In years past, a potential Presidential candidate had plenty of time to introduce him or herself to the public between election seasons. But with many states moving their primaries up to bolster their importance in the 2008 Presidential race, nominees will be determined nearly a year before the election takes place. The "common wisdom" says that a candidate who's not already well-known by the primaries can't win a general election. That may have been true when the primaries were held only a few months ahead of the general election, but ignoring good, solid candidates in favor of those whose main qualification is media-driven popularity would be a mistake.

Do we really want to throw serious Conservative candidates under the bus in favor of "star power?" Since the Republicans dumped Conservative Tom McClintock because moderate Arnold Schwarzenegger was a "sure win" in the 2003 recall election, California's Governator has moved so far Left that Grey Davis might as well have been left in charge. Sure, the man's got an "R" after his name, but letters don't make policies -- people do. Now weak-willed Republicans propose to make the same mistake on a larger scale.

The election of our President should not be reduced to the level of a popularity contest. We're not electing homecoming king of the local high school, but the leader of the free world. A serious party should put forth a serious candidate -- one who represents the best that party has to offer. Yet I fear that the Republican party is being driven towards candidates whose only recommendation is name recognition, regardless of their qualifications or policies.

Very few of the candidates whose names have been tossed about are real Conservatives. The recent straw poll taken at the big GOP conference in South Carolina mostly returned a list of people who should be considered too weak on important issues to run for President. Ron Paul, for instance, voted for a non-binding resolution that would proclaim to our troops and our enemies that Congress does not support (but will not stop) General Petraeus' plan to quell the sectarian violence in Baghdad. Sam Brownback voted to give amnesty-by-another-name to illegal aliens, and allow them to collect Social Security benefits while working illegally. Mitt Romney was staunchly in favor of allowing abortion as recently as 2002, but changed his position when he began to consider a Presidential run. Wrong on Iraq, wrong on illegal immigration, wrong on abortion... and the "popular candidates" who took the top two slots are no more worthy of sitting in the Oval Office.

Arizona Senator John McCain is not the man for the job. Not only is he is soft on the treatment of captured terrorists (possibly projecting his own experiences as a POW in Vietnam), but he actually authored a bill that would grant captured enemy fighters the same Fifth Amendment rights guaranteed to American citizens and protected by the same American soldiers they're trying to kill. McCain headed the infamous "Gang of 14" that usurped the power of the majority in the Senate, allowing Democrats to prevent President Bush from appointing originalist judges. The McCain-Kennedy bill that would effectively grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens (and was only temporarily thwarted by House Republicans, now in the minority)  should all by itself prevent him from considering a Presidential run. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law violated the First Amendment by removing our right to open political speech just before an election -- when such speech is most needed -- and unleashed the madness of 527 groups. McCain even tried to slip a light version of the industry-destroying Kyoto Protocols into a bill he co-authored with Joe Lieberman. Like Mitt Romney, McCain has both supported and opposed abortion in the past. Flip-flopping is nothing new to him, however, as he did the same on the Bush tax cuts.

Nor is former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani any better. Although he seems tough on terrorism and crime -- both of which should be a matter of course for any Republican, not cause for surprise -- he is as Liberal as it gets on almost every other issue. Giuliani is pro-abortion -- a deal-breaker for most Conservatives -- and anti-gun, citing gun control instead of aggressive prosecution of criminals as the reason for the drop in crime during his tenure. His stance on gay "marriage" is ambiguous at best, and he once sued the federal government when he was blocked from prosecuting city employees who helped the INS catch illegal immigrants. Giuliani claims to favor originalist judges like Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas, but the record shows that he appointed Liberal Democrats to judicial positions by a factor of eight to one.

The only potential Republican candidate who can be called a real Conservative is California Representative Duncan Hunter. His voting record shows him to be on the right side of all the issues: he's pro-life, pro-gun, strong on border control and national defense, tough on America's enemies and someone who stands solidly behind our military. NARAL and the ACLU hate him, while FAIR and the NRA like him. He favors a balanced budget, and is the only potential candidate who seems to have noticed China's military buildup at our expense. Hunter came in third in the South Carolina straw poll, in a statistical tie with McCain and Giuliani, indicating that he does have the potential to win the nomination. He recently won a similar straw poll in Arizona -- McCain's home state. Hunter's recent duty as chairman of the Armed Services Committee would prove invaluable to a wartime President. His own experience as an Army Ranger in Vietnam (during which he was awarded a Bronze Star), and the fact that his son did two tours in Iraq, would also serve him well. Duncan Hunter looks like the answer to the Leftward slide that cost the Republicans their majority in both Houses of Congress in 2006.

If the Republicans put forth a moderate media darling like McCain or Giuliani instead of a sincerely Conservative candidate like Duncan Hunter, they will have proven that they no longer espouse Conservative values and ideals. Should the party that once propelled Ronald Reagan to two electoral landslides fear to promote a man who espouses Reagan's policies because he lacks a benediction from the fourth estate? That's the question upon which hangs the future of the Republican party.