Texas Rep. Ron Paul, anti-war voice of the Republicans, continues to blast his party for its militaristic stances.

The New York Times reported a testy exchange on Iraq between Paul and ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Wednesday's GOP debate.

"The American people didn't go in," Paul said. "A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy."

"Congressman, we are one nation," Huckabee replied. "We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under God. That means, if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America."

This isn't the first time Paul has drawn ire from his conservative colleagues. Pat Buchanan listed as "the decisive moment of the (Republicans' May) South Carolina debate" a confrontation between Paul and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

"It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business." ~ Al Pacino, "The Godfather"

Mitt Romney has shown similar ruthlessness in disposing of his connection with scandal-embroiled Sen. Larry Craig.

"Once again," Pat Buchanan quoted Romney as saying, "we've found people in Washington have not lived up to the level of respect and dignity that we would expect for somebody that gets elected to a position of high influence. Very disappointing. (Craig is) no longer associated with my campaign."

Romney broke a pretty significant bond. As PJB detailed: "Up to this week, Craig was one of only two senators to have come out for Mitt Romney. He headed up the Romney campaign in Idaho. He vouched for Mitt in Congress and the country."

The former Bay State governor thus seems like an anti-George Bush in terms of standing by his lieutenants. Dubya stuck up for ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "Throughout Gonzales' sometimes rocky tenure, Bush had defended him, accusing his detractors of playing politics," ABC News reported.

Which is the better policy, staying loyal to a supporter or dismissing them when they misstep? Romney will find out as the primaries progress.

There's been a great deal of anticipation for Fred Thompson to get into the presidential race for 2008. But while waiting for his decision is causing excitement among conservatives, is it also creating problems?

In assessing the decisions of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain to skip the Iowa straw poll on Aug. 11, Pat Buchanan extends his analysis to Thompson, who will also not be participating in the poll.

"Writing off Iowa makes sense for Thompson," Buchanan writes. "For it is hard to see how he could make up for the lost six months he has already ceded to the other candidates in organizing the state. Most Iowa political activists have already committed to other candidates."

In April, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that among the predictions from former (Bill) Clinton strategist James Carville was that "The current Republican field is so notably lackluster – 'Rudy Giuliani has been married more times than Mitt Romney's been hunting' -- that the party will turn to someone not even in the field yet. And 'the only person I can figure is Jeb Bush.'"

Or Thompson. But can anticipation trump organization? We'll see...

Prominent political careers ended in Europe recently, but Americans should not forget a leader who remained: Vladimir Putin of Russia.

Last week, Ann Coulter praised the French for electing Nicolas Sarkozy, and sounded optimistic about England. Tony Blair, she wrote, is " about to leave office -- only to be replaced by a leader from the even more pro-American Conservative Party."

But the leaders who left aren't as significant as one who lingers. Putin could present sizable problems for this country because of his allies ... and ours.

Apologies for the Valley Girl-speak, but the term "Radical" might return to the political landscape if a Democrat gets elected in 2008.

I'm referring to the prospect of a Congress at odds with a president from its own party. This happened after the Civil War, when the struggle between Radical Republicans and Pres. Andrew Johnson led to the latter's impeachment. (The Radicals lost by one vote.)

I'm not saying that a "Radical" Democratic Congress irate over Iraq would impeach a President Obama, President (Hillary) Clinton, or President Edwards for not getting us out of there fast enough. The current Congress, after all, doesn't even seem to want to impeach anyone from the opposing party; look at how little support Dennis Kucinich is getting.

But it does seem like what Pat Buchanan predicted could come true with a Democratic victory in 2008: Iraq will split the party. Once dragged into supporting President Bush on Iraq, Congress is now led in the opposite direction by Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and the conscience of the Capitol, Rep. Jack Murtha.

A possibility exists that could guarantee gridlock when a Democrat steps into the Oval Office: an anti-war Congress arguing with a president who either voted for the war as a senator (Clinton, Edwards) or who said in John Kerry style "that while he would have voted against the war in 2002 based on what he knew at the time, he could not be sure that classified intelligence reporters made available to senators wouldn't have changed his mind" (which the Boston Globe describes Obama as frequently saying).

Should Clinton, Edwards, or Obama win in 2008, they will need all the political talent of an Abraham Lincoln to escape this scenario.