[churchillbuff]

I think overall, Racicot is right where he needs to be

I don't follow. He's unwilling to help the GOP gain a Senate seat - How does that qualify him to be chairman of the party? He certainly has the right not to answer the party's need and run in MT, but if he's putting other, personal priorities first -- which he's perfectly free to do -- why in heaven's name should he be made head of the party?

[Cate]

The Senate race in Montana is very important, but as leader of our party, he can do more behind the scenes than a junior senate seat. He is very articulate and well versed in the law. He is definitely an asset to us.

[Maximum Leader]

Its about money.

The Chairman of the RNC makes more than a senator and, if I remember the RNC rules correctly, he can employed by a law frim as a lobbyist at the same time he serves as chairman.

My own feeling is that when the party leans on you to run for an office, you either run or you find a job outside politics. Bush didn't do the party any favors by making Racicot chairman of the RNC.

[Mr. Morals]

Putting Racicot as a write-in would be pointless.

The usual fact is that write-ins rarely win, in fact the only ones since Strom Thurmond's Senate win in 1954 have been term-limited incumbents that are excepted if they win a write-in vote.

Also, with write-ins, the rule sometimes is that the name can't have any spelling errors. If that is the case in Montana, anyone can sue to have misspelled ballots counted as under votes. Most people will spell his name R-O-S-C-O-E or put M-A-R-K instead of the proper spelling M-A-R-C on their ballots.

In Washington, DC this year, Mayor Anthony Williams was on course to an easy re-election when he was thrown off the ballot. He had to raise --and spend-- a small fortune to educate voters how to write in his name. Same thing with Ol' Strom back in '54.

The GOP would be best to write off Montana and extoll the fact that they didn't pull off shenanigans. It may pay off well nationwide for such a low risk in the first place.