While it may not be popular among third tier campaign operatives, it is fair to make the prediction that the Republican primary race will most likely soon result in a two man tussle for the party nod. Here’s why…

Conservative voters are looking closely, with a jaundice eye, at the virtual buffet of Republican candidates seeking the RNC nomination for ’08. Most of them are either disenchanted or flatly angry with the Bush administration and the Republican congress for their less than conservative record of national leadership.

It’s conservative voters who tossed Republicans from control of both houses of congress in 2006 and it is conservatives who will either advance a truly conservative nominee, or toss Republicans from the White House in ‘08.

Those who won’t be nominated and why (in my humble opinion)

Mitt Romney may win Iowa and New Hampshire due to spending all his capital and then some in that effort. But his campaign will come to a screeching halt soon after. His campaign is for all practical purposes, bankrupt. He has twice as much in campaign debts as he has cash on hand and if he had not been dipping into his personal pocket to remain in the race, he’d already be out of the race. He can only win in liberal New England states and Utah.

John McCain has been on the verge of bankruptcy since the day he launched his campaign. His time has simply passed, largely because he is hugely unpopular among those who still desire sane immigration and border security. Refusing to interrogate captured terrorists aggressively to save American lives hasn’t helped him any either.

Mike Huckabee is very popular in small pockets of bible-belt voters who would like to elect a Baptist Minister to protect innocent life and traditional marriage via the federal government, but his support is limited to just that.

Before I go any further, I want to point out that all of these men bring certain talents to the field, as do some of the third tier candidates and if Republicans are smart, they will find a place in a new Republican administration to tap the talents of all of these men. It’s a good time to set egos aside and do what’s best for the nation.

Bottom tier candidates like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, often referred to as "the one-percenter’s," also have important strengths that could serve both the party and the nation well. For reasons unknown, these men have not captured the imagination of conservative voters and the longer they remain in the race, the more difficult they make it for conservatives to begin to unite behind a possible winner. Who they ultimately endorse may be the clearest indication of just how conservative they really are?

The Ron Paul campaign has three very serious problems that will keep him from ever becoming a serious contender in the Republican Party.

· He’s a libertarian, not a conservative and 95% of conservatives know it.

· His base support is limited to the anti-national security crowd, mostly across the aisle.

· His ties to White Supremacist and anti-Semitic groups are beginning to hit the headlines.

The two left standing after Super Tuesday

As a result, I predict that by the end of Super Tuesday, the Republican race will be narrowed to the two national front-runners, Blue State favorite Rudy Giuliani and Red State Favorite Fred Thompson.

The Time for the Party to unite to defeat Democratic Socialists will arrive

So the question becomes, which candidate stands the best chance of uniting all Republican voters in the general election?

All Republicans agree that one of two things must happen for any Republican to win in ’08.

Either that candidate must have literally all conservatives in the booth on Election Day, national security conservatives, fiscal (small government) conservatives and social conservatives, (or) the candidate must have votes from both moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to defeat a far left Democrat like Hillary, who is also currently masquerading as some anti-Bush, Bush-Lite.

Red State Fred represents those seeking to unite all Republicans behind a conservative candidate based on Plan A and Blue State Rudy represents Plan B, those who think no real conservative can defeat a leftist Democrat like Hillary in ’08 and hope to defeat her with a candidate who shares her liberal social views.

One plan relies on the notion of returning the conservative party to it’s conservative values and the other assumes that conservative values, at least concerning social issues, will no longer sell in America.

There is evidence to support either plan

Those seeking to justify nominating another moderate Republican (compassionate conservative) like Bush, can find evidence within the electorate to make that case for Rudy. Those seeking to return the conservative party to more conservative ideals can certainly find evidence within the party to make that case for Fred, since Bush is only slightly more popular among conservatives than he is among liberals at present.

But if the voters want to lead their party to a position of national leadership, in which direction do they want to lead the nation after the election?

Obviously, I’m a Red State conservative

In other words, I’m conservative on all issues concerning national leadership and the direction of our nation. The war on terror is very important for the future of our nation, yet it is no more important to me than ending the insane assault on the founding unalienable Right to Life, Liberty and Freedom to define and pursue Happiness.

Conservatives don’t try to split hairs. They don’t try to negotiate right and wrong, good and evil or how conservative is too conservative.

As the old saying goes, "Anyone not liberal in their youth was born without a heart, but anyone not conservative as an adult, was born without a brain." I have no idea who said this, but I’m glad they said it because truer words have never been spoken.

Fiscal conservatives worry about spending before they run out of money. National security conservatives worry about impending disasters before they happen. Social conservatives understand that excessive social spending is the natural result of excessively liberal social ideals and they seek to curb social spending via morally conscious social self-restraint.

All three are vital to any sound free society and that’s why all three are equally important foundations of any conservative movement, including the once conservative Republican Party.

If the party no longer represents all of these values and principles, then it is no longer a conservative party and it is no longer a viable alternative to today’s secular socialist Democrat Party.

The Republican Party will unite behind conservative values, or it won’t unite at all in 2008

As a confessed Red State conservative, I see only one candidate capable of uniting Fiscal, National Security and Social conservative voters in 2008 and that one candidate is Fred Thompson, the only true "people’s candidate" in the race, drafted by the people, mostly from Red States.

Though Rudy Giuliani is slowly shifting slightly right in an effort to attract some social conservatives, it won’t work. Social conservatives overlooked Bush’s "compassionate conservative" nature to vote against Gore in 2000 and against Kerry in 2004. But they have since paid the heavy price of very liberal social spending, apologetic war management costing unnecessary American lives, and very liberal border insecurity and they are fed up.

The bottom line is this…

America isn’t New York City and Red State conservatives are not New York Republicans. They won’t line up behind a Blue State moderate in 2008 and anyone who believes that they will is in for a huge surprise next November.

Can you say, President Hillary Clinton?