet Donald Trump is proposing one that will make all imported Chinese goods (pretty much everything on the shelf at Wal-Mart) 25% more expensive.
• It's big government – Republicans argue that the government doesn't have a mandate in education or health care; so where is it authorized to start artificially manipulating the price of imported goods?
• It's anti-free market – Chinese goods are dramatically cheaper than American ones because they have less regulation and cheaper labor. If America wants to become competitive, they need to do it with innovation and technology that will help drive down production costs – not by slapping a tariff on China's goods. That will do nothing to address the shortcomings that got us into this mess in the first place.

I'll admit that I'm not much of an economist, but I do remember this much: there has never been a system of "protectionism" like the one Donald Trump is proposing that hasn't been a disaster.

In 19th century Britain, for example, one of the most infamous examples of protectionism caused decades of problems (the Corn Laws of 1815 and 1846, which controlled the price of imported grain.)

Even earlier than that, British protectionism on American exports and imports was directly responsible for the War of Independence and the birth of the American nation.

Protectionism is, quite simply, a bad financial decision - and Donald Trump's passionate embrace of the idea reveals not just his total unsuitability for running the nation's economy, but also how out of touch he is with the party he's hoping to champion him in 2012.

Tarred with the same brush?

Coffee Bean has been giving me a run for her money over on her blog, with a very brave and honest post about her faith and how it's ebbed and flowed throughout her life.

From what she wrote, I learned it's very easy to tar one group by the same brush as its more extreme members. For example, as April pointed out, not all people who identify as conservative Christians believe the world was created 6,000 years ago and condemn homosexuals.

This proves one important thing - that Christians are clearly more evolved than politicians. Apparently, to be a Democrat or Republican you must - MUST - believe in certain things to meet the approval of your party.

I find this very frustrating as we march towards the 2008 election.

Mostly because John McCain, who I respect enormously, is getting more and more ensnared by party political bullshit.

What I really admire about John McCain (apart from the fact that he can fly a fighter plane) is that he's a maverick. He has his own beliefs and for most of his political career, he wasn't afraid to share them.

Immigration. The Environment. Abortion. Homosexual rights. John McCain bucked the Republican trend on all of them and that made him an outstanding candidate in my book. A man who had sensible Republican financial ideals, but was able to rise about the social conservatism that I despise.

Sadly, now he's won the nomination for President in the face of more 'conservative' Republicans, John McCain faces the challenge of not only winning over undecided voters, but the more right-wing members of his own party as well.

That's meant he's been forced to compromise on some pretty important issues. His campaign website has shown a u-turn on certain issues - which is bad. Not just because it scares off more moderate voters. It also makes people concerned that McCain is buckling under the pressure of a party that has spent the last eight years making a litany of poor judgement calls.

McCain's biggest asset (aside from his gorgeous and brilliant daughter, Meghan) is his history of bipartisanship. If he loses the ability to cross party lines on decisive issues, he'll lose his appeal to the more moderate voters and that will cost the Republicans the election.

You have to ask the more right wing Republicans - what's more important? Sticking to your (hand)guns on all your so-called 'values?' Or actually winning the election?

Because until the right wing is willing to swallow their pride and stump up support behind their candidate, they have little hope of defeating Obama.

Thanks for playing, Rudy...

Last night's primary in Florida proved to be an enormous disappointment for former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Largely ignoring the earlier primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the Brooklyn-born Republican had placed all his eggs in one basket.

He had hoped the large number of former-New Yorkers sunning themselves in the Sunshine State would back his campaign for the White House and propel him into first place in one decisive victory.

Instead, he trailed in a disappointing third - barely getting half the percentage points of front-runners John McCain and Mitt Romney.

It's a huge disappointment for Rudy - who hoped his 'hero' status and the legacy of 9/11 would put him in a good position to run the country. Instead, his risky campaign strategy has pretty much blown up in his face and effectively ended his run before it really began.

In all honesty, Rudy has nobody to blame but himself.

At the start of the presidential nominations, Rudy was the clear front runner for the Republican nomination. He stood head and shoulders above the other candidates and promised to win over a lot of moderate Democrats and swing voters as well. So where did it all go wrong?

I believe it was the arrogance of his campaign. The current front-runners, like Romney and McCain, have thrown their all into the battle and are as willing to shake hands and kiss babies in seemingly unimportant states like Iowa and Wyoming as they are the 'crunch states' like Florida.

Romney and McCain have come across as earnest campaigners - putting in the 'hard graft' to get to the White House. More importantly, they've established themselves as statesmen who value the support and opinions of all Americans - not just the ones who'll vote them into office.

Rudy Giuliani made the same mistake as Fred Thompson. He looked at the campaign in a more tactical way and decided to direct his resources into several key states. If he won those, McCain and Romney's minor victories would pale into insignificance.

However, in doing so he immediately changed the public's opinion of him. No longer was he the straight talking, no-nonsense Brooklyn boy who'd fix the country's problems no matter what the cost. He'd suddenly become a cynical political animal who clearly displayed his lack of regard for middle America.

His campaign disregarded the humble people of Iowa and New Hampshire and that made normal, middle-class Americans nervous.

The idea of the American democracy is that every citizen has a voice. Rudy Giuliani illustrated that he wasn't interested in listening to that voice unless he was going to get something from it in return.

The leaders in this presidential race - Obama, McCain, Clinton and Romney - have proven that they're willing to accept and embrace the entire spectrum of American society. They're as willing to court tractor-drivers in Iowa as oil-barons in Texas. That appeals to a society based upon the mantra of 'all men are created equal.'

Presidential Foresight

Today I watched an episode of Law and Order filmed in 2000. In this episode, the District Attorney Arthur Branch (played by 2008 Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson) is replaced by Nora Lewin.

And who introduces the new District Attorney? None other than 2008 Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani, in a brief cameo.

One potential president backs out. Another appears alongside his replacement. The episode is called 'Endurance.'

I wonder if life will imitate art. With Fred Thompson announcing his intent to run for the White House, the two Law and Order stars are going to cross paths sooner or later.