Political Update for October, 2007

Presidential campaign

I promised not to write any more McCain articles, but I meant pro-McCain. This isn’t very positive.

First, let me say, “Oh, come on”.

Can't I have one, just one presidential candidate that I think is worthy of the office without watching them pander themselves to death? Or is our system so restrictive, so dominated by these two arthritic antipodal parties that no one can ever hope to capture a nomination without making the most cloying statements and absent the religious drapery?

Well, I guess I know the answers to those questions.

The reason for my outburst is the unseemly pandering by my still (amazingly) favorite candidate, John McCain. I put up with his kowtowing to the now late Jerry Falwell, by making an address at Liberty University, and I groaned when I learned he had become a Southern Baptist (gee, could it have anything to do with the liberal attitude his Presbyterian Church has developed towards gays and the political implications of that), but now, his statement that he prefers a Christian to any other religion in the White House just pushes it too far. Of course he does. So does probably 80-90% of the country if they were honest. And I don’t care about you, for example, feeling that way. But his saying so was undiluted pandering to the social conservatives who consider him a traitor to the party on immigration and campaign finance, even though he seems more conservative than any top tier candidate.

I know McCain came out later to say he would vote for a Muslim if he were the best candidate, and it was not quite as dramatic as this might make it seem, but the point was clear -- please, conservative Christian voters, I'm one of you, I’m one of you, not that New York guy. He’s not pro-life for crying out loud. Vote for me.

Oh, come on, John. Was the White House the price of your integrity?

It’s getting to the point where I will no longer trust you either, Mr. McCain. If you will pander this far to become president, you would pander just as far to get a second term. And that means pandering with power (I’d still vote for you. Hell, I voted for Bush and he can’t get an English sentence out). Keep pushing it and you may have the reverse problem from last time when you were popular with Democrats and independents but couldn’t win the nomination. You may win the primaries to find you can no longer win the general election.

Of course, it's not just McCain, it's all of these guys (and gal). Bill Richardson has gone from a moderate to an uber-liberal, and panders so often and deeply that he told an Iowan audience that Iowa was a terrorist target. If Iowa is, what isn't? North Dakota? Is anyone convinced that he would have said, or even thought that, were not Iowa's caucus so critical? If so, I know a rain forest in Iowa I'd like to sell you.

Then there's Rudy who is so desperately trying to hide his New York socially liberal side that he makes frequent incredible statements, including that 9/11 changed his mind about gun control. I don't care whether you are pro or anti gun control (I say everyone is pro-gun control - they just have different limits), you have to, have to, have to know that Rudy is PRO-GUN CONTROL. Are you still buying his impossibly contorted answers to how he feels about abortion?

One more comment on Rudy. I’m not a big fan of bringing families into the muck of politics but these guys all ask for it. This -- I love you, I love you too -- thing he has with his wife just creeps me out. First it was telling the world how she advised him on bio-weapons after 9/11 with her standing there nodding her head, then it telling us that she would sit in on cabinet meetings, then the whole secret about how they met, and now he’s taking her calls during speeches. If that was not pre-arranged nothing is, and although we will likely never know, I bet it was her idea and he couldn’t say no.

My opinion. She has some self esteem issues and he has to continuously pump her up and make her feel worthwhile or she gives him grief. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. He obviously is head over heels in love, because no sane candidate would have done what he did during a speech. Worse than the Gore kiss at his nomination.

My prediction. Rudy will start to dwindle sooner or later. Social conservatives are starting to realize their problems with him. More people are focusing on his personal life, his “9-11” mania, and it is only a matter of time before his problems as Mayor begin to be recognized.

I barely mention Mitt Romney in these posts, because he is so eager to say anything to please his hoped for voters, there are just no known limits. His Elmer Fudd, varmint hunter imitation earlier this year was all the more amazing because John Kerry had so publicly stumbled with it in the last election. Am I the only one who looks at him and sees a used car salesman? If there was a pandering award, he would win among Republicans (Richardson among Democrats).

It seems somewhat ironic that Giuliani, McCain and Romney are all pretending to be what Mike Huckabee actually is, a Southern abortion hatin’ gun totin’ devout Christian good ‘ole boy and the Republicans won’t give him enough campaign funds to fly from Little Rock to Washington if he won the election. Go figure.

Let me not leave out the front running Democrats. Hillary has just announced that she is in favor of giving every child born in America $5000. Is she kidding? That's BILLIONS, MANY BILLIONS of dollars a year. Is she merely signing her name to a giant virtual billboard screaming out DON'T WORRY. I'M STILL A SOCIALIST AT HEART or was this a mere momentary surrender to pandering fever? Maybe, as her staff quickly made it clear that this was not an official position (as if what the candidate says shouldn't be paid attention too -- they are just not responsible) and I am guessing, they hope it is quickly forgotten.

Obama is so desperate not to look like a French loving neo-liberal that he is prone to making hawkish sounding noises he couldn't possibly have a real interest in -- like attacking Pakistan and keeping troops in Iraq.

For debating purposes only, none of the candidates would be as much fun to watch as Mike Huckabee and Dennis Kucinich one on one. They are personable (MH the more so) and funny (DK the more so). Plus, they actually say what’s on their mind, which usually does one no good at all, at least during their lifetime. Compare that hypothetical debate to the stilted scripted one we are likely to get if Hillary Clinton and Rudy G, or any of the other automatons go at it. Yaaawwwwn.

Maybe Mike and Dennis should take a note from Gingrich (I’ll get to him) and get on the stage with someone from the other side of the aisle. They might even get some ratings. As of right now, who is actually watching these debates? I have given up watching them for more than a few minutes at a time. I had a laugh the other night listening to debate questioner Juan Williams make a comment about all the young people watching – was he kidding? What young people in this world did he think were watching that debate?

You may have noticed that I have not mentioned Fred Thompson yet, despite his high polling numbers. He will flame out. I am not even sure he will be here in February. And since he has said little but that he’s a conservative and a Republican, there is little to comment about.

Gingrich is another story. One of the few politicians in America who is always terrific to listen to you. I would never vote for him because he was too power hungry, too egotistical and too partisan when in office, and he hasn’t convinced me he has changed. Just now he has decided he will not run, supposedly because he can’t keep working with his American Solutions organization. He just figured that out? Newt is smart, and he may have realized, that no matter how much he would enliven debates, he couldn’t possibly win. He would not draw 10 % in any state but his own (and I’m not sure of that).

I don't know who I'm going to vote for, but I do know that, as usual, I don't want to vote for any of them. Good grief, that's how I ended up voting for Bush last time.

How to interview Ahmadinejad

Leave it to a college president to make Ahmadinejad sound reasonable about anything. Ahmadinejad was absolutely correct during his Columbia University speech that the fear of research into the holocaust is unlike our desire to have everything else investigated. We learn all about the womanizing and slaveholding of our forefathers, study our own quirks and perversions, spend billions on research, but this one topic, which raises such hackles among Jews and many other people, is considered out of bounds, unless you adhere to the approved story line.

I have heard too many times on tv last week that the holocaust is the most researched event in history. Maybe so. I wouldn’t know. But there are reputedly something like 60,000 publications on the civil war and I don’t know how many on WWII, Napoleon and the Bible. I don’t know from where the idea came that the holocaust is the most researched area. Moreover, I for one refuse to believe that holocaust research is the one area of human endeavor which has not been tainted by exaggeration, bias and outright fraud.

He is also right, regardless of how hypocritical he is, that it is wrong that people in Europe actually can and do go to jail just for questioning. That is not only an absence of free speech it is as insane behavior as found in the Islamic regimes which punish people for “insulting” Islam.

I understand what those who promote the holocaust are concerned about. They are afraid that if any holes are found in the holocaust story that it will be used politically against Israel and against Jews. I have a shocker for them. The people who will do so already hate Israel and/or Jews. Obviously, not having responsible research doesn’t work either. The same people already believe in The Protocols of Zion. When you close a door off to research or make one group of people “protected” from historical research you merely stoke the fires and create resentment. Bad idea. We should stop.

I suppose that some who read this would decide that I must like Ahmadinejad or would make one of those silly comments, like calling him “your friend, Ahmadinejad” or even call me a holocaust denier. Oh, well. There is no more reasoning with them than with him. Either deal with the muttonheads or keep my mouth shut.

Not for nothing, but what I wouldn’t give for a chance to interview Ahmadinejad. I would even shake his hand to get it and I hate the guy. Many presidents have shaken the hand, even hugged, far worst monsters than him. Television anchorpersons have no clue how to interview him. Here’s the trick. You just introduce the topic and let him talk – even seem to agree with him. We saw what happened when he got on the subject of gays in Iran. He was irrational.

The anchormen who have tried to interview him before failed because they were too busy playing lawyer against someone who will not grant any premise that might be controversial. Once a premise is not granted (e.g., have you said you want to wipe Israel off the face of the map?) there is little to follow up with. When that happens to a lawyer, he or she gets to whip out evidence of the premise from a deposition or document. Most interviewers don't get to do that (Tim Russert being an exception on Meet the Press).

If you must argue with him, just accuse him, don’t ask him if something you know he said or did is true or not. Let him deny away. You know who knows how to do it out of all the people on tv? Bill O’Reilly. He’s often not fair. Sometimes he even browbeats people into accepting his factual premise. But he understands how to do it.

Why Supreme Court Justices should stay off of tv

Clarence Thomas is loved by conservatives and hated by liberals. I masochistically read what these guys write, and whether his opinions are right or wrong, I believe he is the most consistent of all the justices in his jurisprudence. It’s impossible to be perfect, and no doubt his political views influence him.

However, just watching a few minutes of him on 60 Minutes (not my show usually) the other day, he reminded me of a bitter ex-lover or someone who was unfairly put in prison for ten years. Yes, his Supreme Court nomination was politics at its worst (and I still believe Anita Hill; I just don't think it should have been brought up). But, on the other hands, however good or bad you might believe he is, he was the least credentialed person to be nominated since Nixon was in office, with the possible exception of Bush's Harriet Miers pick, despite his Yale schooling.

Take this quote, for example: "My job is to write opinions. I decide cases and write opinions. It is not to respond to idiocy and critics who make statements that are unfounded . . . ". Well, he is right, of course, but sounds a little too bitter. Try watching a video of the interview. Oh, he’s bitter, all right. Even when he said the interviewer's name, angrily, in passing, I cringed.

His television appearance was brought about the publication of his biography. In it, he referred to some political opponents as “left wing zealots” or some such partisan and derogative terminology. That, of course, makes it easier for left wing zealots to claim that he is biased against them and not following the law. Guess he may have confirmed that for them.

The Supreme Court is the most secretive of political bodies. It must be to function, sort of like the only way Ozians could take the Wizard seriously was by not looking behind the curtain. While it would be good to know if someone has lost his or her mind on the court, or is acting unethically, the members have historically had a way of pushing someone aside when it becomes necessary. It’s rarely the problem.

Unlike secrecy in the administration or congress where we have a right (forget about national security issues for a minute) to know what’s going on with our democratically elected leaders, the court is supposed to be, at least in theory, basing its rulings on interpretation of law (stop laughing now). The court, as is well known, has little power of its own, just the authority that the other two bodies, the press and the people want to give it. And that has been worth a lot. Without respect, that would cease in a heartbeat. Let them see the human side of the Justices too much, respect will go out the window as fast as it does for a U.S. Senator who gets caught with his pants down in the airport men’s room.

Note to John Roberts. You can’t keep the members of the court off of tv if they want to go on, or from writing their biographies, but I would urge you to suggest to them, that C-span is appropriate for Supreme Court justices, not 60 minutes or Maxim Magazine, for that matter, and books on jurisprudence do more for the court’s all important image than tell-all bios.

Not suggesting censorship or bullying. And I have enjoyed recent debates on C-Span including or between Supreme Court justices. But, this was a lot like accidentally catching your parents in bed. Yccch. Just didn’t need to know.

The first Republican debate

Ah, the debate. Ten Republicans lined up like ducks at a shooting gallery. Chris Matthews can be a little loud and show offy, and will shoot off at anyone who offends him. But he seems ready to put aside the opinion guy, and be the anchor guy right now.

Giuliani got the first question. It seemed like a set up. It involved Ronald Reagan. Giuliani went right for the optimism angle. Ironically, for a guy who never sounds like he is making a speech, he sounded like he was making a speech. When Giuliani is asked about Israel, he is tempered and moderate. Well, why not? Giuliani is smooth. He sounds so compassionate. I’m fighting my memories though. Still, I give him credit. When almost everyone else said Roe must go, he said it is OK if it did, and OK if it didn’t. Then he surprises me when he is asked a question about the Christian right and quickly runs away with a wimpy answer and on to something else. I got chills.

To McCain, a first question on Iraq. Fair? Not sure. But he fielded it well, and became passionate. Not too optimistic, but not too pessimistic either. Later though, he is given an Iran question. I still like his hawkish answer. What is your trip wire to war with Iran, he is asked. He plays the nuclear card, but is reasoned and moderate. The message is, we will protect you America, but we will not go off halfcocked. McCain takes a question about Tancredo and turns it into a question about Osama. He will follow him to the gates of hell. See what he is going for? Islamic extremism, if you missed it. He also pounds on spending and gets some laughs. If I were one of the lightweights, I’d be angry at how many raw meat questions he gets. A new wrinkle on me, he is big on the line item veto too. He punts once on a question of what Democrat, other than Joe Lieberman, he would put in his cabinet.

I haven’t taken Romney too seriously yet. Not until the public seems to recognize him. I doubt he would be noted in a crowded room, although he came off presidential. On his second question, he seems so knowledgeable. Hmmm. Romney is asked what he doesn’t like about America, and, of course, gives an eloquent paean to America. Oh, and kisses Ronald Reagan’s . . . . He also covers the abortion flip flop. No one will care on the conservative side, as long as he is pro-life now. He answers other faith questions well for the crowd he has in front of him. He has impressed me with his poise.

Those are the big guys.

Tommy Thompson was ready for his Iraq question and made several original sounding suggestions for his opening shot. Not bad, but I could hear America saying - who are you? Asked if Iraq was partly Bush’s fault – he punts. And when he gets a global warming question he says – what? It was eloquent but said nothing. Should a company be able to fire a gay worker? Yes? That he is sure about. He is very religious, apparently. Didn’t know that. But then, in response to how many killed in Iraq and how many injured he says that several thousand were injured. I think it’s more like 25,000.

Sam Brownback came off well. He is much demonized by the left because of his social values (pro-life; anti gay rights). He surprises by saying he will support a pro-choice Republican candidate. He comes across as the most religious of the group. Late in the day, he showed courage bucking Nancy Reagan’s pet program in her own house.

Huckabee is just so huggable. He looks presidential and comes across like a tv dad (pre-Simpsons anyway). What was his answer. Not sure I care. With Duncan, he is excellent VP material. A Southern governor with conservative credentials. I almost forgot he was there at one point. Didn’t know he wants to get rid of the IRS. This is not a good way to show off his skills. He is at his best when he can show his Southern charm.

Jim Gilmore. There’s that swell in the air again. Who are you? He is almost left out of the debate and I believe will soon be gone. He is asked at one point if he would appoint Karl Rove, his friend, to an office in the White House, if he won. I couldn’t believe he didn’t really answer. If he says he was governor of Virginia one more time, or that he lives up to his word . . . . Oh, God, he said it again.

And Ron Paul – the anti-war guy. Dr. Paul is the libertarian in the group and one of the traditional constitutional conservatives. He would get rid of the IRS immediately if he could. Who wouldn’t like that? But he admits, our culture would need to change first. Like Gravel on the Democratic side, he believes strongly in his values, and can’t understand that no one cares. Given an opportunity to talk about a big critical decision he made, he couldn’t think of one. His best moment was in speaking against a national I.D. card.

Tom Tancredo, whose whole game is immigration, is asked an Israeli question. Fumbles it. too. It is passed to Giuliani – will they ever come back to him? They do, and ask him a useless question about Karl Rove, who we learn would not be in his White House. Who thought that would really happen anyway? As they move along, he makes sure he gets in a Ronald Reagan plug. The play of the day, apparently. When he finally gets an opening, he runs with the immigration ball and acts as if he is the only one thinking about it.

Hunter Thompson also seems left out at times. At one point he jumps in with an answer about Iran that he wasn’t asked, trying to grab some thunder. He also jumps in after McCain makes a speech about Islamic extremism and points out his experience. Does the same with immigration which he is as strong on as Tancredo is. Give me serious questions, he seems to say. This debate may not do him any good, although he is a strong figure. I did learn that he believes global warming is important.

Matthews did well at the end of the day. He kept control, was personable and moved it along. MSNBC has hit upon a good way to do debates. It flies and forces the politicians to speak quickly and get to the point. He goofed once making a rude comment after one candidate's answer.

I know this was Reagan’s presidential library, and the candidates were trying to please conservatives, but Reagan wasn’t king for goodness sake. Leave him lie.

These debates make me laugh. Do they really think they are getting rid of the IRS or getting a flat tax? I loved the question about who didn’t buy evolution. Three raised their hands, but you couldn’t see who, except TomTancredo. I am guessing Brownback and Huckabee, but I really don’t know. Security is mentioned a bit, but it was not the main show. 9/11 did not coming up a lot.

Who won? I think the big three did real well. I am not sure that any of the others made the impact they needed. Paul was different enough that he might be remembered, but he is too far out to have it do him any good.

I find that personal bias plays such a role in who you think one. Is my thinking McCain won a result of my preference for him? Probably, but my honest opinion is he may have gained something with conservatives. But I also think Romney made an excellent impression, and that Giuliani held his own. It might change the polls a little, but there was already a slight trend towards McCain up and Giuliani down.

Did it change many opinions as to whom voters would want to see nominated? Probably not. How many watch these debates, anyway. An impressive bunch of guys. Too conservative for my taste as the Democratic candidates were too liberal. What is a moderate to do?

Democratic Candidate Debate on April 26, 2007

Learned some things tonight. First, this sort of light and quick format, with no attempt to have every candidate answer every question, with a strong host cutting off the candidates, is a good way to run things, particularly if you have so many contenders for time.

Most presidential presentation: I was surprised that Hillary carried herself so well. She seemed . . . mature and not willing to say just anything to win the debate. Richardson, who I'm biased towards, next. Obama was not bad, although he wandered off during the allies question.

Most hurt by a question: John Edwards looked like he took a blow from the question about his $400 haircut. I like the fact that Edwards will concede just about anything bad about himself -- here, that he has a privileged lifestyle. But, it was a punishing question and immediately brought to mind the youtube video of him combing his hair to the sounds of "I feel pretty".

Biggest mistake: Obama rambling on about Nato and not naming Israel as one of our best allies. Given his name and the rumors about his upbringing, that was a softball he could have hammered, and didn't.

Next biggest mistake. Edwards, who seemed left out for a long period of time, was asked who his moral leader was. He looked up for a long time, and then listed god and everyone in his family as his guiding lights. Should have said Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt -- I don't care. Why was his first answer -- his Lord -- less strange or cloying than when Bush said Jesus was his favorite philosopher? These guys should be ready for that question after seeing Dukakis and Bush handle it poorly in past years.

Worst job: Mike Gravel. Just being old and surly doesn't get the job done. You got the feeling that he would have been calling Ralph Nader a right wing nut, if he were on the stage with him.

Best answer: The verbose Joe Biden, being asked if he could assure Americans that he was not a human gaffe maching, said "Yes" and shut up. I suspect he was ready for that one.

Best tactic: Kucinic, by being the odd man out whenever raised hands were called for, drew questions from Brian Williams, the host.

Biggest dud: That's Dodd. Nothing personal, but he has zero electricity. He looks the part, but doesn't walk or talk it.

Most passionate: Kucinic. He has vision. Not one I, or I think most Americans share, but vision. I think he believes it's a nicer world than it is. Gravel is too surly to win that one, although he obviously has passion too.

Biggest lesson for me: I will not likely vote for any of them if they don't convince me that they recognize the threat of Iran and global terrorism. Giuliani just got ripped for saying the Democrats would put us back on defensive. I don't want to vote for Giuliani (see my earlier posting on why not) but boy, he sure seemed right tonight. However much Iraq has blown up in our face, doesn't mean we should pack the armed forces in crates.

Biggest disappointment: Richardson. I still like him, but I was disappointed by his call for a conference on Iraq including Iran and Syria. I have no problem talking with them, but I would not include them in any group with us where some concensus is required. He also shows himself more liberal than I would like, but then again, McCain, my favorite on the right, has leaned too far that way for my tastes too. They understand that you have to win the nomination first before you win the election. We hate that, but it is a fact of life.

Best point.: Biden. He is right that Iraq should have been divided up into three parts. I have felt that way since 2004. The Kurds deserve it. If the Sunnis and Shias want a country, they should prove it.

Biggest kiss ass: Also Biden. Kissed Hillary's ass once, and Bill's another time.

Best and only prop: Dennis Kucinic holding up a pocket Constitution published by the Cato Institute. I carry a copy around too sometimes. Pretty sure I never whipped it out in an argument.

Biggest plus: Brian Williams makes up a little for his horrible interview of Ahmadinejad this past year. Good job.

Who should find other things to do? Gravel, immediately. Dodd, definitely. Biden, did not do bad, but still doesn't have a shot. Kucinic, of course, but he is entertaining. He's this year's Sharpton. Richardson, really needed to impress here, and did not. However, I still like him for VP nominee. Biden seems to be aiming for that post under Clinton -- but two Northeastern Senators on a ticket? I don't think so, if they want any shot in the rest of the country outside of the two coasts. Richardson can hang in a while, but his play for the top spot dimmed even more tonight. Edwards showed little, I thought fared poorly, but he has enough standing to hang in their with the two big dogs also, at least for a little while.

Besides, I'd like to know how many people watched this anyway.

March 2007 update for 2008 Presidential campaign

Democrats

Why is there so much buzz this week about Bill Richardson? This buzzing keeps saying, yeah, he should be the guy, but he can’t win. This is the most likely VP candidate, whoever wins, because he brings so much to the ticket --Hispanic vote, Southwest vote, foreign and administrative experience. He also has the only reasonable outside chance for the nomination win if the front runners blow up. The usual qualifications about it being way too early to tell apply here, of course, but what fun would it be not to make predictions.

The forecast here is that Richardson will be the only nominee left running with more than a nominal share of the pledged electors after the February 5th primaries next year excluding, of course, Obama and Clinton. He will be perfectly positioned to throw his support to either of the front runners, locking in his own VP selection. This makes him very important. And yet, I can’t shake this weird feeling that if there is any Bill Clinton/Jimmy Carter-small-state-governor-comes-from-nowhere-to-win-it-all story, he is it.

That also means that John Edwards will no longer be in it after the first big primary (which will include California and probably New York), if he even gets that far. His campaign is already spinning wheels despite the emotional uptick he probably expects from the emotional news conference this week involving his wife’s cancer. Everyone thinks that Edwards is a nice guy, a smart guy (even if they disagree with his policies) and there is not a whiff of scandal about him. Nevertheless, visceral reactions are so important in presidential politics. The image the youthful looking and handsome Edwards gives casts is an inexperienced but pretty deer caught in the headlights. Bambi is probably the right image.

Edwards is too Southern for the North and too liberal for the South. The taint of failure, although more Kerry’s fault than his own, still sticks to him and won’t be forgotten quickly. If he were my opponent I would be thankful for the hysterical video of him combing his hair and making up his face, to the West Side Story, I Feel Pretty. If you haven’t seen it, Google it now.

Besides, do you know one likely voter, who says they are for Edwards.

As for Al Gore and the rumors that he is going to use his Oscar to vault into the race -- oh, c’mon. If you had watched him testify to the Congress this week, you’d know why he can’t win. Even when he is on HIS topic, global warming, he speaks in such a so slow, drawn out fashion, it is just too painful to think about listening to him for four years. More wooden than he used to be. And I voted for him in 2000.

However, he clearly slimmed down quite a bit since his appearance on the Oscars a few weeks ago. Some say that is because he is going to run. Maybe its just because he is going to run, or he got a good look at himself in the mirror.

Republicans

Someone who has gone under the radar yet deserves at least a small how do you do, is Congressman Duncan Hunter, Republican representative from San Diego. His campaign will not go anywhere fast with heavyweights like McCain and Giuliani in the field, but his presidential sounding name (it’s the one a novelist would pick), his long resume in Congress and his conservative credentials, suggest he is another likely VP candidate, as it would go a long way to succoring the social conservatives who are a little queasy about Giuliani and McCain. Here’s a mini-bio if you have never heard of him:

Vietnam veteran
lawyer
Elected to House of Representatives in 1980 (San Diego)
House Armed Services Committee from the get go.
4 years as chairman until the Democrats took over the house this year

A few words about Newt Gingrich. He spoke in public recently along with Mario Cuomo at Cooper Union (celebrating the hall where Lincoln started his campaign in 1860) and also once with Senator Chuck Schumer (I suspect they have the same publisher as Gingrich has been plugging Schumer’s book, and that’s just weird). Gingrich’s observation that Democrats and Republicans should campaign on the same stage to help take the poison out of the system was shown to be true, as these were both civil and fascinating discussions.

Gingrich is, in my humble opinion, whether or not you agree with his politics, simply the most ingenious and articulate of all the potential or actual candidates. He brims with new ideas about national security, technology, healthcare, education, fund raising and the ridiculous length of the campaign season. So, it’s a shame that . . .

. . . he is just far too partisan. His actions leading the House while Clinton was in office were politically successful and severely damaged both the president and the Democratic party, as well as the country. That degree of aggression towards political adversaries comes with a big price. It is why he is no longer Speaker or even in the Congress at all. Besides that, his interest in bringing MORE religion into politics almost certainly rules him out for those of us who want a secular government. If Gingrich runs at all, he says he will not announce until the Fall. In the meantime, if you get a chance, listen to him talk. He is his own think tank.

Republican Representative Ron Paul from Texas, really a small “l” libertarian, has announced his candidacy on C-Span last week. He is one of the few Republicans running who is against the war. Paul is a physician who has been in and out of Congress for a while now. Libertarians often attract and repel people from both parties. Paul would attract Democrats with his anti-war position, but repel them with his strong pro-life stance. Visa versa for the Republicans. Personally, he is hard not to like, but lacks anything one might mistake for charisma. Look for him to go nowhere in a hurry.

As for the big boys, Rudy and McCain (which sounds like a good title for a tv show), my early prejudice towards McCain looks wobbly because Giuliani has been literally doubling his numbers in polls. Despite the odds against him, I’m sticking with my tentative pick for the meantime. If McCain can stay focused and calm, I believe that Giuliani’s negatives will start to be noticed, particularly his tyrannical ways and his first amendment debacles (see my post from a few weeks ago). Also, although it should not matter at all, the video of him in drag flirting with Donald Trump is going to be played over and over again. I appreciate politicians who dress in drag. But, it is really creepy to see. If the Democrats are smart, they will not mention it and let the video play on people’s mind.

However, McCain’s strategy of sidling up to Social Conservatives hasn’t worked because they will not forgive him for bucking the Bush administration on too many issues, which they don’t believe Giuliani will do, despite his socially liberal views (they are wrong about that). At the same time, McCain is alienating moderates and independents with his pro-War position. He should take a note from Gingrich and fire every consultant he has. No one believes the Straight Talk Express is anything but a name this time.

What’s next?

The debates next month. This may be the first time we all get to hear the candidates practice the canned speeches that pose as authentic answers to questions which they will then repeat over and over again for the next 19 months or so until we want to scream. Get ready for hypocrisy, which is usually overwhelming, but try and have a sense of humor about it.