Presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain's plan to award a $300 million prize "for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars " raises many questions.

For one thing, what does he mean by "leapfrog?" Does the McCain car have to be 10?% better? 20% better? or 30% better? Will a marginal improvement suffice? Moreover, who is going to decide whether the goal is met? environmentalists? the automakers? the government? These people can not agree on what we should do to reduce air pollution; I can't imagine the fights that will occur over what constitutes a technological "leap."

McCain wants the car to deliver a power source at 30% of the "current costs." Does that mean costs as of 2008 or whenever this wonder car is ready to be sold to consumers? How does he define "costs?" Is it the total cost of ownership or a reduction in the sticker price or something else entirely? Why limit it to batteries? What about hydrogen fuel cells whose only pollution is water vapor?

In a speech he delivered today, McCain pointed out that "right now we have a hodgepodge of incentives for the purchase of fuel-efficient cars." Indeed, purchasing a hybrid only makes economic sense for the most die-hard of tree huggers. But is the answer to skyrocketing gasoline price to be found in a contest? I am not so sure.

While Congressional Democrats and candidates for the presidency have spoken out in favor of more extensive help for distressed homeowners, the leaders of the Republican Party, including John McCain, have been more reluctant to support a bailout of people who bought houses they couldn't afford.

This is putting congressmen representing those areas hardest hit by foreclosures in a bind, as their constituents plead for help. What are they supposed to do?

This may be a case of a silent majority of people who oppose a bailout but aren't making much noise. People who are desperate to hang onto their houses tend to be louder than regular joes who just don't want their tax money being used for bailouts of irresponsible people -- Who wants to be seen as a judgmental curmudgeon?

I worry that politicians will compound the housing industry's problems because of political pressure, making doing the rational thing -- which may very well be nothing -- basically impossible.

When John McCain, in a rare moment of coherence got it right, the backlash was immediate, with an enthusiastic mob comparing him to Herbert Hoover.

The best bet for Republicans here is probably to stick to their guns on the no-bailout platform, and hope that the silent majority will get behind them.

As a registered independent who voted for Obama on Super Tuesday, I was interested in reading BusinessWeek's take on Obama's likely impact on the U.S. economy. Its conclusion is that Obama is thoughtful and refreshing and is willing to work with business leaders, many of whom may reject him because he does not hew to the Republican line on taxes.

Last Friday, while Guest Hosting CNBC's Squawk Box, I spoke with Obama's economic advisor, University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee. He made two points that I found interesting. First, he said that Obama is very enthusiastic about the prospects for the U.S. economy and the stock market. Second, he suggested that Obama was months ahead of Hillary Clinton in proposing an economic stimulus package.

I asked Goolsbee what he thought was the cause of the economic slowdown. He thought the problem was the cash-strapped consumer and that tax rebates were the solution. I argued that the problem is that banks lack sufficient capital to offset the write-downs they're taking in the wake of the evaporation of demand for the Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) they hold. Goolsbee thought this was a secondary problem and did not embrace my proposal to recapitalize the banks.

He made hundreds of millions of dollars running Bain Capital, but Mitt Romney won't be running the U.S. He announced this afternoon that he is ending his run for the presidency. No doubt, countless Mormons and private equity lobbyists have gone into mourning.

Technically, Romney is "suspending" his campaign. This means that he will keep the delegates he won in his primary victories in Massachusetts, Michigan and Utah. This will give him some influence in the process of selecting the eventual Republican nominee.

Although Romney was a great success in the world of private equity, it didn't seem to help him in the national campaign. Mike Huckabee's line about the essential coldness of private equity investors -- "I believe most Americans want their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off" -- was pretty devastating. I don't know if that background was Romney's greatest weakness -- his Mormonism didn't help, nor did his salesman's tendency to say just about anything to please a given audience -- but you can bet there are some disappointed Democrats out there. I'm sure they were looking forward to exposing the layoffs that Romney initiated through his equity investments.

The presidential race is started to come into focus ahead of next week's Super Tuesday primaries.

Democrat John Edwards, whose anti-corporate message never resonated with most voters, is dropping out of the race after failing to win the primary in his native South Carolina, according to media reports. Rudy Giuliani, who fell from presumptive front-runner to also-ran, also is expected to bow out and endorse rival John McCain.

Odds are that Edwards will endorse rival Barack Obama, adding to the growing list of backers which include Democratic stalwart Sen. Edward Kennedy. The Illinois senator is far from having the race locked up.

George F. Will, a man so WASPy that he would be cast as a conservative TV pundit if he wasn't one in real life, is downright depressed about his beloved Republican party.

Writing in the Washington Post, Will said "Nov. 4 could be their most disagreeable day since Nov. 3, 1964. Actually, this November could be even worse, because in 1964 Barry Goldwater 's loss of 44 states served a purpose, the ideological reorientation and revitalization of the party. ... Today, all the usual indicators are dismal for Republicans."

Among the problems cited by the bow-tied commentator:

More people identify themselves as Democrats,

independents are sympathetic to the Democrats,

Democrats control the majority of seats in states with 303 electoral votes,

Most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track,

It sounds like a bad dream. You should up to listen to and perhaps ask questions of Mike Huckabee, a leading Republican candidate for President but first ... You have to sit through a speech about what a great opportunity Amway is. Pass the puke bucket.

But that's exactly what happened in West Des Moines, according to the Baltimore Sun: "For half an hour, two businessmen paced the stage where Huckabee would soon stump. They never said the name of the company during their talks, but afterward some members of the crowd shared with others the good news of a company called Quixtar Inc." Earlier this year, parent company Alticor said it was phasing out the Quixtar name and rebuilding its Amway brand which it had dropped in 2000.

Huckabee denies any formal association with the multi-level marketing hucksters, but said that they were a "great group of people."

It appears true that Alticor employees and executives haven't been giving to Huckabee. For whatever reason, company patriarch Richard DeVos has given money to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. But historically, Alticor has been a huge donor to the Republican Party.

Maybe Giuliani, Romney, and the GOP as a whole should do some research into the background of the company that has been one of the part's top donors for years. They could start with this excellent Dateline special.

Normally, a political party would look for certain characteristics when scouting out possible candidates for elected office: experience, intelligence, integrity, charisma, connections, etc.

But faced with a large fund-raising gap between itself and the Democrats, the Republican Party will settle for a candidate who has a ton of money and is willing to finance his or her own campaign.

According to the New York Times, "At this point, strategists for the National Republican Congressional Committee have enlisted wealthy candidates to run in at least a dozen competitive Congressional districts nationwide, particularly those where Democrats are finishing their first term and are thus considered most vulnerable. They say more are on the way."

The Times also notes that "The most recent figures show that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised $56.6 million and has $29.2 million at its disposal. By contrast, the National Republican Congressional Committee has raised $40.7 million with a cash balance of $2.5 million."

Here's the problem for the GOP: Instead of focusing on finding good candidates, the party is finding itself actively recruiting candidates who are simply wealthy. Is that going to lead to electable leaders? And if they do get elected, is that going to lead to strong leaders?

It's hard to imagine this strategy working. It may help to close the funding gap but it will lead to races featuring the Democrats' best candidates against whatever guy the GOP could find who was willing to spend big. That could lead to some interesting and lopsided debates.

Why is it that whenever Ann Coulter says something idiotic, racist or just loony that the media acts surprised? Coulter, like Bill O'Reilly, has a long, well-documented track record for spouting nonsense. Check out the Media Matters Web site for a list.

Now the media world is in a tizzy over Coulter's statements to CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch
that Christians "just want the Jews to be perfected." Deutsch responded by saying he found her comments "personally offensive."

Yeah, those comments were offensive but why did CNBC even give her the chance to make them on Deutsch's show and why did the General Electric (NYSE: GE) network invite her back to speak with another talking head, Larry Kudlow? The answer is, of course, ratings. News Corp (NYSE: NWS)'s Fox Business Network launches Monday, and CNBC wants people to talk about something besides the looming competition with Fox. Booking Coulter was a cheap publicity stunt.

The outrage being voiced by Deutsch and other CNBC talking heads is phony. I have no sympathy for TV hosts who invite on guests such as Coulter with a history of outrageous statements being "outraged" when she says something outrageous. What makes matters worse is that every time Coulter says or does something shocking, the media acts surprised, as if it's something new.

Coulter is like crack to TV talk shows. They just can't seem to get enough of the articulate, attractive and bonkers pundit, and neither can her legion of fans. Between her books and speaking fees, she no doubt earns a handsome living, since people never know what crazy thing she's going to say.

To be clear, people have every right to be mad about the things Coulter says. They should be equally upset at the mainstream media, including Deutsch, for continuing to give her a platform for her shtick without giving her much of a fight. This is particularly scary as the presidential election ramps up and political passions are at their height.

It may seems strange to some young people to think of it now, but the Republican party once had a reputation for small government and fiscal responsibility. But as the GOP has moved away from that vision, it has been losing what was one of its most reliable constituencies: business leaders. As our own Peter Cohan wrote recently, some of George W. Bush's former top donors have been giving big to Democrats this year.

A September Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed 37% of professionals and managers identifying themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, down from 44% three years ago.

It seems that the Republican party's apparent strategy of appealing to homophobia and other radical right-wing social ideologies has backfired: More enlightened people who consider themselves fiscal conservatives are turned off by it. And given that no one could call the current incarnation of the GOP fiscally conservative with a straight face, these people now have no reason to vote Republican.

According (subscription required) to The Wall Street Journal, "Some business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don't share. In manufacturing sectors such as the auto industry, some Republicans want direct government help with soaring health-care costs, which Republicans in Washington have been reluctant to provide. And some business people want more government action on global warming, arguing that a bolder plan is not only inevitable, but could spur new industries.

Given all this, a fiscally conservative but socially liberal candidate from the Libertarian Party could be able to gain some support in the upcoming election, and perhaps play a Ralph Nader role in the upcoming election. A lot of disenchanted Republicans would probably lend such a candidate their support.

The official election is more than a year away; but the Democratic party is trouncing the Republics in the CEO money primary. According to Bloomberg News, some of George W. Bush's top 2004 fund-raisers, are now helping Democrats running for president.

Among the 60 executives writing checks to Democrats such as Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are these formerly pro-Bush CEOs:

• Morgan Stanley's (NYSE: MS) CEO John Mack, a Bush Ranger, held a fund-raiser for Clinton in July. He wrote to his executives "I personally believe that [the best] person [running for president in 2008] is Hillary Clinton."
• Yahoo Inc.'s (NASDAQ: YHOO) former CEO Terry Semel gave $2,000 to Bush in 2004 and $50,000 to the Republican National Committee. Semel has given the maximum, $4,600, to Clinton and $2,300 to Obama.
• News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) CEO Rupert Murdoch, who donated $25,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2004, has given Clinton $2,300.

What if politics was like the stock market and you could buy politicians you like and sell the ones you didn't without envelopes of sequentially numbered small money orders in the same Chinese handwriting or cold cash hidden in the freezer?

For those rich enough -- they can buy a politician or two. The rest of us probably could rent a couple minutes of time with a big campaign contribution, and get lots of promises from a politician. Knowing the integrity of politicians and the value of political promises I am not sure how good of an investment politicians turn out to be.

Maybe you are one of the people smart enough to pick up a couple of bucks around the office at election time with bets on who is going to win. I have to admit I lost the last political bet I made. Good thing it was only a buck. What if there was a stock market where you could buy and sell shares in the candidates? The candidates would move up and down every day and those of us who are financial analysts could quantify the likelihood of people winning based on how bets are placed.

Now I am not into horse racing, poker or sports betting; but I do have to check up on the political bets every once in a while. With real money on the line there is a big incentive to be right. If you do not like the odds you can jump into the market and take the other side of the action. So what do the bookies think is going to happen in the coming election? Well it appears that Clinton is the favorite for the Democratic nominee with 67.8% and the Republican Rudy Giuliani leads the GOP with 35%.

This post is part of our Money Face-Offs feature. Let us know who you think comes out ahead in this head-to-head match-up, and check out our other Money Face-Off posts.

From the bodegas of Brooklyn to the penthouses of Central Park, most New Yorkers would probably tell you that they like the present mayor Mike Bloomberg a whole lot better than the previous occupant of Gracie Mansion, Rudy Giuliani.

Neither Bloomberg nor Giuliani suffers from low self-esteem. I worked for Bloomberg LP for seven years and had some brief encounters with Bloomberg over the years. One time, I called him "Mr. Bloomberg" when I shook his hand at the company's Christmas party. He insisted that I call him "Mike." I continued to call him Mr. Bloomberg. Warm and cuddly, he is not, and working for Mike's company wasn't always easy.

I can't believe that CNBC is seriously debating the question about whether Democrats are "rooting for a recession." This is what happens when pundits run amuck on a slow news day.

Most of this "discussion" consisted of cranky Republican pundit Lawrence Kudlow yelling at the other panelists who pointed out the stupidity of the premise.

Here's a sample of his remarks:

• "If the Democrats ever discover the benefits of the investor class, they might win a national race," he said in a typical remark.
• "George W. Bush is not on the ballot."
• "The problem is that they don't have any pro-growth policies."
• "The public will not elect a Walter Mondale type-canditate."

John Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, pointed out on CNBC that that Bush and his allies in Congress have take on "staggering" additional expenses that have to be paid with actual money. Good point.

Plus, the Democrats aren't as anti-business as conservatives suggest. Remember, times were pretty good during the Clinton administration for CNBC's parent General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) and lots of other businesses during the 1990s.

Businesses aren't oblivious to the President Bush's staggering unpopularity. They are making nice with the Democrats such as Hillary Clinton in a way that would have been unthinkable back in 2001. Investors better wake up to the fact that chances are good that a Democrat will win the White House in 2008.

If that happens, the world won't end.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has revealed details about his vast personal fortune. The co-founder of Bain Capital is worth as much as $250 million. According to the Associated Press, "The former venture capitalist's wealth -- reported in a range of $190 million to $250 million -- is spread throughout a dizzying array of investments, that include banks, large investment management firms, foreign export credit corporations and real estate."

Romney's filing the information after two 45-day extensions that he requested, basically because he needed more time to count his money. I'm sure middle America can sympathize.

Romney's wealth and experience saving the Olympics should help him cultivate an image as a decisive leader -- someone who take charge and get things done.

But even his financial dealings are leading to more allegations of flip-flopping for the former Massachusetts Governor. He came under fire for Bain's ties with Iran after he had called for divestment from the region and explained it by saying his position applied to future dealings -- not the past.