stevebelieves

Ah, Victory...

2006-11-13T17:17:00.000-08:00

We came, we saw, we kicked their ass. The Democratic SWEEP of BOTH houses of congress was all the more satisfying not only because it gave power to Democrats but because it defeated a group of people who have talked more shit than any congress in recent history.

You see, in most political eras, any time a change has come, the incoming class freshmen has always made it a point to be gracious in victory. Not this crew, though. The 1994 GOP freshman class was cranky, rude, and just plain arrogant about their victory. In fact, if you think about it, modern Republics are always pretty arrogant whenever they win. Remember in 2002 and 2004, when they racked up congressional wins? They were collectively brimming with dire predicitions for the Democrats. You remember the drill... "The Democrat (sic) Party is becoming obsolete, we are a one-party nation, etc. etc." They couldn't just win and be done with it. They had to make sure the Democrats were laughed at and ridiculed within their ranks.

The thing Republicans forgot to remember, though, is that when you publicly ridicule someone long enough, two things happen: 1) You begin to believe your own b.s. and 2) The person you're ridiculing will eventually dust himself off and walk away. If you're still standing in the public square carrying on about how wonderful you are, that other person just might sneak up behind you. In the end, the grandstanders always lose. Just ask Goliath.

Kerry and Republican Mock Outrage

2006-11-01T17:12:00.000-08:00

It's fun watching Republicans try to get mileage out of Kerry's gaffe. You know, the one where he said that you had to get an education or you would end up in Iraq. True, he claims he was talking about Bush, but it came off as typical Kerry -- strident and too clever by half. It also followed the usual over-reaching politician's trajectory: Step 1) Say something outlandish enough to get press coverage. Step 2) Refuse to apologize. Step 3) Say you were only kidding. Step 4) Apologize.

Yep, typical Kerry. Audacious. Acrimonious. Annoying. And totally irrelevant. The point is, folks, that Kerry just doesn't really matter much these days. Thus, when the Republicans seized on his remarks and insisted on whining for a two-day news cycle, it made me realize just how desperate they really are.

Think about the precious message time the GOP gave up this week on a half-joke by a second-stringer Democrat. Republicans should have tossed Kerry's remarks aside like yesterday's newspaper. They should have been reticent to cede any airtime to anything but their positive message about all the good things they're doing for the country.

Which is exactly my point. The fact that Republicans tripped over themselves to profess outrage at Kerry's remarks means that they're desperate to fill the void in their own agenda. They have no message for change. They have no message at all. Unless you count, "Stay the course," but Bush says they never really meant that one. So, once again, Republicans are shocked -- SHOCKED! -- to hear that John Kerry misspoke. What else is new? Certainly not their agenda.

Republicans Are No Longer Conservatives

2006-07-20T16:51:00.000-07:00

The only Republicans who can truly call themselves conservatives anymore are those who disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president. Indeed, most Republicans seem to be much more interested in defending George W. Bush than they are in being actual conservatives. For instance, no self-respecting conservative would support a president who has consistently signed budgets so filled with pork that even some Democrats are saying they contain too much spending. No self-respecting conservative would support a president who has brazenly supported the surveillance of ordinary Americans without a warrant. Finally, no self-respecting conservative would support a president who has given aid and comfort to America's enemies by stretching our military so thin that we are one disaster away from an inability to defend ourselves at home.

No, apparently, there are very few real conservatives left in the Republican Party. The party has degenerated into a passel of cheerleaders, blindly waving red, white and blue pom-poms over whatever Bush said today. The president is against stem-cell research (that would help millions of Americans with diabetes and Alzheimer's)? YAY! GO MR. PRESIDENT! The president is ignoring the fact that our troops don't have the body armor they need? YAY! GO MR. PRESIDENT! The President says the moon is made of green cheese? YAY! GO MR. PRESIDENT!

The reason most Republicans blindly support Bush on every issue is simple: He's their guy. I don't blame them necessarily. Democrats supported Clinton through the worst days of the Monica scandal. Of course, so did 2/3 of the country. Still, as Bush slips further and further in poll after poll, Republicans are forced to sound more and more comical in their attempts to defend him.

The best example of the lengths to which Republicans went to play defense was right after Katrina. While 2/3 of the country was furious at Bush for mishandling the federal response, Republicans kept trying to muddy the water. First they said that Democrats were blaming Bush for the storm. No, Democrats were blaming Bush for the lousy job that FEMA did. Then Republicans tried to blame New Orleans Mayor Nagin for not being prepared for the disaster. To be sure, the local response was terrible, but Bush is supposed to be this great leader. He should have federalised the whole response when he saw that it was going from bad to worse. Did he? Nope. All we got was, "Brownie, you're doing a" -- well, you know the rest. Finally, in desperation, Republicans tried to blame the residents of New Orleans for living there in the first place. I almost laughed when I heard that one. It would have been hysterical if it hadn't been so tragic.

Yes, the Republicans are no longer stalwarts, but rather they are loyalists. They have been brainwashed to believe that if George Bush said or did it, it's A-Okay. This is not a group of thoughtful conservatives, a la William F. Buckley (who incidentally denounced Bush's conservatism this week.) With 2/3 of the country united against Bush, the GOP has morphed from the Grand Old Party into George's Only Pals.

Does Having Money Make You a Jerk?

2006-07-18T13:22:00.000-07:00

In a word, no. This is the part of the electoral equation that rank and file Democrats don't seem to understand. Many net-roots types automatically assume that the rich are on a mission to screw everyone who isn't rich. A lot of Democrats assume that an individual with money is going to be self-centered, entitled, and deeply unpleasant. To be sure, some people with money fall into one or more (or all) of the above categories, but not necessarily because they are wealthy.

The truth is that plenty of poor and middle class people fall into these categories, too. There are also wealthy people who are generous and kind and don't think they are superior because of their money. The point is that money itself is an inanimate object and should be no more or less a factor in how a person thinks of him or herself than, say, the color of hair they have.

This is not always the case, of course. Plenty of people with money have a creepy sense of entitlement to them. They bark orders people in the service sector and use phrases like, "I pay your salary." My guess -- and this is only a guess -- is that a majority of thse people are Republicans.

Here's my theory:

There are basically two types of Republicans: Religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives. There are more advanced types like gun wackos and anti-immigrant freaks, but let's stick to the basics.

Fiscal conservatives have decided that money is the most important thing in their lives (or at least in the top three) and they are determined to hold onto theirs. Nothing wrong with that. Each of us has our own priorities. The catch, however, is that when money is the most important thing in your life, you tend to turn into an insufferable asshole. If you're okay with that, great. The beauty of America is that everyone has a right to be an insufferable asshole. (Fortunately, only a few people excercise this right.)

Still, if you're choose the I.A. route, you had better make a lot of money and buy yourself some people to hang out with, because Insufferable Assholes tend to be lonely.

Andrew Carnegie, arguably the richest man in American history, was, by most accounts firmly in the I.A. category for much of his adult life. Then, he changed. he spent the last twenty years of his life shovelling his money out the window and onto the people who needed it most. Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. Not to mention just about every public library in the Northeast. By the end of his life, he had given away $330 million dollars. Keep in mind that this was in 1919. I don't know what that translates into in 2006, but it's probably a lot. I'll close this column with a quote from Carnegie himself:

"Man does not live by bread alone. I have known millionaires starving for lack of the nutriment which alone can sustain all that is human in man, and I know workmen, and many so-called poor men, who revel in luxuries beyond the power of those millionaires to reach. It is the mind that makes the body rich. There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of things immeasurably higher than itself. Exalted beyond this, as it sometimes is, it remains Caliban still and still plays the beast. My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of wealth."

Bush Irrelevance and Diplomacy

2006-07-17T21:27:00.000-07:00

It was bound to happen sometime. With Junior's nearly year-long inability to crack 40% in the polls, it was only a matter of time before his poor standing with the American people translated into problems in the international community. Leaders of other countries see Bush as weak and they know that without the will of the American people, Bush will be hard-pressed to respond to threats abroad with the kind of force that might be needed.

Thus far, it would be inappropriate for the U.S. to intervene in the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict. For one, we have not been asked to intervene, but if Israel does ask us, we're going to have to decline because the American people will not support Bush in any future military operations. Okay, maybe I shouldn't say any operations. If Americans are killed again -- be they soldiers or civilians -- Americans will back a new front in the war on terror.

Short of Americans being directly attacked, however, there is no scenario in which Bush can offer troops to our allies or place troops in a police capacity (say, on the border of North Korea) without risking a public outcry. Bush, and therefore America, has been hog-tied by the foreign policy of this administration.

Why is the president suddenly so powerless? I'll give it to you in three words: Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq. Every last one of Bush's reasons for going to war have long since been disproved. Thus, he has almost no credibility with the American people. Don't believe me? Just look at the numbers. In poll after poll, fewer and fewer Americans rate Bush as being honest and trustworthy. Keep in mind that this was once his strongest suit, with numbers often in the low 60's. Now, roughly 48% say Bush is honest and trustworthy. The perception that Bush lied about Iraq has now crystallized with a majority of Americans. By over-promising and under-delivering in Iraq, he has put road blocks up and made it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to intervene in hot spots that are far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

None of this would be a big deal, of course, if the rest of the world were as nice as America or Switzerland. But they're not. In fact, a lot of countries really, really want to kill Americans.

Take Kim Jong Il, for instance. He's definitely crazy. In fact, he's so crazy, that he fired off missles that were pointed at Hawaii and Alaska. What did Bush do? Nothing, of course. He should have sent troops to the Korean Peninsula. But he can't.

Then there's Iran. Bush should be using even harsher rhetoric with the Iranians than he used four years ago with Saddam. But he can't.

Finally, there's our good friends in Israel. It's just a matter of time before they request American help. Bush should send help in the form of troops. But he can't. And he won't.

Newt Gingrich was correct a few days ago when he said that World War III has begun. Americans like to tell themselves that this is not the case, but world wars do not begin in a single day. When Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, few Americans noticed the event. Then Austria invaded Serbia. Then Germany invaded Belgium. Then the Lusitania was sunk. By 1919, 9 million people were dead. When Hitler invaded Austria 17 years later, few thought it would lead to the deaths of more than 60 million people.

I don't normally agree with Newt Gingrich, but he's right on this one. The Middle East is not going to "simmer down." There isn't going to be a Kodak Moment where the heads of Hezbollah and Al-Qaida sit down with Bush and Blair and shake hands. Like the first two world wars, this increasingly global conflict is rooted in long-simmering resentment and hatred. Only this time, the hatred is religious and cultural, not ethnic. Furthermore, the targets of this hatred are not some small country that ends in "stan." The targets are us.

An ever-dwindling number of Republicans still support Bush. In fact, they wear the U.S.'s low standing in the world like a badge of honor. They insist that Bush is way ahead of his time and that anyone who doesn't blindly support him simply isn't smart enough to understand his brilliance. History, they say, will vindicate Bush, like it did Truman. Let's hope they're right. I wonder, though, would history be so kind to Harry Truman if he had bombed Mexico in retaliation for Pearl Harbor?

Issues to Save the Democrats Part 2

2006-07-13T21:55:00.000-07:00

Again, in a perfect world, some Democrat would have the cajones to step forward and propose these ideas I've been kicking around for years. Until then, I'll keep putting them forward to anyone who'll listen.

It's time for a Citizen Service Corps. Before everyone freaks out, let me first discuss what this is NOT. It is not a domestic Peace Corps, like Americorps. It's not a draft, in the traditional sense of the word. Rather, it's a way for young Americans to serve their country, re-instill the values of community that are desperately needed, and foster a sense of responsibility in young people that everyone seems to acknowledge we need, but no one seems to know how to fix. Here's how it works:

Young men and women over the age of 18 have until the age of 25 to complete two years of domestic service or one year of military service to their country. If the participant choose the domestic service, they will participate in teaching children to read, painting dilapidated schools, teaching work skills to the unemployed, etc. All of the things AmeriCorps is doing now, only on a much grander scale. If the participant chooses military service, their time is cut in half, but the work is, potentially, more difficult and more dangerous.

Participation in the CSC is mandatory, much like the draft has been mandatory at various times in American history. These are dangerous times, but the youth of today are almost completely insulated from being connected to the danger. A conscripted service to one's country would go a long way toward eradicating the general sense of lethargy that seems to accompany being a young American nowadays.

While service would be mandatory, particpants would be heavily rewarded for their service. In addition to receiving valuable skills which can be used throughout life, participants would also receive a living wage and health care while enrolled in the program. The real selling point comes later, though. Upon successful completion of the program, the participant will receive a voucher that can be redeemed in one of three ways: 1) A cash lump sum, 2) A voucher good for a 50% reduction of college or vocational school training, or 3) A voucher that is redeemable at any time for a year of no Income Tax.

Option 1 is perfect for someone who doesn't want to pursue school, but needs money to start a business or some other endeavor. Option 2 will work well for participants who do want to further their education. Option 3 is really the best option for all particpants, as it has the highest potential payout. Think about it -- one year without income tax. If you save it until you're at your height of earning potential (say, age 55), you'll potentially be saving tens of thousands of dollars, maybe more.

The free tax thing should appeal to Republicans. Democrats will lap up the community service angle with a spoon. Independents will be happy because... well, because Independents are always happy. In short, everybody wins.

Young people will bitch and moan for a few years, of course, but by and large, they will come to accept such a program, especially if they see the benefits. Skills, money, and community, in no particular order.

So, how do you pay for it? Easy. You begin to gradually phase out certain sectors of government programs that will be rendered obsolete by an influx of young energetic workers. This is part of the post-big government paradigm which needs to replace the current Republican model of government. Republicans simply want to cut programs because they don't like the people who are affected by these programs. The CSC turns the Republican model on its ear. By creating a government program that does not raise taxes but still does a lot of good, you trap Republicans into being forced to admit that they simply don't want to help people. You also get them to put their money where their mouth is with a draft that encourages patriotism and national pride.

So, would some Democrat please come along and steal my idea?

Issues to Save the Democrats

2006-07-12T13:39:00.000-07:00

None of this will ever happen, but in a perfect world, the DNC would adopt the following sure-fire methods for victory. (I guess they'd have to rename themselves the Steve Party.)

We'll start today with Health Care.

Democrats should work to propose a universal health care package that is optional. That is, individuals have the right to opt in or out of the program whenever they want, but the coverage would be there. How do you pay for it, my Republican friends are asking. That's easy.

There are 43 million people without insurance in this country. If 40 million of these people sign up at the rate of $100 per month each, there will be 4 billion in premiums coming in to pay for the program every month. That’s 48 billion a year. I know, Republicans, I know. 48 billion is chump change. There are roads to nowhere to buy in Alaska and oil barons to pay off in Texas. Still, not everyone is going to use their $1,200 worth of insurance every year. In fact, some people won’t use it for years at a time. They’ll just want the security of being insured. You can also average the amount of health care each individual currently uses every year and establish the annual budget and premiums accordingly.

Again, there is no requirement to participate in the program and the award for malpractice suits will be capped. You also base the individual’s premium on his or her income. The important thing to remember is that everyone can be insured.

I think this plan is genuinely Republican-proof. You can’t make them like it, of course. They’ll cry socialism, etc. The usual song and dance. Still, no one’s taxes get raised. And, for Republicans, that’s what it’s really all about.

Democrats Had Better Get Real

2006-07-11T23:35:00.000-07:00

I left the Democratic Party a few months back. I am now a registered Independent. I do, of course, lean Democrat on most issues, although I am definitely conservative on the gun issue and a couple of other things.

I mostly left the party as a form of protest. It was after Harry Reid blasted Republicans for some damn thing (which, oddly enough, eludes me now.) Then the next day he apologized. That was the straw that broke the camel's back and I re-registered. Not that anyone at the DNC really gives a damn.

You see, here's the problem: Democrats have made up their collective minds that they are losers. They're like the Republicans were during the 1960's -- a bunch of shrill idealogues who can't agree on what the answer to 2+2 is. Republicans bait Democrats with wedge issues every cycle and the Dems take the bait. It would be funny if it didn't result in the tragedy that is the Bush Administration.

I'm not saying I've given up hope on the party. I'm just saying that I have serious doubts about whether or not they can pull it together any time soon. I know, I know, Bill Clinton won election twice. And that's great. But even HE acted like a total wuss his first two years in office. Let's not forget that it was he who lost the Congress, too.

The issue for Democrats is two-fold.

First, they need to agree on a concrete platform. They need to actually stand for something. You can get 300 Democrats in a room and they will come up with 300 different positions on every issue, from health care to Iraq. So, it's time for each of them to put their differences aside and actually agree on a few issues to sell to the American people.

Second, they need to stand BY this platform. They cannot cave. Democrats always act guilty when they are cross-examined by Republicans. Maybe it's because they're liberals and they feel guilty every time someone rings a bell. But Republicans, God love 'em, will stand by what they believe in until the last man dies. Democrats need to stop acting like whiny bitches every time someone looks at them cross-eyed. Most Independents (and even some Republicans) would have voted for Al Gore if he hadn't acted so defensive every time he opened his mouth. Democrats have to get over acting like a guilty teenager and start acting like a parent.

So, what are the issues that can save the Democrats? Tune in tomorrow and see....

On MySpace

2006-07-03T19:26:00.000-07:00

Alright, I admit it – I’m a MySpace junkie. I love the site. I update my profile and write a new blog there about once a week. In fact, the blog you’re reading right now is actually an enhanced version of what’s been sitting on my MySpace profile for a week. In fact, the profile at MySpace has had exactly 152 hits as of this morning. The blog you’re reading? Well, let’s just say that it needs to catch up. Don’t get me wrong. I’m grateful for anyone who takes the time to read my work. But this blog is new and doesn’t have guaranteed foot traffic. MySpace can provide that.

Still, I’d be lying if I said that was the only reason I posted there. The truth is, I just plain old like the place. I like to think that I’m being seen. I like to think that I matter. I mean, I know that I matter to the people who care about me, but I’d like to think I was also interesting to anyone who might want to take a peek. Perhaps that makes me as self-obsessed as every other young (okay, semi-young) American.

From what I’ve heard, foreigners see Americans as narcissistic and self-obsessed. Are we? I mean, does anyone else really care that we've updated our profile to include photos of the ski trip? Or that we've written another rambling essay about some minor wrinkle of our lives -- much like this rambling essay? Take a quick peek at some MySpace profiles and you'll see people tripping over themselves to show that their lives are one big, happenin’ cocktail party. This is, of course, fun for those of us doing the posting. The trouble is, it's not reality. Nobody's life is all that interesting, at least not all the time. But we all seem to present ourselves like we're living at the Playboy mansion.

The founders of MySpace freely admit that they've stumbled across a relatively new cultural phenomenon. That is, they assert that MySpace works simply because people nowadays thinks they're going to be famous. Thus, when we pick a song for our profile or highlight some quirky personality tic we have, we are engaging in the highest form of narcissism. We document our lives on MySpace because we think someone will care and therefore find us more fascinating.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not judging. Hell, I'm on there, too. The trouble is that I'm really not sure why. What causes me to sit up one night a week and give everyone updates on my life? I don't even know who "everyone" is. As I said, my profile has had exactly 152 hits as of tonight. Other than the occasional former student or a very select handful of curious ex-girlfriends, I couldn't hazard a guess as to who the hell might be peeking into my carefully presented space. But the fact of the matter is that someone is. And I'm determined to have that person think I'm friggin' interesting. So sit back former student, random ex, multi-level marketer, whoever you are, and get comfortable. I have some skiing pictures to show you and YOU weren't there and I was! So I'm cool!

Why Bush Can't Break 38%

2006-06-28T23:45:00.000-07:00

Bush is on the rampage lately, trying to rally support for the war one last time. He's barnstorming the Midwest, raising money for Sen. Talent and trying to act like he's got a 66% approval rating. The problem is that he does not have a 66% approval rating. He has a 37% approval rating and he'll be lucky to maintain that when he leaves office. Here's why.

Simply put, George W. Bush is the worst president of the modern era. He is worse than Nixon, Carter, Ford, Bush, Sr., all the bottom-dwellers. He has an uncanny inability to pass the buck and shirk responsibilty for his poor judgment. Hell, even Clinton eventually admitted wrongdoing. Bush is simply incapable of changing his course, though. It's not just Iraq. It's going on television and telling Brownie he was doing a heckuva job when people were dying in the streets by the hundreds. It's purposely choosing divisive issues (gay marriage, etc.) to divide the country, instead of uniting it. Somehow, inviting Ted Kennedy over for movie night doesn't change the fact that this president has purposely pushed the nation's hot buttons on cultural issues to try and rally his base. It may win elections (barely) but the win comes at the price of a deeply divided nation. And the nation has grown tired of being divided. That's why Bush is now stalled at 35% (well, 37% in a good week.) He has simply lost the support of 2/3 of the American people. That doesn't sound like a uniter to me.

Now, Republicans love to tell us that we don't understand Bush and that we're somehow unqualified to see Bush's vision for world peace or whatever the hell they call it. They compare Bush to Harry Truman (!) Bush, Sr. tried the Truman tactic when he was sinking in the polls in '92. It didn't work then. It's not working now. Republicans now sound like... well, kind of like Democrats sounded when they were making excuses for Bill Clinton back in 1998. That is, they sound kinda sad.

The truth of the matter is that Bush and the Republicans finally got what they wanted -- total control of every branch of the government -- and they have successfully blown it every step of the way. Don't believe me? Just watch for the Blue tsunami this November.

Handicapping the Dems in '08

2006-06-27T22:55:00.000-07:00

With Bush's approval numbers wedged somewhere down between the flu and herpes, Democrats are beginning to smell blood in the water. Still, convincing Americans that they're any different from the usual boring professor types the Dems usually nominate (except for Bill) is going to take a lot of work. Here's the lowdown.

Hillary -- When you start with a 47% "would definitely vote against" number (per a recent CNN poll), it's time to take a hint. Hillary is not new to the American voter, so there is very little flexibility in that number. In fact, by '08, she will have been a public figure for 16 years. This leaves her virtually no wiggle room to convince people that she is not who they think she is. Who do they think she is? Right or wrong, most voters see her as a shrill ice queen who has stayed with her hound of a husband to be close to power. I'm not saying this is an accurate description, but it's an opinion that has crystallized in voters' minds and it's not going away. No matter what she does or says, she will be viewed through that prism. If she wins the nomination, she will get her ass kicked.

Al Gore -- Mixed package here. He's kind of pulling a Nixon thing by coming back six years after a very close election. Like Nixon, he has "I told ya so" rights. Plus, he DID win the popular vote in 2000 (although Republicans seem to conveniently forget that.) Bush's comically bad poll numbers could make voters wonder what a Gore presidency would have been like. However, he also shares the Nixon problem that most Americans simply can't get excited about the guy. This is further evidenced in the aforementioned CNN poll. The only person who scores worse than Hillary's "definitely would not vote for" number was Gore who had a 48% score in that category. The biggest difference between Gore and Hillary is that he has a bit more latitude than she does in the "don't like" department. Unlike Hillary, people simply don't LIKE Gore, but they don't HATE him the way they hate her. Thus, he's left with the Nixon mantra: You may not like me, but I can fix this country. He's proven to be "right" on such big-ticket issues as global warming, oil dependence and, above all, the Iraq war. If he does run and the GOP puts up McCain or Rudy, it's a Republican blowout. If they put up Allen or anyone else, we'll be looking at a President Gore in 2009.

Mark Warner -- The former gov of VA gets JFK comparisons from many residents of this increasingly purple state. He left office with a historically high 75% approval rating and used his Midas touch to keep Democrats in the governor's mansion after he left. Still, VA only allows its governors to serve one term, which may make it tricky for Warner to convince anybody that he's got enough experience to take on the terrorists. Still, he's a self-made multi-millionaire, having co-founded Nextel and he's a proven mediator, having worked with a Republican legislature. Plus, he's attracting big fund-raising crowds with his moderate approach to Democratic politics. If the numbers read this way next year, you may see him break away from Hillary if she can't take Iowa or New Hampshire. We may actually be looking at two candidates from the same state if Allen takes the GOP nomination.

John Kerry -- Spare us, John. It's over.

John Edwards -- See above.

Russ Feingold -- The senator from Wisconsin is trying hard to shake up the Democratic Left and so far, the bloggers seem to dig him. He's engaging and charming and he's very anti-war. He's also very pro-health care. He also has a Jewish last name. That shouldn't matter, but it does, particularly in the south. Thus, Feingold will be a great candidate who will come in third in New Hampshire and drop out by March 1st. Evan Bayh -- In Indiana, a Republican stronghold, Bayh has managed to get elected twice as governor and once as senator. They frikkin' love the guy. He's up on the issues and good at the intricacy of policy. There's only one slight problem: he's as boring as your tax attorney. Unless he starts pounding happy pills, he's going to make John Kerry look like FDR.

Handicapping the Republicans

2006-06-27T22:49:00.000-07:00

The GOP presidential hopefuls are being no less subtle than the Democrats when it comes to whether or not they're running. As always, a quick glance at the travel schedule of any of the hopefuls is revealing. If they have set foot in New Hampshire, Iowa or South Carolina in the last year, they're running or seriously contemplating it. As to the nomination itself, there has been no time in recent history when the Republicans have had such a wide-open field. There is no heir apparent to the Bush throne. So let's begin.

John McCain -- Possibly the greatest tragic political figure since... well, since Bill Clinton. McCain is still a man without a party. With his high-profile challenge to Bush for the nomination in 2000, McCain will always be the red-headed bastard step-child of the party. Republicans have a MUCH lower tolerance for outsiders than Democrats do. They're generally more corporate-minded by nature so they have difficulty when someone challenges the heir-apparent. Thus, McCain's sandbox fight with Bush is not going to be forgotten anytime soon (read: ever.) This might have been okay if the senator hadn't moved to the right and practically French-kissed Bush in public these last few years. Now, he finds himself with few Republican primary votes and even fewer Democrats to support him should he take the nomination. Keep in mind that McCain was very popular with Dems in 2000. His only hope at this point is to focus on Independent voters and convince the GOP that he is the only Republican with crossover appeal. It's a tough sell, though. Republicans don't really want crossover appeal. They want to be right.

Rudy Giuliani -- Another man without a country. Rudy achieved iconic status on 9/11 and has segued that imagery into a prolonged campaign about the issue of leadership in America. This is brilliant politics. Now, when people look at Rudy, they automatically think "leader." If anyone can save the GOP from its impending doom, he's the one. A self-styled moderate with glowing credentials can prevent Republicans from careening off the right-wing cliff in 2008. Few in the party are publicly honest about the impending Democrat tidal wave, but it's there. What most in the party seem to deny is that people have HAD IT with Bush. Iraq, Katrina, high gas prices, and pretty much everything attached to this administration have made all the but the staunchest Republicans very angry. However, asking Republicans to criticize Bush is like asking the pope to criticize God. It ain't gonna happen. Republicans have been telling everyone since 1998 that W. was the new Reagan, so they can't eat their words. Still, Rudy would give the party the face lift it needs in '08 and he will siphon a ton of votes from Democrats and Independents. Again, though, Rudy is a moderate with liberal views on gays, God and guns (oh, and he's pro-choice.) My guess is that he'll get passed over this time in favor of our next candidate. If that candidate loses, you'll see a President Giuliani in 2012. Still, as one Italian to another, it'd be nice to have a fellow Paisan in the White House. The relatives will come over for Sunday dinner every week and the White House driveway will be filled with Buicks. Rudy's got my vote.

George Allen -- Most people who dont religiously follow politics are saying, "Who?" Allen is the man to beat for the nomination, though. He is the candidate who is most like Bush in a party that feels like it has to defend Bush at all costs. Thus, if McCain stumbles at all, which he very well may, look for Allen to pick up the ball and run down the field to the end zone. (Sorry for the football metaphor, but it couldn't be avoided.) Still, in a general election, Allen will be a tough sell. If current polls are to be believed, Bush's presidency is over. It will be very difficult for him to ever crack 40% again, let alone enjoy the popular support he did a few years ago. Allen will therefore face the challenge of having to convince GOP primary voters that he is just like George W. Bush and convince the rest of the voters that he's not. Also, he is facing a very serious challenge to his senate seat from Jim Webb, a former Republican-turned-Democrat. Webb was Reagan's Asst. Secretary to the Navy and won two purple hearts in Viet Nam. This doth not a senator make, of course, but he beat back a very popular Democratic party insider for the nomination and he may be tough to beat in the general. The traditional GOP attack points of being a softy on national defense won't play with Webb. Allen will likely be forced to stay and campaign in Virginia all summer, causing him to lose valuable time chasing money in Iowa and New Hampshire. Even if he wins re-election, he may too bruised up to have a shot at the nomination.

Mitt Romney -- No, Mitt, no. Being a one-term governor from liberal Massachusetts is not going to win over a lot of Republican primary voters. Had Romney stuck around and run for reelection this year, he would be considered a possibility for the number two spot on the ticket. My guess is that even this is out of the question now. Not only did he not run for reelection, but he has also disowned almost every position that got him elected in Mass in the first place. Most noticeably, he has moved to the right on abortion. He was "pro-choice" a year or so ago, but now he is "pro-life". Hmmm sounds suspiciously Clinton-like and it will not set well with GOP purists. He should have run again for governor.

Condi -- Shes not running. End of story.

Bill Frist -- The Senate Majority Leader has consistently under-performed in his post and is joined at the hip to an unpopular president. Additionally, he has the personality of a jellyfish.

Okay, so those are the big ticket candidates, but the field is just now beginning to emerge. My guess is that things will look very different in a year or so. In the meantime, go and get registered to vote. If you don't vote, you can't complain!