The Democrats have it easy: their top three candidates are all pretty much the same. No matter who they nominate the Democratic party will still be going in the same direction. There are some minor differences, but Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all to the left. Obama is trying to be the new RFK, the hopeful idealist. Edwards is trying to be the new William Jennings Bryant, the angry populist, while Clinton is the anointed leader of the Washington establishment. But no matter who wins the Democratic nomination the party is going to remain the same.

The same can't be said for the GOP. It's not just a battle for the nomination, but a battle for the identity of the party. We have religious conservatives threatening to form a third party or boycott the election if Mayor Giuliani wins the nomination, and if Governor Huckabee were to win it the fiscal, and foreign policy conservatives would find little they liked in his candidacy.

The conservative movement has survived because of the idea of fusionism. That social and fiscal conservatives can coexist under the big tent even if they don't agree with each other all the time. Huckabee is trying to run out the latter group as heretics. With his attempt to turn the GOP into an explicitly religious party Huckabee acts more as if he is running to become head of the Southern Baptist Convention again, instead of President of the United States.

Huckabee doesn't seem to have any real ideas for the country, it seems as if he jumped into the race simply because he couldn't stand the thought of a lapsed Catholic, or a Mormon, getting the nomination. Huckabee's record as governor is not an impressive one, certainly not from a conservative point of view. He raised taxes many times, was soft on illegal immigrants, and spending. He blasts the fiscally conservative Club for Growth as the "Club for Greed" not even attempting to hide his contempt for people who disagree with him.

Giuliani, no friend of social conservatives, at least seems to hide his disdain for them a little better. While he hasn't backed down on his staunch pro choice views, he has promised to appoint judges in the mold of Justice Scalia, or Justice Alito. He is in favor of civil unions for gay couples, and while that is not the same thing as supporting gay marriage, it's pretty close. On his third wife now, it's unlikely that being divorced will hurt him, but how he went through that divorce might. Mayor Giuliani might have governed New York City as a fiscal conservative, cutting taxes, slashing welfar rolls, and bring crime to it's lowest levels in decades, as well as being a staunch proponent of the war against the terrorists. But from the viewpoint of a social conservative there isn't a lot to celebrate.

Governor Romney is attempting to keep the Reagan coalition together by being both a fiscal/foreign policy conservative, as well as being a social conservative. Given the fact that he has changed his positions since being governor, he was pro choice but now claims to be pro life, and while one can legitimately convert on such issues it's the timing of his conversions that has people skeptical. While the Governor might be able to win the nomination, it's unlikely that he would be able to win the general election. His appeal across the board wouldn't be very wide, and then there is his religion (yes Virginia, there are a lot of anti-Mormons in America).

Senator McCain is a brave patriot who served his country with courage and honor, he has fairly conservative record in the Senate, solidly pro life and a staunch terror warrior. (McCain was calling for a surge long before there actually was one) He favors amnesty, I mean comprehensive immigration reform, but now says that he learned the error of his ways and would have enforcement first. He voted against President Bush's tax cuts but now supports them. Then there is the whole maverick image. To many republicans it seems that the Senator is too willing to fight his own party for no other reason to prove that he can.

Senator Thompson is putting the most detailed plans out there, and would be a formidable nominee, but his campaign never got off the ground. He is solidly conservative, on both economic and social issues, is a hawk and doesn't have the tag of being a flip flopper. It should seem that he would be the obvious choice, but he has been stagnant in the polls and doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

No candidate is going to please everyone. To some purists any deviation from what they want is reason enough to reject a candidate. The activists want the pure candidate, what they imagine Ronald Reagan was, but no such candidate exists. So who will the GOP choose? The ex preacher who likes tax hikes and doesn't know a thing about foreign policy? The ex Mayor who will scare off many social conservatives? A split in the GOP is a possibility, conservatives must choose their nominee wisely and then unify as a party, or we could be saying "President Hillary Clinton" for the next eight years.