Learning To Multitask

So, with the election now some two weeks in the rear-view mirror, we've all had time to listen to the various pundits, politicians, and activists running around on TV screaming about the coming era of doom for the GOP. Apparently, the apocalypse has already happened - only it came in the form of a political party losing an election, and there was no mark of the beast. Indeed, if you've gotten so tired of hearing, 'The sky is falling! The sky is falling!' that you momentarily thought that you were either experiencing Deja Vu or a glitch in the Matrix and being flashed back a few years to when Al Gore first came out with An Inconvenient Truth, well, you can be forgiven.

Yes, we lost the election - badly.

No, it's not the end of the world as we know it (cue R.E.M...)

Strangely, some people on the right have been so badly shaken by a mere five point swing in the electorate that they have gone so far as to wonder whether the United States is even a centre-right country anymore! Don't worry, it is. But even if it wasn't, that wouldn't be the end of times; afterall, the GOP is the Party of free markets, so if the market for political ideology has changed, the GOP will adapt to meet the demand. Markets always have a funny way of working things like that out.

And the electoral crisis was not as bad as some people seem to think it was. The youth vote was not any higher than it has historically been (it only flipped Indiana and North Carolina for Obama), and even its complete absence would not have affected the ultimate outcome of the election. The turnout was not any higher than it was in 2004, when the GOP was the big winner; and the margin of defeat, given the political climate, was not at all as devastating as the media would have you believe.

More absurd - nay, most absurd - is this idea that the GOP lost the election because it has become something along the lines of 'too Christian;' with the suggestion being that the GOP needs to get rid of its Evangelical, social conservatives before it can move on to bigger and better things. Well, pardon me, but this sounds like a suggestion that we're supposed to extend our life span by cutting off our own head. The only reason the GOP had any semblance of power to lose in this election in the first place is because of the Evangelical movement. It's no coincidence, folks, that both Reagan and the Evangelical movement rose to prominence in the 1980s - the two were intimately connected. Social conservatives make up the most reliable, and possibly largest, voting block the GOP has, and putting them out to pasture would be nothing more than a sure-fire route to an even smaller minority.

Nevertheless, the GOP's problems can be traced, in some ways, to the Evangelical movement - although not necessarily through any fault of theirs. You see, for the last several years, in part thanks to President Bush - although I think he's become more a scapegoat than anything else - the GOP has become maniacally single-minded. Either we were talking about and fighting for the War in Iraq, and only Iraq, or we were talking about gay marriage and only gay marriage. In other words, the GOP has spent recent years focusing mainly on a few issues, at the great expense of others.

Thanks to President Bush's self-designation as a 'compassionate' conservative, the primary focus of the last 8 years has been social issues, and the results have been superb. Two excellent Judges, the partial-birth abortion ban, as well as several other, smaller steps towards the overturn of Roe v. Wade. And ditto on gay marriage; heck, even in this election, a gay marriage ban passed in California. The GOP has devoted great efforts to these issues and, largely, won the battles. This fact is particularly true for Iraq as, thanks to Republicans in the Senate and the President, the retreat was never sounded with the result being an emerging victory.

There is no great shame, as some in the GOP seem to think, in having succeeded, ironically enough, to the very point that those issues became irrelevant to voters in the '08 elections.

Of course, in working so hard on these issues, the GOP managed to neglect, uh, well, most everything else; particularly fiscal conservatism. And while I'm on the subject, let me echo the sentiments of P.J O'Rourke in advising the collective Party that fiscal responsibility is not just cutting taxes - any old fool can do that. It's a combination of cutting taxes, reducing spending, eliminating waste, decreasing corruption and balancing budgets.

And on those counts, just 1/5 ain't o.k.

The same could be said of healthcare, Social security, and a whole host of other issues which the Republican Party has basically forgotten about in recent years.

So what's it all mean? Well, the Republican Party has a multitasking problem. That's right, for all our supposed business acumen, we Republicans seem to have forgotten how to do something as basic as managing all the items on our own daily planners. You can't govern on just one or two important issues; indeed, single-issue parties have a history of becoming, well, history. Consequently, this is what Republicans must change between now and November 2010 (to say nothing of November 2012). They must learn to deal with all of the issues that voters are concerned about. And yes, you annoying-ass, beltway-bred, cocktail Republicans that includes continuing to stand up for socially conservative values on behalf of us crazy-ass-backwards Southerners (who, by the way, excluding the apostates in North Carolina and Virginia, are the only people you can really count on right now...).

So there you have it, my quick GOP-recovery plan. It doesn't involve performing CPR, or some kind of Buddhist retreat, just a little bit of common sense. Learn to multitask, and show the American people that you can simultaneously govern like adults and care about all of their various issues.

And one last thing - stop blaming Sarah Palin. She was the best damn thing that happened to this ticket. How some of these idiots keep going around talking about how the GOP has to totally change its image while simultaneously cursing our use of a female, from Alaska (who actually balanced her budget...), with a track record of battling corruption and getting things done as the VP candidate is beyond me. I mean, seriously, do these people not realize what the exact problems with the GOP, that they're complaining about, are? All of the things that we need changed in Washington are the exact things she's managed to do as Governor in Alaska. Open your eyes people!

Hell, come to think of it, maybe, before trying to bring back the Grand Old Party, we ought to boot out the idiots first.

Post-Mortem

Well, let's be honest, we all kind of knew that this could turn out to be a really....bad day - and so it has. First off, congrats Barack, you won and have now probably inspired a whole new generation of African-Americans (among others) to actually give a damn about politics and their country. That's no small feat.

Second off, the good news (what little of it there is): Namely, that Democratic gains in both the House and the Senate were not as severe as forecasted. The minimum number of House seats the GOP was supposed to lose was 24; at this point it looks like we'll lose either 19 or 20. Not good, for sure, but not catastrophic either.

In the Senate, the Democrats are going to fail to get their 60 seat supermajority. We already have 40 seats, with four results still pending. In Georgia, assuming he stays above 50% when the last 1% of precincts report in, Saxby Chambliss will retain his seat. Norm Coleman has already eked out a narrow victory in Minnesota, but law requires it go to a recount before being made official due to the razor-thin margin. In Oregon, Gordon Smith, surprisingly, has a chance to hold onto his seat, for (as I write this) 76% of the vote is in and he is virtually tied with his Democratic opponent at 47%. And finally, in what has to be the most interesting result of the evening, it appears GOP Senator Ted Stevens, he of the 7 felony convictions, will win his re-election bid. In all likelihood the Senate will kick him out when it reconvenes, and then Gov. Palin will pick a replacement to serve for 2 months until a special election is held. With the right pick (Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell!!), this seat should stay in the GOP column.

Nevertheless folks, start battening down the hatches - for the countdown to Jimmy Carter Deux is on!

On a more personal note, let me now thank Senator McCain and Governor Palin for their campaign; as it was an honor and a pleasure to volunteer on their behalf, even if it was, ultimately, a losing effort. Theirs was probably the most uphill campaign any Presidential candidate has ever had to run - and that includes when Gerald Ford ran with Nixon's resignation hanging around his neck. As I said back before the South Carolina GOP primary, there was no Republican candidate who could have done better, win or lose, in this election than John McCain. If McCain couldn't win this election, no Republican could have. The fact that he ever even had a chance is a testament to the man and his determination. It hasn't always been the best-run or most effective of campaigns; but, in my mind, it will forever be associated with the masterstroke of Sarah Palin.

Don't forget her, folks. As Ahnuld would say, she'll be back; and I really believe that she will one day be my President. And Governor, whenever you do decide to run again, you've got my (S.C Primary) vote - and, rest assured, I'll be ready and willing to work my ass off for you.

But now let's get back to good ol' Johnny Mac. As you may know, I haven't always agreed with the man, on both style and substance, but I have come to respect him immensely over the last few months. As I watched him giving his concession speech last night, and listened to him talk for one last time about his country, I realized something; and that's simply that they just don't make many Men like that anymore - and it's a damn shame.

His has been a life of hard knocks, one of ups and downs, and yet one with the kind of rugged character that we have come to expect from those in his generation. Above all, however, his has been a life about self-sacrifice for greater and more important causes.

Country First. I hope one day I understand that as well as he does.

His Name Is Ahhnuld....

...and he is here to pump you up:



If you want any more reason to shut off the TV and ignore the media, read this post by a former Hillary (now, McCain) supporter on how the Obama campaign is able to use the media to its advantage. Bottom line, go out and vote.

P.S. Just across the wires (as they say), the daily Zogby Poll: McCain 48 - Obama 47

On Healthcare in '08

So far in this election, John McCain has not been particularly good at deflecting the Obama campaign's attacks and, in some cases, outright lies about his proposed policies, to the detriment of McCain's campaign. Perhaps the single best example of this phenomenon is the issue of healthcare; on which Obama, who has what amounts to Socialized Medicine as his plan, has somehow managed to gain the upper ground. So, in the interest of clearing the air, lets take a new look at these 2 Candidates Healthcare proposals.

First up is Senator McCain, whose healthcare plan, despite what Senator Obama may say, is actually an excellent plan that will help to reduce the cost of healthcare both to you and the government that your tax dollars finance. However, given that I am somewhat lazy, and also rather busy these days, I will, in the interest of time, direct you to an excellent article which effectively analyzes McCain's plan: here's the link. Also, if you want to do some more reading, you should certainly check out the McCain/Palin (emphasis on the Palin) website, where they dig in and disprove all of the various smears that the Obama camp has directed towards their plan (link here).

However, lazy and time-pressed though I may be, I do want to go through a few crucial aspects of the Obama healthcare plan myself; if only because, for some strange reason, I sadly neglected to mock the Obamarama plan for healthcare catastrophe during the Democratic primaries, paying attention only to the Hillary and Edwards versions. So let's get to it.

In the very first bullet point of his helathcare plan (straight from the campagin website), Obama states his intention to mandate that insurance companies give "all Americans, regardless of their health status or history [] comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums." Lovely. Who doesn't want to help out sick people, right? Unfortunately, what this idea reveals is that, apparently, Obama does't understand what, exactly, health insurance, well, is.

Allow me to explain: Health Insurance consists of an insurance company, essentially, making a bet with you that you won't get sick. Thus, the more likely you are to get sick, the higher your health insurance will likely be. This is not because the insurance companies are mean, evil bastards, but rather because the likelihood of a sickly person getting sick (and thus the insurance company losing the bet and having to shell out dough for hospital bills) is fairly high. Consequently, mandating, as Obama wishes to do, that insurance companies must make what will, essentially, amount to sure-loss bets, will only drive up the cost of everyone else's health insurance, since the insurers will be looking for ways to cover the losses they are almost certain to incur on these high-risk patients.

The second scary part of the Obama healthcare plan comes from his desire to "[require] large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care." In other words, more government mandates on private companies. This time, however, he wants to force companies to offer their employees a type of benefit.

Think about that for a second; he's going to force people to give their employees benefits. Never mind that benefits are not a necessary part of any job, but rather one of many things that employers can offer, if they so choose, to entice people to work for them. In other words, as I've said time and again here, if an employee wants benefits, like healthcare, he should become employed by a company that offers them - not have the government step in an mandate such a thing. Moreover, this aspect of the Obama plan assumes that the choice of the employees themselves on the matter of their own health insurance is irrelevant. After all, what if the employee doesn't want to get his health insurance through his employer, since he or she changes jobs often, and would rather have a larger paycheck with which to purchase a private insurance policy? Or, better yet, what if an employee of one of these large companies doesn't want health insurance at all? I suppose the answer to such queries, in terms of the Obama plan, is something akin to that of the aforementioned John Edwards healthcare plan: "you don't get that choice."

In any case, the final major area of concern in the health care plan of our Lord, The Messiah, Barack Obama the Holy One, is the area where his roots and true colors as a believer in socialized medicine shine through. It is the creation of what he dubs "a National Health Insurance Exchange." In this proposal, after making all the appropriate political nods to private insurance, the Obama plan includes the creation of "a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage." In other words, while he's driving up the cost of private insurance and employment-based coverage with all these government mandates, he's going to be offering you a really, really cheap program that the government will pay for.

Perhaps, you see where this is going, huh?

Basically, since the government can keep its health insurance prices artificially low (thanks to the Treasury backing they will receive), people are going to naturally drift towards the government-run healthcare since it's going to be the cheapest option around. It is, admittedly, a rather well-laid trap; but still, it is one which ultimately will lead to more and more people relying on the government dole for their health insurance - but hey, no worries, Obama's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts and refuse to cut any of your other taxes, so there should hopefully be enough money for it, right? So hey, when Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security all go broke, at least you'll still have your French-style healthcare around!

What it all adds up to is this: the Obama healthcare plan is nothing more than a massive government interference in the private market, and one which will cost our flat-out-broke government to incur large and increasing additional costs every year. Furthermore, it is also one which will hand the government an increasing degree of control over your healthcare.

I know Obama is too slick to ever use the term himself, but that sounds an awful lot like Socialized Medicine to me.

Of course, on the other hand, you have John McCain's healthcare plan; which will place an emphasis on giving you, as an individual (independent, even, of your employer), a greater degree of choice, not cost the government increasingly large sums of money, and potentially help to reduce the long-term costs of both Medicare and Medicaid. The choice shouldn't be that hard.

So vote for 'Medical Capitalism.' Vote McCain/Palin.

Vote For Your Self-Esteem

Recently, I was talking with a friend of mine about the Presidential race, among other political topics; and during this conversation I finally realized what the true essence of the Barack Obama Presidential campaign is, and why it's so inherently offensive to me. In the past, both on this site and off, I have relished the all-too-frequent opportunity to chastise America's Airport Security policies post-9/11. After terrorists took advantage of our airports and airlines to successfully execute the worst terrorist attack in American History, our response was to make people feel safer without making them, in any real way, actually safer. Instead of doing security checks into people with suspect backgrounds or questionable behaviors, we take away your toothpaste and make sure the name on your ID (which surely couldn't be faked....) matches the one on your ticket. In other words, if ever a moron tries to execute a terror attack on the United States of America - we will catch his dumbass!!

But I digress.

Besides, as noted above, I'm not here to bitch about how, as a general rule, over 60% of the test runs conducted by the FBI manage to successfully smuggle various illegal items past the TSA; no, I want to talk about the great Lord Messiah Obamarama. You see, I realized that I so viscerally dislike his campaign because it is, essentially, operating along the exact same lines as all of those faux security measures we enacted after 9/11. In other words, the great godsend of Hope n' Change is, like its airport security counterpart, designed, not with an eye towards common sense or logical policy, but with the acknowledged goal of making you feel better about yourself (and, in the case of Obama, politics). The analogy further holds when we consider that, in both cases, the long-term effects are most definitely bad for your country.

I mean, just look at his major campaign slogans; 'Hope' and 'Change'. Both of them promote the idea that Obama is a good candidate primarily because his Presidency will, well, make you happier and more proud of yourself. Basically, he wants you to vote for him because it will improve your self-esteem.

Awesome. That means that, with a President Barack Obama, we're going to get the chance to take the biggest educational problem of the last thirty years, the emphasis on children's self-esteem over their actual academic progress, and see if it can fail catastrophically as a governing strategy too!

Damn. I'm just.... so. frickin. excited.

Alas, folks, that's exactly what the Obama campaign has become to people across this country, a means of emotional expression that they have never quite had before. It's a campaign where the young and idealistic can encounter someone as naive and idealistic about the real world as their own sheltered selves. It's where the ageing hippies of the 60s can finally see a candidate who seems to believe that peace, love, and a few trips on LSD can change the world for the better. It's where....well, you get the idea

This is not to say that Obama doesn't have policy proposals; its just that, unfortunately, such things take a distant backseat to the emotional crap we mentioned above when it comes to the Obama campaign. Indeed, if you need more proof, just ask an Obama supporter why you should vote for him; you'll probably get an answer along the lines of how Obama is going to usher in a new era of 'Post-racial' politics, or 'Post-partisanship,' or 'a renewed faith in ourselves,' or, above all, a 'New Era of Politics.'

Now, even if we are to put aside for a moment the fact that there is nothing at all in Obama's record that would indicate to us that he is capable of such things, and assume that all of these things should be the ultimate goal of the next President of the United States; one is compelled to point out that, while sounding nice, such things are nearly impossible to translate into genuine strategies of governance - which is what Obama would have to do should he, in fact, become President.

But hey, who am I kidding? All of those things sound good, right? And I'll bet they make you feel good too, huh?

Gingrich Compares Media To Pravda

Newt goes Hydrogen-Bomb level nuclear on the News Media:



That, folks, is about 500 layers of pure awesomeness (Pravda!!!) - not to mention honesty. Indeed, aside from FOX News, every single one of the major media outlets and newspapers has been so blatantly biased towards Senator Obama that it goes beyond simple dishonesty and shame. As Newt points out, these people want Obama to win so badly that they are willing to go to any length to try and make that happen.

To quote Mark Twain:

"Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your honor. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse."

Vote McCain/Palin.

The Wonderful World of Barack Obama Supporters

You may or may not care for Howard Stern, but this is just brilliant - and sad, I suppose.

And no worries, there's (surprisingly) no vulgarity:



Ain't Identity Politics grand!

What's really sad is that they didn't ask these idiots about some complex aspect of Barack Obama's healthcare or tax plan; they asked them about something as f-ing obvious as his running mate or his support for the Iraq War. Say what you will about redneck bible-thumpers, but at least they're able to recognize whether their candidate is pro-life or pro-choice...

McCain Gets It Right On Malpractice

I was just watching a video over on CBS's website of a townhall that McCain and Palin did yesterday, and as I was listening I began to think; "you know, if I was at one of these things, I'd love to be able to ask McCain his opinion on Medical Malpractice Reform." Well, almost as soon as the thought had passed through my head, lo and behold, a young Doc from Grand Rapids steps up and asks Senator McCain that very question.

Here's the link, the question comes almost right at 13 minutes into the clip, so feel free to skip on ahead to it.

McCain, thankfully, understands that "absolutely, absolutely, we need to have medical malpractice reform" in the United States. He also rightly noted that this malpractice reform has "got to be part of any reform of helathcare in America." Indeed, he went on to call it "one of the most compelling issues" that we face. Amen. It's so nice to finally hear a politician say that, in order to truly reform our bloated, expensive, and expanding healthcare programs, we have got to focus on preventing Trial Lawyers from suing the very Doctors which that helathcare system relies on, out of business!

With Palin on the ticket, I'm already very much 'on-board,' so to speak, but if I needed any extra assurances, this good answer should do it. Indeed, one can only imagine what the Lord Messiah Obamarama, who once worked for a big Chicago law firm, thinks of possibly limiting the amount of frivolous lawsuits his trial lawyer buddies, such as the now-disowned John Edwards, could file against one of their favorite targets.

An Outstanding Choice

It's official; I no longer have to vote for John McCain - I want to!! Earlier today, Senator McCain made the decision of a lifetime by selecting Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Aside from shrewdly knocking Senator Obama's acceptance speech right out of the headlines, Senator McCain, I think, has accomplished more than he could have ever hoped for with this excellent VP pick.

In selecting his VP, there were 2 main things that McCain needed to do; first, he had to reassure his Conservative base that he wasn't deserting them for the General Election, and, second, he had to maintain the image he has as a reformer, and thus, as an appealing candidate to moderates. Palin accomplishes both of these tasks for him, plus a little more. (Indeed, perhaps the only pick that could have been better was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a man who made clear from the get-go that he was in no way interested in the #2 spot.)

Insofar as the first is concerned, look no further than my opening sentence, above. Conservatives everywhere are excited about this pick; McCain didn't just reassure them, he energized them. The Evangelical/Social Con community - which was the base of the Bush/Cheney '04 victory - has been buzzing all day about the selection of Palin. This is huge for McCain because it adds an important element to his campaign in which he has, thus far, been sorely trailing the Obamessiah in: Grassroots networks. Afterall, the root of the Karl Rove strategy was always to simply turn out as many Republican voters as was humanly possible and hope it was enough. That massive 'ground game'/grassroots machinery is still around; the problem, up until now, for McCain has been that it was run by the SocialCons, and thus, didn't really want to go to work for him. Now it will happily do so. Consequently, that huge advantage Mr. HopeChangeandSunshine has had from "energizing" new, young voters is now gone; as the SocialCons not only begin to make up that gap, but bring the operational experience and knowledge that they gained in the successful 2004 campaign. This grassroots participation could be essential in a swing state like Ohio, where McCain will need all the help he can get, come November.

While I'm on the subject of Mr. HopeChange, let me note that the Palin pick also provides an interesting area of contrast to him on the second area I mentioned: furthering the message of reform. In his speech last night, Obama kept constantly referring to the change he wants to bring to Washington by repeatedly used phrases like, "I will..", "I am going to..", and "I promise that..."; on the other hand, in her introduction speech today, Mrs. Palin kept using phrases like "I have..", "I did..", and "I am..." - note the difference in tense there. Mrs. Palin reinforces the message of reform because she, like Senator McCain, has an actual record of fighting corruption and waste. She's already been doing it, and is continuing to do that, right now, in Alaska. In fact, fighting corruption and waste, within her own Party, is how she made a name for herself and rose to the Governor's Office in the first place. Contrast that with Senator Obama who rose to prominence thanks to the Daley's Chicago Political Machine and has spent his time in elected office, uh, making speeches and running for President.

The contrast couldn't be more obvious.

Finally, there is one other thing that the selection of Palin does that will have a lasting impact on the American political scene; whether intending to or not, McCain has changed the future of the Republican Party and set it back on track. Indeed, the choice of Palin indicates the rise of a new generation of Republicans - a generation which comes with an entirely new direction from the big-spending, big-government 'Pubs we've come to know the last few years. This is because, at her core, Palin is, like Bobby Jindal, a reformer; she's interested in fighting corruption, reducing spending (and not just taxes), eliminating waste, and empowering individuals. In other words, and take note here Obamarama, real and useful change. She believes in limited Government not just because she thinks saying so will get her re-elected, but because she's seen the terrible excesses and awful consequenses of what happens when it's not limited and wants to prevent them from happening.

Bobby Jindal now has some welcomed help in the role of Party savior that has been thrust upon him, for Mrs. Palin is a game-changer, in the very best sense of the words.

Kudos to John McCain for making one hell of a pick.

The Unique Strengths Of John McCain

I'll be honest, the thought of John McCain as the Republican Presidential nominee doesn't excite me near as much as I suppose it should. I disagree with him on several issues, including such things as immigration and global warming. However, all those political differences aside, the more I think about it, the more I've come to realize that McCain is the perfect candidate for the Republicans in 2008. No matter how hard they searched, the GOP would not have been able to find a candidate better suited or more likely to give them a victory in November. This is not to say that he will, in fact, win this November, but rather to say that no one would have been able to do better, as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008, than John McCain will, win or lose, do. In my mind, this is the largely the case due to the following 3 reasons.

1. He's a very media savvy politician. Much as it may disgruntle staunch conservatives, McCain's past status as a media darling with the traditional mainstream media outlets has given him a better knowledge of the media's modus operandi than almost any other Republican out there. Witness his response to the New York Times' attempt, earlier this year, to smear him with rumors of an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist, where he got out front of the story and managed to make the Times look even more foolish than it normally does and gain some brownie points with that oft-estranged conservative base. In an election where he will likely face Barack Obama, a true media-darling, McCain's skill at managing and manipulating the media will be a huge campaign asset.

2. His Reputation. Like it or not, one of the unique things about the United States, in comparison to most other countries, is that we tend to have very few political radicals. Much to the chagrin of many hard-core conservatives (and liberals), most Americans do, in fact, tend to be 'in the middle' or at least have strong centrist tendencies - and John McCain fits the bill of what many of these folks are looking for almost to a T. He is an independent/moderate Republican with a reputation for getting things done; and voters know this, and like it. Indeed, it's quite ironic that, in an election cycle where so much attention has been focused on "change," one of McCain's biggest strengths will undoubtedly the lengthy résumé of his political career. To put it another way, Americans seems to, for whatever reason, view John McCain as an 'Experienced Agent of Change,' if you will; and so, all of the reservations that they may have otherwise had about a guy with as long and detailed of a résumé as his, they simply will not have about McCain.

3. The constant criticism He receives from fellow Republicans. Yes, my good conservative friends, the more you keep criticising McCain, the more likely you make it that he will win in November. Indeed, this November, as the House GOP leaders seem to have just figured out earlier today, Republicans are going to have a good-ol'-fashion-can of whoop ass opened up on them in the Congressional elections. They're going to lose a few more seats in the Senate and take big losses in the House; moreover, it's a trend that's likely to continue right on down the line to local elections as well. The reason for this is that the GOP 'brand,' as we refer to it in politics, had been badly damaged. Lots of folks are going to be going to the polls this November saying to themselves "I just can't take more of the Republicans" and thus pulling the lever for the Democrats. Therefore, the more John McCain is seen as being different from or, in some cases, downright hostile to, that brand, the more likely he is to win. As McCain continues to receive criticism from other Republicans for not being conservative enough, he not only continues to pad his aforementioned reputation as an Independent, but, more importantly, he is also able to further distance himself from all of the brand-issues the GOP is going to be having in November.

In my opinion, these three factors, taken in combination, make John McCain a very formidable General Election candidate for the 2008 Presidential race - in spite of the many things he will have going against him. Indeed, I actually believe that McCain has a fairly decent chance to win the Presidency, particularly when one couples his characteristics as a person and candidate with the ugly mess that the Democratic Primary has become. Moreover, I think that, contrary to what I would have assumed just a few weeks ago, Obama (who, for all intents and purposes, will eventually be the Dem nominee) actually makes an easier General Election opponent. Crazy, I know, given Hillary's Everest-sized negatives, but between his recent gaffes and Hillary's continuing, remind-the-Reagan-Democrats-why-they-once-voted-Republican campaign, Obama seems much more vulnerable to me now than he once did.

I know, I know, Obamarama still has his magically-invincible HopeChangeLoveandPuppies thing going on, but John McCain has ready all the tools to give him one hell of a fight.

Change You Can Be Scared Of

Finally, something from a Barack Obama stump speech that I can believe! Apparently, yesterday at an event in Austin, Texas, Obama was trying to fend of the label of 'liberal' that he has been pegged with. In doing so, he put forth this whopper of a line:

"There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure everyone has healthcare."

And you know what, folks? He's right; there is nothing liberal about 'Universal Health Care' - only something Socialist.

But hey, we shouldn't say things like that, because, they wouldn't be nice, and they would tear down the facade that has been Mr. Obama's entire campaign. I mean, Obama is nothing more than a master masquerader, who has donned the cap of 'uniter' just long enough, and well enough, to gain a serious following of folks who actually believe his empty-yet-grandiose rhetoric.

The emptiness of this rhetoric was perhaps epitomized by his wife, Michelle, a few days back, when she claimed that Barack Obama was the only man who could "save our souls;" a statement which makes her sound like one of those idiots from the Bible helping to proclaim one of the many false prophets that God warns of.

(As an aside, if I'm looking to have my soul saved, I'd sooner ask the homeless drunkard on the street corner than a freakin' politician.)

Sadly, the analogy is more accurate than laughable, because a false prophet is exactly what Obama has become (or perhaps always was). He walks around telling us how he will bring back hope, bring people together, work across the aisle, and, most importantly, bring about "change;" but, in reality, he has the most left-wing and the most partisan voting record of anyone in the Senate. If Obama gets to the White House, he'll be as much of a uniter as George "I'm a uniter not a divider" W. Bush has been. He will be, as some on the right have described him, the next Jimmy Carter - just with more nice and a little more socialism.

In a sense, it's a good thing Obama's campaign has "hope" as its main selling point; because after 4 years of an Obama Presidency, Americans would be needing a lot of it - it's not like they'd have much else worth bragging about.

For those of you who do give a rat's behind about where your country might be in 4 years, here's some actual facts on some of Obama's, uhh, more interesting positions, that you should be aware of:

-He supports 'Universal Health Care' (a.k.a Socialized Medicine) with all the fervor of a good socialist.
- He wants to sit down and have direct talks with people like Iranian President Ahmadenijad. ('Peace through conversation,' maybe....???)
- He was a very strong advocate of gun-control while a State Senator in Illinois, and has not changed his position on that issue one bit since then.
- He didn't have to flip-flop on Drivers Licenses for Illegals (like Sen. Clinton did) because he had already come out in full support of such measures.
- He has always gotten the full 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, and while still a State Senator, he voted against a law requiring life support for fetuses that survived abortion procedures.
- He was "extremely concerned" by the Supreme Court's decision to ban partial-birth abortion, and has consistently voted against banning it.
- He has voted against lowering taxes every single time the issue has come up during his short stay in the United States Senate. This includes votes against repealing the Death and Alternative Minimum taxes; as well as votes against extending tax cuts on Estate, Capital Gains, and Dividend taxes.

...and I could go on; but I won't. Instead I'll just say that, ultimately, the conclusion you'd have to reach after looking at this man's actual positions, beliefs, and principles would be this: Barack Obama is not a great unifying force who can lift up America. Rather, he is a genuine Democratic Socialist (in the European sense of the term) who would be better suited to bring about the political unification of France than of the United States.

Oh no, wait a minute, I forgot, even the French were smart enough to reject this kind of smooth-talking, empty-suited, hard-left bullshit.

Dear God, stick that in you pipes and smoke on it for a minute: a year from now, we (The United States!) could have a President who is more liberal than the President of France!

Conservatives who continue to hold a grudge against John McCain for various reasons ought to think about that before November rolls around. In the meantime, I think I'm gonna be depressed.

Never, Never, Never, Ever Give Up

In the aftermath of the 2006 mid-term debacle and saddled with a very unpopular Republican President, many of those in the Republican Party are getting the feeling that, no matter what happens in the Republican primaries, this is going to be the Democrats year to take back the White House.

But now, in this dark hour, a potential savior looms on the horizon. Witness, ladies and gents, the next coming of......Ralph Nader!! Yes folks, that Ralph Nader - the very one who handed us the 2000 election on a silver, f-ing platter - has decided, after Dennis Kucinich's and John Edwards' departures, to form a Presidential Exploratory Committee.

Now folks, in order for him to move from the 'exploratory' stage to the 'actually running (and siphoning off Democratic votes)' stage he has to be convinced that he can raise enough money to get on the ballot in all 50 States. So you know, if you happen to have $20 lyin' around.....

Hey, I'm just sayin'....

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Change

Heh.

Welcome to the vapid world of primary politics - where empty words and pointless platitudes are all the rage!

Ranking the 'Pubs

Well, well, here we are about midway through January 2008, and, with New Hampshire and Iowa in the bag, the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary is nearly upon us. Of course, the Republican race for President is quite a horserace this year, although ultimately only one of these animals will represent us in November. After long months of thought and having closely followed this race from the start, I am finally ready to make my bets and pick my favorite. Thus, here are my rankings of the Republican candidates starting with the one I'm endorsing, and moving on down, in order, of who I'd vote for after that, if so forced.

1. Fred Thompson - Fred is my guy, and I'm going to vote for him in the primaries Saturday. Yea, I know he's run a really bad campaign up to this point. Yes, he has to finish either 1st or a strong 2nd in SC to remain in the race. And yes, he's going to need a strong, late surge to accomplish that. But let's take a step back and give this thing an honest look - primaries are, first and foremost, where you vote your principles. Sure, in the general election, you oftentimes have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils (think '04), but in the primaries you don't have to do that. The primaries are where you get to try and make your voice heard, so that by the time the general comes around, the stench won't be near as bad - and that's why I'm picking Fred on Saturday.

He's the only candidate who's offered up real, believable plans for dealing with the major issues. He's the only guy with a plan that deals with Social Security, to try and prevent it from going bankrupt and save the people of my generation (who apparently have to pay for all these dang Baby Boomers) some money. He was also the first of the big boys to come out with a legit border security plan (click here for the details), and unlike some of the others in this race, Fred is not a new convert to the right side of this argument.

Moreover, on all the other important conservative issues, Fred gets it right as well. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and believes in the need to not only cut taxes further but overhaul the current tax code. He was endorsed by National Right to Life and has a 100% pro-life voting record. He had one of the most pro-gun voting records in Congress during his tenure in the Senate. He understands the need for growing the military and keeping it strong. And, finally, he understands the true meaning of Federalism and States' Rights (and the importance of this concept to the very structure of the Constitution), setting him apart from most everyone on the political stage these days. He is an actual conservative on all the important issues - and, more importantly, a trustworthy conservative on all of these issues.

These aforementioned reasons, along with others, are why I'm voting for Fred Thompson to be the Republican nominee for President.

2. John McCain - The key word here is electability. McCain is likely the Republicans' best shot at winning the 2008 election. He pulls Independent voters like crazy, partly because he has a reputation for, well, voting like one. He, naturally, has the best credentials on foreign policy and other military matters (the guy is, least we forget, a bona fide American War Hero), and given that we are, in fact, at War, those credentials mean more than they usually do (even in the generally pro-strong national defense Republican primary).

Of course, McCain has a rather broken relationship with 'true' conservatives on many issues; but at least when he does go into 'Maverick' mode, he doesn't try and lie to you about it and pretend that he agrees with you (*cough*Huckabee*cough*). Besides, on the one issue on which he ticked off Conservatives the most, immigration, he doesn't differ much from the current President - which means that, ultimately, he can't do anymore damage to the issue unless he miraculously scrapes up 60 votes in the Senate (which is highly unlikely). So, yeah, at the end of the day, Senator McCain is far from a perfect candidate but he's rock-solid on the issue that matters the most, and is, at least, better than those below him on this list; plus, if you're looking for a winner, Johnny Mac is your guy.

3. Rudy Giuliani - Rudy is the guy who was originally supposed to be all the things that McCain has now become. Sometime late last year, McCain surpassed him as the National Security/sure-winner candidate. In reality, both McCain and Giuliani are very similar on the big issues; with the only real differences being that: (a) Giuliani is more anti-gun, (b) he talks a better talk on immigration (the walk is still questionable), and (c) he has a better history of sticking up for Conservatives/Republicans than McCain (who has a penchant for throwing us under the bus when it suits him) does. The big gamble with Rudy, and the reason I put him below McCain, is that he is a moderate social liberal - and while that doesn't really bother me, there are a whole lot of folks in the Religious Right who really might consider running a 3rd Party, 'bring-back-the-Inquisition' candidate if he's the Repub nominee.

4. Mitt Romney - I'll be blunt, I still simply do not trust this man. I've watched nearly all the Republican debates, and almost every time, after watching his performance, the word that comes to my mind is 'plastic' - in other words, fake and over-polished. Perhaps the best example of this is his position on health care. Sure he says all the right things about the need for free-market health care, when behind the podium; but, while Governor of Massachusetts, he enacted what amounted to a 'Universal Health Care' program - one complete with those insurance mandates that I abhor so greatly. Indeed, so far, I have seen nothing to convince me that the health care plan he instituted in Massachusetts is any different from Hillary's new health care plan - and if that's not enough to scare a man away from voting for Mitt, I don't know what is.

5. Duncan Hunter - I have no freakin' idea why he's still in the race. He's polling less than 1%, and, at this point, has no chance at anything (including the VP slot) - and yet, I'd still rather throw my vote away by giving it to him than vote for either of the 2 retards that follow.

6. Ron Paul - Ron Paul would be a great candidate if it was 1920 and we still had the ability to believe that isolationism worked. Unfortunately, here in the modern world, not a single iota of this man's foreign policy ideas (or at least what I've heard) make sense. To make matters worse, the guy has a whole host of really excellent domestic policies; and, had he chosen to, he could have used his extreme fiscal conservatism to pull the other candidates closer to his positions on these issues (like Tancredo did with the issue of illegal Immigration). Instead, Paul decided to be a whiny-ass crank, making a mockery of the Libertarian movement he supposedly represents.

7. Mike Huckabee - Wow, where do I begin? I can't even tell you how much I despise what this man stands for. Yes, I ranked him below even Ron Paul, because, honestly, I'd rather worry about a greater threat of jihad than have to listen to the Huckster tell me how much he loves Jesus every day of his god-danged presidency. Seriously, Mitt Romney is the Mormon in this race, but Huck's the only candidate I can picture as one of those idiots knocking on your door at 8:30 Saturday morning asking you if you've "found Jesus." Well, no, wait, Huck doesn't have the courtesy to wait 'till Saturday to ask you if you've found Jesus. He spends every minute he's on television doing something to that effect. Indeed, Mike Huckabee is everything anyone ever hated about the Religious Right all rolled into one lying, liberal idiot from Hope, Arkansas. I'd say Huckster reminds me of that other 'man from Hope,' but that would just be an insult to Bill.

Mike Huckabee raised the overall Arkansas tax burden 13% while governor. He gave free education to illegal aliens. He opposed vouchers and increased spending on public education. He seems to know nothing about the most basic parts of American foreign policy. But hell, I could write for hours on all the things I dislike about Mike Huckabee, and since this post is already kindda long, I need to stop and simply leave you with the two ways in which he grates on me the most.

The first is the way in which he uses Christianity as a political tool. As a Christian myself, this is particularly annoying. He makes all Conservatives who are Christians look bad by reinforcing the negative stereotypes people have about us. Moreover, those of us who, for example, believe in Evolution but still get a bit annoyed when Christmas celebrations become multi-cultural shams, essentially get shrugged out of the debate on God's role in America when people like Huckabee come along and cast such debate in terms of The Next Inquisition vs. Idiotic, Multi-Cultural Atheists. Furthermore, the Huckster continually calls himself a "Christian Leader" - and he does so in much the same way that Rudy calls himself a "strong leader," or that Mitt calls himself a "business leader." In other words, he makes being Christian a political aspect of a person's candidacy.

Oh, he would never admit that he does it, and when asked about it he would turn the issue around and ask what the problem is with his being Christian - and, in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with him being Christian. The problem lies with it being the central issue of his political campaign. Why? Because it raises a rather difficult question: how does one make a political argument against God? Herein lies, I suppose, the 'genius' of the Huckster; one simply cannot make a political argument against God without gravely offending the mindless evangelicals who have been lining up behind Huck all over the country. It is a cheap, dirty, political trick which, like all other forms of identity politics, has but one intention: the maintenance of power for those in charge. As such, Mike Huckabee has made himself the Al Sharpton of Evangelical Christians.

The second big problem I have with Huckabee is the way he explains away his liberal record as Arkansas governor. When called on this record, Huck never denies that it is liberal; preferring instead, to say that it was necesarry in order for him to "govern" effectively. Well, forgive me Governor, but I'm just not of the school that believes you have to compromise on your core principles just for the sake of 'governing.' I don't care how Democratic your State Legislature was. Notice, sir, that Mitt Romney was Governor in Massachusetts, and he isn't making the same stupid excuse (indeed, he doesn't even have these kinds of questions hanging around his head to begin with). Furthermore, I'm tired of hearing you tell me about how Democratic your state was in one breath, and then how you "must've done something right" since you were re-elected (twice!) in the next. Someone who kept getting re-elected by a bunch of Democrats shouldn't be the Republican nominee for President.

Well, there you have it, my personal opinions on the remaining '08 Repub Candidates. It turned out to be a lot longer than I intended - c'est la vie. Now all that remains is to wait 'till Saturday and see if enough of my fellow South Carolinians agree with me.

The 2008 GOP Race Comes Home

Last night I watched the 2nd Debate between the Republican Candidates for President, and while I can't say I was all that impressed, this was certainly much better than the 1st one on MSNBC, which was basically a contest to see who could say "Ronald Reagan" the most. Part of the reason for that, of course, was the fact that FOX hosted this debate, and they did an awesome job. The questions were tough, the format was good, and the only real flaw was that they seemed to completely ignore Duncan Hunter. The debate was hosted right here in the great State of South Carolina; although, despite this fact, the candidates, surprisingly, weren't overbearing in their attempts to pander to South Carolina's social Conservatives.

Alright, well, enough with the blah, and on to some real (well-sort of) analysis of the candidates!

Ron Paul would be golden if he could just manage to utterly and completely avoid talking about foreign policy. Seriously, the guy nails fiscal issues and domestic policy on the head....but then he starts talking about 9/11, Iraq, Iran, and other International issues and I suddenly get this burning desire to smack him in the head with a baseball bat.

On the other hand, he could be Tommy Thompson, who makes me want to wail on his ass with a baseball bat every time he opens his mouth. Please, GOP, if you have some decency left in you, do all that you can, use the Police if necessary, to prevent this man from coming on stage at the next debate. He adds abso-freakin-loutely nothing to the debates - and he....Just. Needs. To. Go.
For that matter, Jim Gilmore can also be banned from coming up on stage. While he's not nearly as irritating as Thompson, his presence on stage, like Thompson's, serves no purpose other than to waste air time that could be spent on other, more important, candidates.

As much as I like the guy, Tom Tancredo (who after bombing in the 1st debate, did very well last night) has absolutely no chance at the nomination. Zippo. None. However, I do hope that he stays in the race so that he can keep chiding the other candidates on Illegal Immigration.

Duncan Hunter, as mentioned above, was completely and utterly ignored. Honestly, I think he got 4 questions total during the entire 1.5 hours. He nailed what he got, but it's hard for a lesser-known guy to make headway when he gets no airtime. Brit Hume, you must work on this for next time.

Sam Brownback is just another run-of-the-mill, big-government Republican. Unless you really dig the hardcore evangelical thing, there is absolutely no reason to let this guy back into the debates. I don't dig the hardcore evangelical thing. Therefore, I think he should join Gilmore and Thompson on the sidelines. Besides, he has no chance anyways.

John McCain, so far, has looked extremely defensive in these debates. For him, that's not good, since his campaign numbers, recently, seem to have been going in the wrong direction. He needs to take a new, more aggressive approach. He's certainly not my favorite of the candidates out there, and won't be voting for him, but I have to admit, I do admire (and agree with) the principled stand he has taken on Iraq and on foreign policy in general. You gotta admit, at the end of the day (despite Rudy's whole "I was Mayor on 9/11" thing) McCain does have the most credibility of this batch when it comes to National Security issues.

Speaking of Rudy, he clearly had the line of the night when he smacked down Ron Paul's childish "blame America for 9/11" argument. Clearly, National Security is Rudy's forte and he looked very comfortable there tonight. However, there is this little problem he has; that being this whole 'pro-choice' position he's got going - and he got crucified for in this debate. Rudy's chances of winning the nomination now sorely rest on his claim (which he, interestingly, hinted at on stage tonight) that he is the only Republican nominee capable of beating Hillary in the general election. Unfortunately, he may not have the chance to prove that. In my opinion, tonight, Rudy lost any chance he had of winning the crucial S.C primary. In this State, a fair number of Democrats are more pro-life than Rudy, and for most of the Republicans, this issue ranks pretty high on their list of importance. Put another way, South Carolina doesn't have some of the Nation's strictest abortion laws for nuthin'.

Mitt Romney treaded water tonight. Not near as great a performance as he had in the 1st debate, but he didn't really hurt himself. Of course, given how low his poll numbers are in S.C (he's polling behind 2 guys who haven't even declared yet!!), that may not be what he wanted or needed. Indeed, while Massachusetts may have been ready for a Mormon Governor, it appears that the South is still not ready for a Mormon President. It sucks and it's unfair, but it still may be his doom.

The former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, was, in my estimation, the man who clearly came prepared tonight. In the past, I haven't thought highly of his chances, but he turned in a standout performance tonight. His comparison of Congressional spending to John Edwards in a beauty parlor was the most memorable line of the night, and he clearly, more so than any other candidate, helped himself up there last night. He scored some good points with S.C voters when he took Rudy to town on abortion, he had excellent responses to the challenges/though questions that were posed to him, and of all the guys who were there, I thought he was the winner.

However, overall, as I said earlier, I'm still not, in any way, overly impressed with this GOP field. However, the coming of late entrants into the field may be a saving grace. Here, of course, as political junkies will surely know, I'm speaking of former Tennessee Senator and long-time actor, Fred Thompson. Indeed, while Huckabee was the winner of those present, the overall winner of this debate may just be Fred. In case you haven't heard, Fred has been rumored to be entering the race for some time now, and all indications are that he's going to jump in at some point. He's been polling extremely well among the GOP base, generally finishing in the top 3, despite not having yet declared; and sitting around and letting voters be unimpressed with the current crop of candidates, while they beat up on each other, may be a well calculated, and intelligent, move on his part.

So there you have it, that's my take on South Carolina's 1st 2008 GOP debate; and here's to hoping we have more debates that are as well-run as this one, and, while were at it, here's to hoping Fred Thompson is around for the next one.

2008 Already?

In some respects, it seems a bit early to be talking about the 2008 Presidential Race; but, I've decided to do a little commentary on the race for the Republican Nomination - if only out of my dislike for some of the current front-runners.

First, let's start with one of the candidates right now: Rudy Giuliani. As much as I like Rudy, and as awesome of a record as he has on National Security, I will absolutely not vote for the guy in the primaries. In fact, if he were to be the GOP nominee, I probably just won't vote for President in '08. The reason? Guns. Rudy is easily the most liberal of all the GOP contenders on gun-control. Indeed, his views towards the 2nd Amendment are closer to the median Congressional Democrat's view than they are to a Conservative's. And seriously, if the Republicans aren't going to bother nominating a pro-2nd Amendment candidate, where does the 2nd's multitude of supporters turn? Less concerning to me, yet still problematic, are Rudy's views on abortion and gay marriage. As someone who is not terribly opposed to Gay Marriage, I consider this a non-issue - I don't mind voting for a pro-gay marriage candidate. Somewhat more concerning for me are his radically pro-choice positions (he's even pro-partial birth abortion); nonetheless, this is still not a make-or-break issue for me. However, while not particularly important to me, Gay-marriage and abortion are THE issues for a lot of social Conservatives - particularly those right here in the great State of South Carolina.

The combo of those 2 positions with the aforementioned gun one ensures that Rudy has virtually no chance to win the crucial South Carolina primary. In Presidential politics, it has often been said that: 'as South Carolina goes, so goes the South;' indeed, since the South's dramatic shift from solid blue to solid red, all of zero people have managed to win the GOP nomination without strong support from the good ol', Bible-thumpin' rednecks. Plus, what Republican has won the Party's Presidential Nomination without the support of the N.R.A? Again, a grand sum of zero. Anyone who doesn't believe in the political power of the South and its Social Conservatives need look no further than the 2000 primaries. Eventual winner George Bush was able to shatter John McCain's early momentum from a victory in the New Hampshire primary by winning the South Carolina primary. He was able to do this by simply pointing out to S.C voters that he was more socially Conservative than McCain. Bottom line: they did it to McCain in 2000, and they'll do it to Giuliani in '08. The fact of the matter is, as far as Republicans are concerned, he's better suited to be the National Security Advisor or the Secretary of Defense than the President.

Overall chance of securing GOP Nomination: 10%

Next up is the aforementioned John McCain. McCain is one of those guys who Republicans love to hate, and this may ultimately be his downfall. He's a staunch supporter of the War on Islamic Fascism, and clearly has some impeccable foreign policy credentials (see Vietnam prison cell). Furthermore, as a general rule, he's been decent on fiscal issues (although not stellar) and has seemingly learned from his mistakes in 2000 and (at least in word) become more socially Conservative. He does however have a whole variety of issues, from campaign finance to Guantanamo detainee Rights, on which Conservatives detest his views. Furthermore, McCain's greatest weakness is that, to many Republicans, he seems to be the most 'political' of all the candidates. What I mean by that is that he's the one GOP'er who appears most likely to 'say anything to get your vote.' To make matters worse, his record seems to, in fact, backup the assertion that he is the worst kind of politician. Throw in the fact that he still has some serious credibility issues with the aforementioned South Carolina social Conservatives, and his road to the nomination looks rocky at best.

I believe McCain's appeal will wear off as the primaries draw nearer; however, I wouldn't be surprised if he won one of the pre-S.C primaries like New Hampshire. Still, I expect him to fizzle.

Chance of securing the GOP Nomination: 25%

The last of the so-called front-runners is Mitt Romney, who, like his fellow candidates at the head of the pack, has some serious credibility issues to resolve with social Conservatives before the S.C primary. First of all, the guy is a Mormon; which, while unproblematic for normal people like me, is considered by many hard-core Bible Thumpers to be some kind of sin. Bottom line: it's unfair and bigoted, but this will cost him serious votes in the Baptist South. Moreover, Romney will have issues similar to those McCain had with social Conservatives in 2000; these will mainly be centered on the question of whether his pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions are sincere or just political posturing. This will be particularly acute given the widespread video footage (See Here) and published documentation of his rather liberal views on many social issues in the not-so-distant past. I haven't looked into Romney enough to know whether or not I'd personally vote for him in the primaries/Election; nevertheless, his perceived insincerity, on abortion in particular, leaves him with a serious uphill road to the GOP nomination.

Chance at the Nomination: 17%

Next up is a guy who, so far, I seem to like pretty well, and could very well vote for in the primaries: Duncan Hunter. Obviously, his biggest problem now and for the rest of the campaign is/will be name-recognition; of which, at this point he has virtually none. Another problem that he has is that, as a member of the last few Congressional Sessions (from California), he has partaken in some of the wasteful, big-government spending that has been a staple of those Sessions. That said, he's one of the few candidates who has a stand-out record on immigration and he has the additional distinction of being pro-'fair trade' - which is nice way of saying he's against outsourcing. These two attributes, coupled with a solid conservative record on social issues, could make him a viable player in the South Carolina primary, especially given the flaws of the aforementioned front-runners. Hunter has strong positions on foreign policy and, as a Vietnam Vet whose son is serving in Iraq, will have no problem competing with other candidates in that arena. So far, I'd say he's the one 'dark horse' candidate with the best shot at the nomination (but still a dark horse). He should be able to build momentum from now until the primaries start, and it will be interesting to see how well he's able to maintain and build on that when the going gets tough.

Overall chance: 14%

The next guy on the list is my top choice right now: Tom Tancredo. He is clearly the guy on immigration, but has also been just as solid on fiscal and National Security issues. Throw in the fact that he has generally one of the best all-around Conservative records in Congress, and you got a guy who I would like to see in the White House. Of course, he faces an incredibly uphill battle to get the nomination. This will be in no small part due to his tough stance on immigration; which has unjustly earned him the 'racist' tag that the usual left-wing suspects love to dole out. If immigration again becomes the hot topic, look for his candidacy to soar, if not, well....I'll be out of a top choice.

Chance at the Nomination: 10%

Finally, I want to profile someone who hasn't yet declared an intention to run, but would rocket to the top of the polls if they did: Newt Gingrich. Every Conservative in America knows his name, and his credentials. Odds are, he'd have an easy time winning the GOP nomination. Like everyone else on the Right side of the aisle, I find Newt to be an appealing candidate, but I'd be very hesitant to vote for him in the primaries. Newt has some serious political and personal baggage (see, multiple divorces and his ouster from the position of House Speaker), which could prove a major liability in the General Election. The good news is, Newt probably knows this, and understands that he would probably be better suited to just being an advocate for the same principles he's always stood for. Honestly, I'm not sure how to asses Newt's overall candidacy for 2008, except to say that he truly is the ultimate wild-card on the Republican side. Indeed, if any candidate were to get full-scale support from Newt, they would instantly become the man to beat.

Overall odds (if he decides to run) for the Nomination: 45%

Lastly, I'm just going to note that the 'other' candidates, mainly guys like Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, and Mike Huckabee, are absolutely horrible - for a wide variety of reasons. Thankfully, none of them really have a prayer to win the nomination so I won't bother telling you why I think they're so bad.

(Their collective chance at the Nomination: 1%)