At this point and time, I'd say McCain is probably the most likely nominee. He's sought it before, has a very recognizable name, is a war-hero (why Vietnam remains a political issue in today's America is beyond me!), is mainstream, has experience in high office, I--think--is perceived as a 'moderate' Republican (which will be a plus in 08), is currently a Senator, and WANTS to be President, is getting older, and probably won't get another chance after 2008 . He was trumped by Bush Jr. in 2000, but I see no other such 'aristocrat' waiting in the wings to displace him for 2008. He might be the best available candidate for the Rs in what may be another difficult election for them in 08.
I cannot imagine any thinking person EVER voting for a Republican
So, NO thinking person votes R? Do you seriously believe that? Do you not realize that the MILLIONS of people voting R are saying the same thing about YOU? I can understand your fustration with the current admin and many in Congress/Senate, but do you honestly lob ALL pols who are Rs into the same category as Bush? I will say that, FAR too many have voted the party line, but MANY voted against Patriot Act 2 (just as many Ds voted for it). In the Senate, Rs and Ds voted--almost unanimously--for Patriot Act. What does that tell you? I--rarely--will vote R, just as I will--rarely--vote D, and I consider myself a thinking person (when it comes to politics, at least) who can see beyond labels like "conservative", "liberal", etc.
I think Americans do themselves a great disservice when they identify w/a particular party label. It really does turn politics into an US v. THEM sport-like endeavor, when in reality, WE ALL lose in this type of system. Instead of voting in the greatest interest of the COUNTRY, as a whole, people vote what they perceive is in THEIR personal, best interest.
I live in CA, where Ds hold substantial advantages in the State Legislature and have dominated politics in the state for decades. CA ranks near the bottom in education, is a VERY expensive (not sure how this benefits 'regular Joe's', like me) place to live, has one of the highest tax burdens (again, don't know how this helps working people), hospitals are in horrible shape, infrastructure is crumbling, public debt (which will eat up more and more of the budget as time goes by) is out of control, has more laws per capita (does more rules = more freedom/liberalism?) than any other state, the state capitol is crawling w/lobbyists, state employees unions have formed a sick symbiosis w/Ds to maintain the status quo (RIDICULOUS pay/benefits for state employees/political power for Ds), it is a very restrictive/difficult place for private property owners/businessmen (esp. small-time entrepreneurs), and crime is very high. Yes, it is ranked among top-10 highest GDPs in the world, but the USA is 1st, and I doubt any on this site (I know I DIDN'T) lauded GWB and the GOP these last 6 years.
I'm not picking on Ds, JOMT, and don't think the Rs--as a whole--are any better. I'm illustrating that electing Ds isn't the be-all, end-all solution to our problems. I've had many loyal, D-voting friends/family be forced out of CA due to it becoming a difficult place to afford to live; I'm sure they made no connection between the two. I believe D policy (which, obviously, seems to be supported by a large majority of Californians) has contributed to this. This is why I voted for a R in this last election (Tom McClintock for Lt. Gov): he was on of the few mainstream pols to take a REAL stand against policies that hurt this state, but--predictably--he lost for being too much of a 'right-winger'. Typical of the electorate in this state: they just keep on voting D, regardless of how things keep deteriorating for working-class folks in this state.