Surprisingly, I think he's almost right. He's only missing one name that I have on my list.

Of course, her name would never occur to an inside-the-beltway male, so I won't bother reminding him.

Game on.

It seems strange to simply write off Romney, the consistent frontrunner in nearly all the polls, in place of someone who consistently fails to reach single digits in support (Pawlenty) and someone who seems increasingly unlikely to enter the race at all (Daniels). I agree that Romney is extremely vulnerable, but I'm just not sure that a GOP candidate exists who can exploit that vulnerability and become the anti-Romney candidate. It seems especially unlikely that Pawlenty or Daniels would fill this role, since both are mild, even boring conservatives. When a National Review author needs to basically beg people to support Pawlenty, who has been running for president more or less openly since Obama was inaugurated, that person seems unlikely to spark enthusiasm.

George Will knows better this far out. He's forwarding some other agenda with this too-early prognostication, probably the beltline elitist thing ("Look, America. The presidency is too big a deal to leave to you peasants. We'll narrow the GOP field down to the couple candidates we can approve and let you pick from there, OK?").

II''mm sseeeeiinngg ddoouubbllee

Anyone who fell for the global warming swindle absolutely should not be president. Such gullibility is a dangerous character trait in a president.

So far as I can see, that excludes everybody except Daniels.

>"I think I saw Pawlenty wear blue jeans once."

No! Well, there goes another candidate.

I'd bet Will a 5star dinner that "Obama, Pawlenty and/or Daniels" will NOT be POTUS in Jan. 2013. In fact I guarantee it! Look for Dem challenge to Obama, plus factor in Romney is really the mainstream fav still. If not Romney, then look for others like Palin, Huntsman, Christie, etc with a little more bite!

I'm not sure I would narrow the field as much as George Will just did. Romney is going to have to a better job explaining his healthcare law if he wants to get the nomination. Personally, I don't think the resemblance between Obamacare and Romneycare hurts Romney in a general election as much as some others think, one thing I don't understand why he doesn't just say is that Romneycare was in place last time he ran for president and he was good enough to get the endorsement of several conservative publications including WIlliam F. Buckley's National Review. Huntsman could win by having Bachmann winning well in Iowa and South Carolina, winning with a lot of Independents in New Hampshire, in the same way John McCain did in 2008 and becoming the anti-Bachmann candidate.

Right now it looks like Daniels and Pawlenty have slightly more viable paths to the nomination, but I would say it would be one of 5 people being sworn in in 2013 not one of 3. And that ould change if somebody not already mentioned decides to get in, and by that I don't mean Sarah Palin, who could get the nomination, but would lose in November, and think she may realize that more than her supporters do.

Unfortunately, for the all-but-defunct GOP establishment George Will, Laura Bush, NRO (& assorted Rhinos) will not be picking the Republican Party presidential nominee in 2012. For the next year the electorate will be too busy scrutinizing the candidate's political records, private sector accomplishments, watching the primary debates--& making up their own minds, to tow the Beltway line.

Meanwhile, Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc) are having a "Why I Can't Vote For Mitch Daniels" field day trashing Bush's former Budget Director on his disastrous record during the Republican administration that beget Obama i.e., Daniel's expansion of the Federal government, running up the national deficit, unprecedented earmarks--ditto his recent support as Indiana's governor for VAT/gas taxes i.e., "under the right circumstances", tariffs, illegal immigration, & his calling for a "truce" on the culture wars. All positions, that if implemented on a national level, would have a far more detrimental long term effect on America, it's prostery & freedoms, than state's rights Romneycare confined to single far left entity Massachusetts.