How the Republicans can win the White House

OK, it's time for me to do what I've been threatening for some time now, and that's to write a post about the issues (as I see 'em) in the upcoming 2008 presidential election. Before I get there, just a quick digression...

I've been following the democratic race as avidly (perhaps more so) as I have the Republicans. Now, I'll never be able to vote for a Democratic candidate because they're completely at odds with my own beliefs in small government, but I just love the passion and personality embodied by Barack Obama. I've never cared for either Hillary or John Edwards, but I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Hillary's hubby, Slick Willy. That's why I have been so surprised at the totally uncharacteristic behaviors I've seen him exhibit on behalf of Hillary in the last few weeks. Bill has turned out to be just another piece of sh*t political hatchet-man, and I think we're somewhat lessened for it. I know that he has been diminished by this role, and, if Hillary can't win on her own, does she really deserve the nomination? I won't detail all of the Democratic leaders who were calling for restraint, but suffice to say that Teddy (the Chairman of the Board) Kennedy's uncharacteristic endorsement yesterday of Obama should send a strong message to the Clinton campaign.

Also, at the time I'm writing this, it appears as though John McCain has won the Florida Republican primary, effectively ending the Giuliani campaign. At this time, it appears to be a 2-horse race between Johnny Mac and Mitt Romney, although Huckabee, like herpes, refuses to fade. Full disclosure, I'm supporting John McCain.

At this time, it feels as though the Democrats do have all the momentum. It also feels as though the Republicans will have a Sysiphean effort to overcome the damage that President Bush and the last Republican congress have done to the party. Still, for the right candidate, there's an opportunity; Republican candidates do possess some innate strengths that they need to capitalize on if they are to retain the White House. First and foremost though, before we get to the issues, here are the nuts-n-bolts things that the nominee has to do in order to win:

1. (Re)-Introduce himself to the electorate - coming out of the primary, the focus has been in many ways on playing (some might say pandering) to the party base. The candidate needs to allow the American public to get to know him on a personal level
2. Clearly enunciate his stand on the issues. No ambiguity, no pandering, no bullsh*t, what you believe in, and why. Hire good staff to help explain it and message it appropriately. Study the opposition arguments and for God's sake, understand them. Be prepared to explain in a simple, folksy way, why his position is superior. Don't fall into the trap that Bush did with personal Social Security accounts (just an example); be prepared to go blow-for-blow with the Dems as far as explaining your position, and please, please be prepared to modify your message as required - nobody wants to hear a robot. Note that this is largely the reason Huckabee is so popular and likable.
3. Don't be evasive - or coy, or act like you have something to hide. If you're John McCain, get your act together on economics and be able to speak intelligently about it. If you don't know something, hey, admit it - people respect honesty, but make damn sure that the next time you're asked, you have an intelligent response. While we're at it, let's agree to let Ronald Reagan rest in peace. The 80's were a different time, and while I love Reagan, the challenges we face today aren't necessarily going to be addressed by the prescriptions of the Reagan administration
4. Be very careful about going negative - I know it works, but a lot of people frown on it. There are good ways to contrast your positions with your opponents that don't involve mudslinging; try like hell to stay away from it. Demonstrate a willingness to depart from business as usual in Washington. Showcase the ability to build bipartisan support - and in a related note that all Democrats are not evil (with perhaps the exception of John Edwards, Harry Reid, and Charlie Rangel).

The Economy

This is going to be a tougher issue for the Republican nominee. There's a rising tide of populism throughout the nation that makes the message of tax cuts and smaller government a difficult one to get out. Bottom line is that the candidate needs to buckle down and come up with an economic package that embraces tax cutting and then be able to explain why it's important. You probably don't want to go after estate tax repeal, but a few years back there was some bi-partisan support for raising the estate size exclusion; revisit that. If you meet resistance, get family farmers/small-business owners up on the pulpit with you and put a face on the issue. Tax reform is too difficult to campaign on; any reform you propose (Fair Tax, Flat Tax, etc.) will have you fighting the left with little gain. You may however have to go there to show you have original ideas and to further distinguish yourself from the status quo. The other potential reason to espouse tax reform is that there's a growing segment of the population that pays no taxes at all - guess how they vote. It becomes increasingly less difficult for the representatives of the non-taxpaying class to raise taxes on the remainder of the populace who do. I mean, talk about class warfare - there should be a way to frame an argument for everyone paying their fair share, but it's gonna be hard.

More importantly than taxes, the Republican candidate needs to wage ware on spending. He needs to put Congress on notice that earmarks are done. He should make a passionate argument for returning the line-item veto. If the candidate is Romney or Giuliani, there were already some good ideas; especially Rudy's idea about not hiring back 50% of the federal workforce that's slated to retire over the next few years. This isn't an overt cut, it's just not re-hiring; what a great idea. Assuming Romney has gotten over his urge to experiment with government-sponsored healthcare, we assume as a former Bain official that he has some decent economic ideas. Romney would potentially be a great Treasury secretary. McCain will have the toughest problem on economic issues; and he's going to have to do a lot of damage control to repair the incredibly stupid admission that he "Doesn't know that much - but has Greenspan's book...". At least he's a hawk on spending. He'll need to get some old-time religion on tax policy to beef up his bona fides.

Trade

Republicans have always been the party of free trade; even Mr. Clinton embraced NAFTA. I think it's appropriate at this time though, to be prepared to broaden the discussion a bit. The days of "fast-track" authority on trade agreements for the executive branch are gone and won't be returning any time soon. Any agreements that are made in the future are going to require bipartisan support, and I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Now, I'm a long way from my ECON classes in college/grad school, but I read recently that the theory of comparative advantage may need to be tweaked somewhat. I think that the last 15-20 years have also shown us that there are winners and losers from free trade, and that U.S. workers are not necessarily on the winning end in most cases (compared to U.S. consumers who most assuredly are). Republicans need to understand this, and work to help shrink the skills gap that emerges as unskilled labor flees offshore. While this most certainly means increased spending, the longer term increases in revenues from an increased salary base (resulting from a more skilled labor pool) should provide an appropriate return - look what happened after WWII with the G.I. Bill.

Also falling into the Trade category, is the concept of federal subsidies. This, as with many other topics is inextricably tied to spending. The subsidies for farmers that we've passed over the last 2 decades are shameful. Something like 80% of farm subsidy dollars go to corporate mega-farming operations (think ADM, Tyson, etc.) and to "family" farm operations with annual incomes in the millions of dollars. We're also in constant trouble with world trade organizations because of these subsidies, and for Democrats who consider themselves the protectors of the poor, these subsidies directly harm poor farmers in other nations who do not share our economic and technological advantages. In a similar vein, the Republican candidate has to work to kill Ethanol subsidies. If it can compete with oil, then let it sink or swim on its own merit. Same for sugar (one of the more egregious subsidies out there).

Energy

Here's an area where we really need to depart from "politics as usual". We cannot ignore what has happened with fossil fuels in the last 4 years. Global demand is surging, as a burgeoning middle-class in India and China have moved from an agrarian subsistence to an urban one. We need original ideas, that focus on both the supply and demand sides of the equation. On the supply side, we need to look at common-sense approaches to opening new areas (ANWR, offshore) to exploration. We need to look at ways to helping expand refinery capacity. We need a plan to counter Chinese influence in Africa to help lock up trade agreements with these newly found centers of oil wealth. Ethanol may play a role in our energy policy. If so, let's drop tariffs on Ethanol imports; let the domestic players compete as they can, but drop the damn subsidies. We need to embrace nuclear power - this needs to be centerpiece of the policy. Europe has been deploying nuclear safely for over 40 years; we need to get by the fear and understand that it's an effective way to generate power.

I'm not a huge fan of targeting a single industry (automobile), but a minor increase in CAFE standards seems appropriate. The Republican nominee needs to take a stand against California's "rogue" plan for legislating automobile efficiency - state rights don't trump the EPA. It might be appropriate to increase the gas tax; it has held steady at (I believe) 18.4 cents/gallon for 25 years. God knows we need the infrastructure investment. And yes, I realize the inconsistency with my normal anti-tax message - but here's an issue that cries out for bipartisan solutions, and increasing the gas tax isn't wholly regressive (unlike say, increasing the cigarette tax).

Finally, tax policies need to favor investment in alternative energy sources (wind, geothermal, battery technology, etc.). We need to harness the entrepreneurial engine of our economy and challenge them to come up with new ideas. Proper incentives will help spur this investment.

National Security

A Republican candidate needs a plan for Iraq. It doesn't necessarily have to involve an exit, but it certainly needs to address the inability of the Iraqi government to hit certain milestones. Again, in the interest of full-disclosure, I'm against the war, but for a different reason than most. I'm not morally opposed to it, although I think in general that the American public has lost it's stomach for war. I'm opposed to war because of the cost, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. A Republican candidate must understand that while the surge is working, it's not a long-term strategy, and eventually we'll start cycling home those additional soldiers. I think we need to define an acceptable security presence and start radically reducing the U.S. footprint.

We need to categorically disavow torture. The Bush administration has diminished us greatly by refusing to do so, and this needs to be addressed. We must regain the moral high-ground in this argument. It's OK to give everyone from the previous administration a "get out of jail free card" on the past, but from this point forward it stops. On a similar note, we need to close Guantanamo. Give the detainees access to lawyers, and let's get the process rolling. It needs to be closed down in the first 2 years of the next president's term.

Finally, we need to start rolling back some of the powers accrued to the executive branch over the past 8 years. We need to repeal major versions of the Patriot act, an assault on civil liberties that would make Stalin happy. I don't care if Osama Bin Laden himself is calling me at home, you better by God have a FISA warrant before you wiretap my phone. We need to move beyond a culture of secrecy, and embrace transparency. We need to quit using signing statements to reinterpret the laws that our representatives pass on our behalf.

We need to communicate to the American people the balance that must be struck between civil liberties and convenience, and protecting our citizenry. Nothing is free, but we are perhaps, paying too high a price for safety now. In any case, we need to broaden the debate and make it public. I know that I'd be willing to give up some protection to make flying bearable again - there are others who'd disagree with me, but we should have the debate!

Immigration

Personal disclosure time - I'm all about fairness. When I was a kid, my younger brother was diagnosed as being allergic to, well basically everything. What this meant was that he got an allergy shot every week and a free pass when it came to yard work as he couldn't be around cut grass. I never got over the fact that I still had to do my share of the work, while he sat inside watching TV. I've carried this fairness doctrine around my whole life, so, naturally when I see any immigration plan that doesn't deport anyone who's here illegally, or punish employers who hired these illegals, I get righteous about it.

However... Trying to address immigration by departing approximately 13 million people is about as practical as a fish on a bicycle. It ain't gonna happen, and Republicans on the far right (Tom Tancredo) need to get over it. McCain endorsed a bipartisan plan that called for illegals to:

• Return home
• Pay a substantial fine

Only then would they receive a shot at citizenship. This seems reasonable - it ain't perfect, but it's reasonable. Look, the Republican candidate cannot afford to alienate the hispanic vote. They're a natural constituency - conservative and religious, and they represent an increasing percentage of the electorate in more states than you'd imagine. The proper immigration policy can go a long way to locking these voters up for a generation, especially if a Republican president leads the way.

Immigration needs to be controlled. A national ID card is probably worth pursuing, as is English as a national language. The ID card plays well with the Security crowd, and I can't understand those opposed to the English language argument, so push it.

Immigration is important for our country. Our birth rates have fallen for the last quarter century. We need immigrants to replenish the workforce as the baby boomers retire. Immigrants also will increasingly take service sector jobs in healthcare that assist in caring for our aging population. We need a guest worker program that accepts the imbalances that exist in certain wage sectors. We need to work with our neighbors (Mexico) to help them address the corruption and economic problems that force their citizens to flee to opportunities in the U.S. And yes, we do need to secure the border, but let's do it as part of a comprehensive reform package, not as some prerequisite for reform.

That's the illegal side. Now, let's chat briefly about the legal side, specifically H1visas that allow high-tech workers to come into the country to work. Every year, these are exhausted quickly, and papers like the Wall Street Journal consistently align with companies like Microsoft, etc to increase the number of these visas due to perceived shortages in these high-skilled positions. Gotta tell you, having been in high-tech for almost 25 years, this is pure bullshit. The reason we love the H1 visas is that we can pay those workers less money than our own citizens. Most of these people are not employed directly by U.S. companies, rather they are hired by foreign consultancies with a U.S. presence who then provide them as contract personnel to U.S. firms at a fraction of the hourly cost charged by their native counterparts.

I realize this is somewhat of an anti-business argument, but I lived through the dot-com implosion of 2001, and I know that hiring never really recovered in high-tech, and I've always felt that we could do a better job protecting our own high-tech workers. Let's have a plan for providing tax relief/credits/incentives for retraining and rehiring U.S. high-tech workers. I feel very strongly about this.

Healthcare

Something has to give here. I fear the rising populist cry for government-sponsored care. As of this writing, a $14 billion plan for universal care was shot down in California. The reason? It costs too damn much. States are (mostly) required to balance their budgets. Most of them cannot come up with ways to reconcile the cost of these universal plans without debilitating tax increases to pay for them. Even (state) Democrats realize that the magnitude of the required tax burden would kill growth as surely as the red-shirted guy in a Star Trek landing party.

The feds have no such balanced budget requirement (see the deficit of the last 8 years), and will show no restraint whatsoever in order to pass Universal healthcare, the Holy Grail of liberals - call it the New, New Deal. The Republican candidate will really have his work cut out for him here. He will need a great set of advisors to come up with a free-market approach to help counter the Democratic plan. Personally, I loved the plan that Bush touted last year about giving $15K deductions for healthcare to families to account for the benefit received by workers. Fundamentally, I feel healthcare needs to:

• Be personal - not free, and not necessarily employee-sponsored. I'd much prefer an additional $10-15K in income and be responsible for purchasing my own insurance than having my company do it on my behalf. You can bet that under such a system people will become more price-conscious pretty quickly
• Be portable - although if it's personal, it's portable by definition
• Be competitive - we need to get rid of the restrictions that don't allow selling of policies across state lines. This allows states to dictate benefit terms which drive up prices. If I don't need chiropractic care, I shouldn't be forced to buy a policy that includes it. New Jersey has some of the highest mandated coverage requirements in the country; I guess an average policy is around $7500/year. Why shouldn't an individual in NJ be able to buy a policy from, say, Wyoming if it provides the appropriate coverage for his/her situation
• Provide a catastrophic backstop. Some small payroll tax could be levied to provide catastrophic (last resort) illness/injury insurance, which would help keep prices down for certain user-populations
• Provide coverage for children. With limits. SCHIP is a good program, and I believe that the income limits set by the federal government are good ones, but we may need to be flexible here.

Whew!

Well, 3200 words later, I'm all talked out. I don't expect everyone to agree with what I've advised here, but remember, I'm trying to frame the issues for someone like a John McCain to take on someone like a Hillary Clinton. Personally, I feel that if Obama gets the Democratic nomination, the Republicans could run Jesus Christ and lose. At least Hillary is beatable; a polarizing figure with huge negatives. If nothing else, it sure as hell won't be boring!

The joy of flying...

So, I'm writing this post from the lovely Manchester, NH airport. The reason I'm writing the post is because I find myself with time to write a post. In fact, I've got enough frickin' time to start War and Peace if I want; probably finish the damn thing too. Now, I'm not what you'd call a road warrior. I travel very infrequently, in fact, I try to pick jobs that require me to travel less than 5% or none at all. What this means is that I don't really understand the ins and outs of flying the way that people who do this stuff for a living do. Here's what I do know:

Flying sucks.

I know, most of you are saying, "Duh - just figure that out didya"? Well, you're right of course. Every time I've flown in the last 5 years, though, something has pretty much gone wrong. I guess the real problem I have is that it doesn't have to be this way. See, we've all heard the horror stories about people stranded on a jet on the runway for hours with no water, no clean bathrooms, etc. Ultimately, these sorts of delays are inevitable, and are in large part due to anachronistic rules that penalize common-sense behaviors and an even greater anachronism embodied by our Air-Traffic Control (ATC) infrastructure. I've read lots of articles in the past year as airline service and delays have worsened, and basically they all say that we're now paying the price for the antiquated ATC with rationing by delay. Quick aside, this is one sort of outcome we'll migrate to if we institute some form of nationalized healthcare - ask a Canadian how long s/he has to wait for a (routine in the U.S.) hip-replacement operation - but we digress.

See, the paralysis of our government to actually do something about the ATC is cause nobody wants to be the one to spend the money modernizing it. It'll run well into the billions, and with a democratic Congress, you can bet there will be snowball fights in hell before we privatize things; so we're pretty much stuck with the current system until:

1. Service becomes so shitty that somebody loses/wins an election based on the state of air travel
2. Some catastrophic accident is laid at the feet of government - nothing mobilizes spending like disaster (see Katrina)

So, we're pretty much stuck with the structural problems that exist because we'd rather spend money financing pork-barrel projects in Congressional districts and other worthless tripe. And hey, I'm strangely OK with it (numb is probably a better term), cause air travel pretty much sucks for everyone - I don't think anybody is making out on this. Here's my problem. Whenever something does go wrong, there's just a complete breakdown of anything resembling efficient and genuine communications from the airline employees. I'm sitting here now, cause, as near as I can figure based on information from the gate attendant:

"There's some sort of mechanical problem, and the dipshit pilot won't let anybody but a United Airlines (UA) mechanic address the problem. And, the only UA mechanics are in Boston. And Boston is approximately 90 minutes away. Oh, and it's snowing. Good luck, and thanks for choosing United."

Really not very satisfactory is it? An the whole "I need a UA mechanic" just drips with stupidity doesn't it? Either the pilot is a dumbass (and believe me, I don't have a huge amount of respect for these guys anymore), or there is some sort of equally dumbass rule in place that requires a UA mechanic. The subtle subtext to this is that the maintenance that seems to be needed is apparently pretty routine; I'm mean we're not talking about replacing a tail assembly.

Now, to their credit, the Gate guys are doing a pretty good job. They're helping to rebook connecting flights, but right now, none of us has any real idea about the outcome of this first leg of our journey (nobody flies UA out of Manchester to their ultimate destination). I mean, somebody has to know whether or not this flight is going to be canceled, or at least the probability of a cancelation. It's this assault on common-sense that's so frustrating, and usually (not, thankfully in this case), it's accompanied by a startling lack of civility on the part of the airline employees.

So, I'll probably sit here for 2-3 more hours, having rebooked by Chicago-Seattle connection at least one more time. I may even have to return home if the flight is ultimately canceled, but obviously nobody will tell us that for hours. Guess it could be worse, I could be stuck on the plane on the runway with no water, two screaming kids, and overflowing toilets...

Blogging Fun...

So, I was looking for a blogging client application for the Mac. As you're aware, my blogs are hosted on Google's Blogger application site. I had been spoiled by the Windows Live Writer application (for PC's only) by Microsoft. Now, as a general rule, other than their developer tools and MS-SQL server, I don't really think about Microsoft as writing particularly compelling software, but I gotta give 'em some props here. The Live Writer application is quite simply the best blogging client I've worked with, and believe me, I've seen a ton over the last week.

I'm not going to critique every application I've tried, but I will say that there's nothing on the Mac that even approaches the Microsoft offering. It's intuitive, provides a great editing (WYSIWYG) environment, and is extremely compatible with various blogging platforms. Setup is a dream, and publishing is a snap. I'll never abandon the Mac for personal use, but I'm definitely looking forward to an Intel-based system that will allow me to run Windows so that I can get back to using Live Writer!

I finally settled on Ecto for the Mac. It's pretty nice, and provides a reasonable blogging implementation. In particular, what really swayed me was its ability to embed pictures for Blogger. Apparently this is hard (God only knows why) and other blogging clients just "punt" on this feature, or you have to jump through so many hoops that it would be easier to just do the damn blog on the web to begin with. In any case, if you're looking for a Mac blogging client, I'm gonna have to say that Ecto leads the pack at this point. Briefly, it offers:

• A good Rich Text editor
• The ability to edit HTML directly if needed
• The ability to embed images (import from disk, iPhoto, or Flickr) for Blogger
• Nice posting management interface - delete posts locally and on the server
• At about $18.00, a compelling price

All-in-all, a pretty nifty package that's growing on me the more I use it. Quickly, here are some of the other Mac clients that I investigated - any one of them may be better for you.

Journler - primarily a journaling application, this also provides Blogging support, but if it works (and it doesn't often), it's not very robust, and, they're dropping blogging support in the next release. Really nice journaling application though.

Mars Edit - probably a blogging client for real power-users. Mostly wants you to use HTML editing to author your posts. Has some nice features, but just not easy enough for me to use. I have basic needs for blogging and this felt like hunting rabbits with an elephant gun. More than I could handle.

Mac Journal - another journaling tool, and pretty damn decent blogging support. I would have chosen this one due to the combination of an excellent journaling application and a blogging client, but for one reason: I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to embed pictures in the blog posts, and the support forum didn't seem to want to tell me how either, even though a lotta people seemed to have the same problems.

So, thought I'd dump this out there for anyone who's looking for a Mac blogging client. On the Windows side, you can't go wrong with Live Writer - highest recommendation from me.

People I really dislike...

Today I thought I'd take a break from political discussion and have a little fun. Frankly I'm too tired to start into a post about the "Issues as I See 'Em", and what I'm about to do I've been thinking about for some time. See, I've decided to do a column about people I'd like to hit. I'll follow it up with a "people I respect" column, but first, let's get the bad guys outta the way. Please note that I'm pretty much bipartisan in my loathing of the individuals you're about to meet. There are basically assholes on the right and left, and I'm not someone to let 'em off the hook just cause I skew a bit conservative. If I had to generalize about the unlikability (I made that word up) of either end of the political spectrum, I'd have to say that liberals are annoying geeks (think "Revenge of the Nerds" without the comedy), and conservatives are bullies (think Biff in "Back to the Future"). So, without any further ado, my list of least likable people...

______________________________________________

Paul Krugman - New York Times opinion page columnist. This uber-liberal economist really makes me wanna scream. His prescription for every problem facing America today is more government, more taxes, more spending. One of the leading proponents of nationalized healthcare, he praises Europe for extensive "social safety net". A trained economist, has had some legendary showdowns with Bill O'Reilly which are quite comical. Writes a blog, The Conscience of a Liberal which is sort of a long-running screed for increased government intervention/regulation. To his credit, he's a really smart guy, with some genuinely interesting views - I just can't tolerate his smug, I'm smarter than you are, attitude. I'm betting he got his lunch money stolen a lot as a kid - hell, I want to beat him up and take his lunch money now. As much as I disagree with his policies however, he is one of the guys I read just about every day. As a general rule I can't tolerate him on TV, but he does a nice job of arguing the liberal agenda, and he's certainly not as strident as the MoveOn.org crowd.

Bill O'Reilly - Fox news anchor. This guy is fascinating, it's like watching Jerry Springer on crystal meth. His show is surreal, but like a car wreck, strangely fascinating. O'Reilly pretty much has one decibel level (loud) and it's generally being used to harangue some poor "guest" who's hopelessly trying to make a counterpoint. I often find myself wondering whether or not this guy really believes the tripe he's serving - I mean, nobody can be this gonzo, this far out there, right? My hope is that this is just a ploy to keep the idiots tuning in every week. He has made gobs of money with his books and merchandise (No Spin - right), and It saddens me to think that he's still (I believe) the highest rated "news" show on cable. Doesn't say much for the heartland. But, it's like something I heard once - "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public"

Rush Limbaugh - Right-wing talk-radio political pundit and gas-bag. Another guy who's helping make conservatism a dirty word. I mean it's no wonder that north of 40% of people self-identify as Democrats when asked when Limbaugh's out there spouting his vitriolic bullshit. During the 2006 interim elections, he indicated that Michael J. Fox might have been faking his condition to garner sympathy for stem-cell research. What an ass. It was demeaning to anyone affected by Parkinson's (full disclosure, my grandfather suffered from it as well). Anyway, there's a point in the movie WarGames, when Dr. John McKittrick (Dabney Coleman) calls General Beringer (Barry Corbin), a "pig-eyed sack of shit". I've always felt that this was prescient and written with Limbaugh in mind

George Soros - another extreme liberal. A chief player (contributor ~$5 million) behind MoveOn.org. Of all the guys mentioned in this blog, this guy's the one I want to hit the most. He reminds me most of Mel Brooks' Governor Lepetomane character in Blazing Saddles. I'm pretty sure that at some point a young George Bush stole a young George Soros' lunch money (and his prom date) (and yes, I know they're not contemporaries, but the visual is nice). There's little I can say about this guy. With a liberal like Krugman (see above), at least there's a modicum of respect there, you know. With Soros, it's just a visceral dislike.

Bill Belichick - a mishapen little toad of a man with no tact or tolerance; an arrogant prick. Responsible for destroying the Cleveland Browns franchise, then proclaimed a genius after achieving (not inconsiderable) success with the New England Patriots. In the process, screwed over the New York Jets. This guy, I really hate, and I mean that in the Biblical sense. I'd like to see him get herpes and the crabs. There's nothing worse than being a Browns fan and watching this guy get the results he's had AND have to live in New England; it's like I'm stuck in some special circle of hell that Dante didn't write about because it was too painful. Oh, and he cheats.

OK - so these guys are at the top of the "I don't like 'em" list. Honorable mention goes to:

1. Sean Hannity
2. Tom Brady
3. Arianna Huffington
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Tom Tancredo
6. Al Sharpton
7. Jesse Jackson

2008 Presidential Candidates Part 2 - The Republicans

So yesterday we looked at the Democratic frontrunners. For those of you who have been living under a rock, last night's Iowa caucus handed Barack Obama a fairly decisive win. Looks like second went to John Edwards, and third to Hillary (is it significant when someone is referred to only by their first name?). I'm not a pundit like Chris Matthews (my current favorite on cable), but this would seem to bode ill for the Clinton campaign. We'll see.

The results of the Iowa caucus are shown in the graphic to the left here, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal. As you can see, it looks like Edwards and Clinton are in a virtual tie for second, but Obama had a clear (and significant) advantage.

On the Republican side, Huckabee turned out the evangelical vote to a pretty much one-sided win. Romney was a distant second, and, while the graphic shows Thompson ahead of McCain, for all intents and purposes McCain finished tied for third. The McCain showing (along with the surprisingly strong Huckabee win) should trouble Mitt Romney greatly. Hell, McCain didn't really bother to campaign in Iowa having committed political heresy by suggesting that he was against ethanol and farm subsidies.

Romney outspent Huckabee in the last few weeks by a factor of almost six and he still couldn't get it done. If I'm Romney, I'm thinking about what I can do for the Beijing Olympics in 2008, or at the very least shaking up my campaign team a bit.

On the Democratic side, this has to be the worst possible outcome for Mrs. Clinton. She would have been fine with a second-place finish to anyone but Obama. However, this coupled with a virtual tie for second with Edwards has to be judged a disastrous finish - so much for being the anointed one. I would imagine that this is the end for Edwards (sigh of relief); he pretty much banked everything on Iowa, so a loss really hurts him. If he drops out, it will be interesting to see who he endorses. Neither Clinton nor Obama share his angry partisan fury, but my guess is that he jumps on board the Obama bandwagon - there's no love lost for Clinton there. Sadly, Joe Biden (and not so sadly Chris Dodd) have dropped out of the Democratic races.

Without further babbling, here's how the GOP candidates shake out - remember, we'll only go in depth on the top-tier candidates.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mitt Romney - The Mormon candidate. Actually unfair, he's running as the "gets things done" candidate who's ready to revive the Ronald Reagan brand. This year's answer to John Kerry, has been consistently inconsistent on many issues. Formerly pro-gay, now anti-gay, a bit of a waffler on the second amendment, he seems to have struggled to find his sweet spot. Now part of this could be due to the fact that he has time and again had to defend the Mormon religion, which I thought he had done fairly eloquently, but I think it's more that people are having a difficult time determining what he really stands for. Actually, the John Kerry comparison up front was unkind, he's more like the Republican Hillary Clinton; very data (poll) driven, always looking to triangulate on an issue, he seems to have very little legitimacy.

Personally, I like the guy, but I'll never vote for him for one reason; he pushed through the government-run healthcare fiasco in Massachusetts when he was that state's Governor (up till 2006). This has been a disaster since day one. It's most egregious clause is the personal mandate, which is basically being discarded everywhere because the cost of providing all the frills associated with what passes for a minimum insurance policy in Massachusetts is pretty much beyond the means of most of the residents the bill intended to serve in the first place. It also places a penalty on businesses over a certain size that don't offer insurance. So, if I'm one of those businesses that's close the the threshold, and I can't afford to provide health insurance, you can damn sure bet I'm gonna be reducing staff below the penalty line. In any case, I'm not gonna launch into a screed on healthcare (we'll do the issues in another column), but increased government intervention sure doesn't sound like the "Party of Reagan" to me, and I don't care if he did "reach across the aisle" to get it done - I mean hell, show me a state with a larger percentage of Democrats that MA; not like they weren't falling over themselves to get government-run healthcare done!

Mike Huckabee - The social conservative candidate. Really likeable guy, but since I couldn't give a damn about the social conservative agenda, not really my guy. Good sense of humor, quick wit, one of those guys you'd like to have a beer with, but since he's an former Baptist minister, he probably doesn't drink beer (or screw standing up - looks too much like dancing) so that's probably not gonna happen. Has really rallied the evangelicals in Iowa, and as shown above, has pretty much come out of nowhere not 8 weeks ago to deliver a pretty resounding ass-kicking to Mr. Romney in the Iowa caucus last evening. From my perspective, there's not much to recommend Huckabee - as I've said I'm absolutely quite liberal when it comes to social issues, and George Bush has pretty much proven to me that the White House is no place for religious zealotry (from those fun-lovin' guys who brought you Iraq), but there's one thing Huckabee is a winner on, and that's tax policy.

Huckabee supports the Fair Tax, which would basically replace our current personal and corporate Byzantine tax codes with a national sales tax of about 22-25%. For those of you who worry about the progressivity of such a tax, low-income earners would be given a "pre-bate" every year to offset their contribution to the tax. Huckabee would repeal the 16th amendment, and do away with income taxes for good. In one fell swoop we'd accomplish a more equitable tax system, along with significant tax reform. The tax position alone augurs well for Huckabee, but I just can't get behind a social conservative candidate. In my experience they're less tolerant, and not where the country wants their leadership to be on those issues.

Rudy Giuliani - the 9/11 candidate. I'm aligned pretty closely with Rudy. I share his views on social issues, and I like the way he managed NYC as mayor. But, I have two very large problems with Rudy. First, I don't trust him one damn bit on his position on the second amendment. As mayor, he was quite happy to try to trample on gun-owner's rights, along with attacking gun-manufacturers as well. I'm a huge believer in the 2nd amendment, and somehow Rudy's assurances that his position with respect to the presidency is more enlightened than the one he took as mayor rings a bit hollow to me (see Mitt Romney above). Second, I think he's a bit of an arrogant prick. Now some people can pull this off, I mean heck, some people think I'm an arrogant prick, but with Rudy it really annoys me.

I think that his tough-guy persona is offensive to really tough guys everywhere (not sayin' I'm tough, but I do know I could kick Rudy's ass), and some of his campaign trail antics have made me pretty sick - remember him taking the cell phone call from his wife at the NRA luncheon? He's lucky somebody didn't bust a cap in his ass, or least his cell phone (it was the NRA after all). OK - all the joking aside, a reasonable, mainstream candidate who's probably exceptionally competent and will appear to moderates and those for whom security is still a top concern. Didn't campaign in Iowa, and isn't in New Hampshire either, preferring to compete in states where he's presumably more palatable to the electorate, gunning for February 5th. I could at least see my way to voting for him in a general election, but he's not getting my primary vote. I'm saving that for...

John McCain - the experience candidate, and the candidate I'm casting my vote for in Tuesday's (01/08) New Hampshire Republican primary. There's actually a lot not to like about McCain: he wrote and jammed through congress the assault on free speech known as the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill, and, he opposed the Bush tax cuts of 2003 and beyond. But, and here's the thing that I keep coming back to with McCain, yeah there's a lot I don't like about him, but I have never once questioned his belief that he's doing the right thing for the country. From my perspective, he's the only guy who's standing tall and not tailoring his message to appeal to this or that interest group based on any sort of polling numbers.

I mean this is the guy who just rolled up a respectable third-place finish in Iowa after telling them that he didn't support farm or ethanol subsidies. Guess what, he doesn't, and he's not going to "take the pledge" in Iowa to chase votes. A president has to represent the entire country, not just a bunch of corn-growers in the Midwest. He's got a famous temper, but on him it looks good (contrast with Rudy who seems petulant). And, he's definitely the Republican I'd most like to have a beer with. A good guy, who wants what's best for the country, and has verifiable proof that he can attack problems in a non-partisan way. I'm not always gonna agree with him, but I do believe I'll always understand his positions.

Finally, this post would absolutely be remiss without a shout out to my man Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican candidate. This guys is the complete package, it's just a damn shame that he doesn't have a hope in hell of winning the primary. He's the small government candidate that I most closely align with. He's against Iraq and wants to lower taxes. He's a live-and-let-live conservative on social issues - basically a message of tolerance. Unfortunately, those of us in the real world have to deal with questions of electability, and he just ain't got it, but God, what a great story he's been!

2008 Presidential Candidates Part 1 - The Democrats

I never thought I'd write a post like this, but it seems pretty topical given that I live in Londonderry, NH, and our primary is next week on January 8th. I'll only be talking about the top tier candidates from each party in most cases. Full disclosure, I'm a registered Republican but I'm more Libertarian/Independent than anything else. My primary political hot-button topics include:

1. Lower taxes (for everyone)
2. Tax reform (see the Fair Tax)
3. Fiscal responsibility (in the form of lower spending)
4. Tort reform (Shakespeare was correct, kill 'em all - the sooner the better [heads up, this bodes ill for Mr. Edwards in my critique])

So, while I'm pretty much disgusted with the Republican party, I'm generally so ideologically opposed to the Democrats' fiscal, big-government policies that I'll "hold my nose" and vote for a Republican candidate. And, yes, I while I can vote in either party's primary, I'll vote Republican this time. I don't believe in the whole "vote in the other party's primary to hurt a particular candidate" game.

So, without further ado, let's take a look at the august body of candidates seeking to replace the big "W" in 2008. First up, let's look at the democrats.

Barack Obama - I really like this guy. Incredibly charismatic, great communications skills, and seems like a genuinely good person. Definitely one of the leaders in the "which candidate would you most like to have a beer with" contest. Love his wife as well, possibly the most photogenic candidate family since Kennedy. The hallmark of Obama's campaign seems to be tapping into the nationwide disgust with "traditional Washington" politics. Obama is running as the "candidate of change", which apparently means that if he's elected President, that things will change in Washington. Uh, right. The only way we'll get any change is if one party secures 60 votes in the Senate (unfortunately, a Democratic Senate majority of 60 seems likely given how badly the GOP has fucked things up in the past 4 years). Otherwise, trust me, it ain't happening. Like the other Democratic candidates, he's for some form of national healthcare, but to his credit (and NYT columnist Paul Krugman's dismay [see my upcoming "People I'd like to Hit" post]), he stops short of a coverage mandate. The knock on Obama has been a lack of experience (especially in foreign affairs), and he has been pretty short on substance in many policy areas, but he's certainly getting looks from a lot of people who are fed up with the status quo. Of the Democratic candidates, he's the least offensive choice in my opinion, and the only one with a snowball's chance in hell of building true bipartisan support for anything once elected.

Hillary Clinton - Running as the "experience" candidate, for the majority of 2007 she was the anointed one, the inevitability candidate. Smart lady, and (God help me) attractive in a shrewish sort of way. Problem I have with her (and she certainly doesn't have a monopoly on this), is the fact that she is always triangulating her policy positions based on the audience to whom she's speaking. Basically, that last sentence of gobbledygook means that she'll tell you whatever she thinks you want to hear based on the latest polling numbers she has access to. She champions "Universal" health-care (apparently not Hillary-care any more) with a coverage mandate and claims (with a straight face no less) that this will not increase government bureaucracy. By-the-way, a national coverage mandate means that it'll now be illegal to not have health insurance - I feel better already! One of my biggest problems with Hillary is that I honestly feel that she's a big-time liberal who believes that government should play an enormous role in the every day lives of citizens. While her husband governed from the center (and I gotta admit, I kinda liked "Slick Willie"), I truly believe she'd move pretty far to the left if elected. One other thing that I find particularly grating about her (besides her voice and laugh), is that she seems to equate her 8 years as First Lady as deep experience in foreign policy. Now, let's get this straight right now, there are 3 (maybe 4) candidates with genuine foreign policy credentials: John McCain, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and maybe Chris Dodd. Picking out place settings for state dinners doesn't count. I feel strongly about this. Hillary is talented, smart, and business-friendly. She's my second choice for Democratic nominee.

John Edwards - This guy is the anti-Christ. I mean, he's a trial lawyer for Chrissakes. To his credit, very photogenic (perhaps it's the $400 haircut [sorry, it was childish, but I couldn't resist]) and I honestly think that he really believes in his Uber-progressive policy prescriptions. Running as this year's anger candidate - think Howard Dean with a modicum of intelligence and without the screaming. He's angry at everybody: Pharmaceutical companies, Big Oil Companies, Insurance companies...You name it, if it makes money and has shareholders, he's angry with it. The most overtly left-leaning of all the candidates, Edwards is absolutely be in favor of massive income redistribution (via confiscatory personal and corporate taxes, and frivolous lawsuits). Would cap CEO pay. Would provide national healthcare with an individual mandate. Claims to be against special interests in Washington, and to his credit is not accepting contributions from them, however accepts donations from the trial bar. In short, he's a smart, charismatic guy who's tapped the vein of liberal militarism characterized by the MoveOn crowd. I can't stand him, but he'd be a formidable candidate in the general election. The think I really dislike about him, is now that he's made his money, and he and his family are set for life, he wants to take mine because he thinks he knows how better to spend it than I am. I'm not saying he's alone here, to a certain extent, all of the Democratic candidates will raise taxes, but he's the one who's most passionately in favor of class warfare.

So, these are the top 3 candidates. I'd be remiss if I didn't provide at least a shout out to Joe Biden (sorry Joe, you get a link, but not a picture). This guy is probably the smartest of the lot. Great experience, and an articulate and genuinely good guy, but a bit too full of himself at times and a bit, shall we say, verbose. I hate his politics and I'd never vote for him, but admire the hell out of him. Like John McCain, you know Joe isn't going to lie to you and he isn't going to change his views based on polling data. In the Democratic group, he's my top choice for having a beer with. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination, which is a damn shame.

Of the top three, I'd have to say that Obama represents the best chance for Democrats to reclaim the White House. The message of change resonates widely and appeals to a growing number of independent voters. Clinton is (my opinion) too polarizing - America is fed up with the dynastic government experiment (a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since the late 80's) and Hillary's negatives are too great. Edwards will appear appealing to some primary voters, but in a general election he gets his ass kicked. His best bet is (again) to run as a second on Clinton or Obama's ticket.

Since this ran on way longer than I originally intended, I'll do the Republicans in a second post later this week. I'd love to hear from you, tell me where I'm wrong!

Technorati Tags: Politics,Primary,Democrat,Election