It's Never Too Early...

McCain Able?

2004-11-22T13:16:00.000-05:00

Sunday, on Meet the Press, John McCain addressed the issue of whether he plans to run for President in 2008. That is, if you consider not saying for sure whether he will or won't run "addressing the issue". Is this news? Well, I need something to write about. "You know, the president hasn't even been inaugurated yet," said McCain. "Isn't it a little unseemly for any of us to start on that path again?" Just for calling me unseemly, I'll repeat my assertion that McCain will not run. First of all, by entering a heated political battle he would risk losing his position as a respected voice of reason. Second, he would be 72 in 2008, meaning that if he won, he'd be the oldest first-term President in history - even older than Reagan. Third, despite his loyalty to Bush, he most certainly wouldn't be the candidate that W's people would support in a primary - they'd be much more likely to back Condi Rice, Bill Frist, or someone else with impeccable conservative credentials. You heard it here first - McCain will not run.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my frame-by-frame analysis of the Pacers-Pistons brawl. I'm not sure but I think I just saw Reggie Miller coming out of the locker room with a chainsaw, looking for someone to massacre.

One Nation, Indivisible?

2004-11-18T13:42:00.000-05:00

Sorry if I stray off topic a bit today, but I ws struck by something just now while watching CNN. It's weird, isn't it, seeing President Bush and former President Clinton walking shoulder-to-shoulder on the stage at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock? We've spent the last year or so hearing how divided we are as a nation, how deep the rift is between red and blue states, how the divisions will be impossible to heal - and now we see two men, one a Republican, one a Democrat, both vilified by the opposing party, smiling and waving, chatting it up, probably having a grand old time. Well, so much for all that, I guess.

USA Today, in an article about the library's opening, has an interesting quote from President Clinton. "I'm tired of looking at maps of red and blue states," the former president said Tuesday in a speech at Little Rock's Central High School. "I'm tired of being told that there is more that divides us than unites us." Now there's an interesting thought for liberal Democrats to get a grip on. If President Clinton, perhaps the most revered and trusted living Democrat, isn't worried about another four years of Bush, maybe there's no need for the rest of us to be. Yeah, this country is probably going to be okay after all - unless Bush leads us into a nuclear war with Iran. Whoops...never mind.

Anyway, I won't be posting tomorrow - I'll be inspecting the Clinton Library for stains with the folks from MTV's "Room Raiders". Just kidding, I'll actually be on the road this weekend, entertaining the masses. Have a good weekend, everybody.

Shut the Door!

2004-11-17T13:19:00.000-05:00

John Kerry, on whether or not he'll run in 2008:

"It is so premature to be thinking about something that far down the road. What I've said is I'm not opening any doors, I'm not shutting any doors. If there's a next time, we'll do a better job. We'll see."

Typical long-winded answer from Kerry. All sound and fury, signifying (hopefully) nothing. John, please, close the door. Trust me, there are many, many exciting things you can do with your life instead of running for President. Focus on your new role as a power broker in the Senate! Make all the mean jokes about Bush you wanted to during the campaign but couldn't! Get a job as a greeter at K-Sears-Mart! JUST DON'T RUN!!!

Galluping Along

2004-11-16T13:07:00.000-05:00

A new Gallup poll, just out today, asks Republican and Democratic voters who they'd like to see as their respective parties' candidates in 2008. In writing about the poll, Gallup's Jeffrey Jones (I'm assuming not the pedophile who played the principal in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off") states, "Even though George W. Bush has not yet been inaugurated for his second term, it is never too early for political pundits and news junkies alike to speculate as to which candidates will contest the 2008 presidential election." Well, duh! What do you think I'm doing here, Rooney?

Anyway, Democratic voters unsurprisingly chose Hillary Clinton as the person they'd most want to be the nominee, with 25% of the vote. A little more surprising, on first glance at least, is that 15% of voters chose John Kerry, while only 7% chose John Edwards. Perhaps that makes sense based on the fact that Kerry has the name recognition from the campaign, but it's hard to imagine that many Democrats really want him to run again after seeing how badly this election turned out. It certainly doesn't bode well for Edwards, seen by some as the "golden boy" who will save the Dems in '08. Regardless, Hillary is currently the clear favorite out of likely nominees and unless someone comes out of the blue (Obama?), all early signs point to her winning the nomination, should she choose to run.

Things are a little bit more interesting on the GOP side, where Giulani and McCain tied with 10% of the vote each. Colin Powell received 7%, followed by Jeb Bush. (Over half of Republicans polled had no opinion, compared with only 36% of Democrats.) When respondents were asked to choose between Giulani, McCain, Jeb, however, 47% chose Giuliani, compared with 27% for McCain and 17% for Jeb. Hard to believe that the same people who supposedly elected Bush because they agreed with him on "moral values" would want a socially liberal candidate like Giulani to succeed him, but perhaps Giulani is such a strong personality that he transcends those types of divisions. Either way, the message from this poll is clear - start gearing up for Giulani vs. Clinton in '08!

Powell Play?

2004-11-15T13:10:00.000-05:00

Surprise, surprise - Colin Powell has announced his resignation as Secretary of State. We all know that over the past few years, Powell has come to be seen as a lone voice of sanity in the Bush administration's increasingly "Crazy in War" foreign policy. The real question is, will he run for President in 2008? The only article I could find today which mentioned the subject is in The Nation, where David Corn reports that a "source" tells him that Powell has no interest in running. Of course, the same source told him that Powell would stay on as Secretary of State for another term, so take his words with a grain of salt.

Powell would make an interesting candidate. It's not clear whether he'd be more or less attractive to voters than in 1996, when he declined to run. Certainly, swing voters might be more inclined to vote for him than Bush, given his more moderate stance on a variety of issues. However, while some might see him as the voice of reason in the Bush administration, others might agree with Corn that Powell should have been more forceful in pushing diplomacy as a viable option in Iraq. "If he truly believed the war in Iraq was misguided," writes Corn, "he had a duty to the public (his true boss) to speak out when it mattered. But Powell played the good soldier." But is it all a moot point? If Powell didn't in run eight years ago, when he was clearly the most attractive candidate the GOP had, why would he choose now to submit himself to a bitter battle against several viable contenders? Maybe if he feels the party is drifting in a dangerous direction and feels he's the only one who can save it.

In related news, the Bush administration has announced that Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, and Education Secretary Rod Paige will also be stepping down. They will be replaced by Halliburton CEO David Lesar (Energy), Rom Kellis, president of pesticide company Naturchem (Agriculture) and R&B star R. Kelly (Education).

Running Like Crazy?

2004-11-12T11:57:00.000-05:00

Several people have asked me how long I can possibly keep this blog going. What am I going to do when I run out of candidates to dissect? My answer: I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. In the meantime, let's not tarry, there are candidates to dissect!

In the Miami Herald, columnist Andres Oppenheimer makes the case that New Mexico governor Bill Richardson could be the party's standard-bearer in 2008. His main reasoning seems to be that as a Hispanic, Richardson could stop the bleeding of Latino voters from the Democratic party (44% voted for Bush). However, I'm not convinced that holding onto Hispanic voters is the key to Democratic hopes in '08. The Dems didn't lose Ohio because of Hispanic voters. Also, who's to say that Hispanics will necessarily support Richardson just because he's "one of them"? We saw how well that worked with Catholics and Kerry.

That nasty bit of business aside, Richardson does have a few things going for him. He has both executive experience (as governor) and Washington experience (as Clinton's energy secretary). He comes from a swing state - a real swing state, not a fake one like Edwards' North Carolina. He's not from the northeast. And he seems to be likable, smart, and a good communicator. However, Oppenheimer fails to mention one important fact that could hold Richardson back: he's fat. I'm not joking. Richardson tips the scales at well over 200 pounds and if you think that won't affect voters' perceptions of him, you're kidding yourself. Who was the last fat president - Taft? If Richardson wants to be taken seriously as a candidate - and Oppenheimer claims he's already running - he should follow the advice that James Carville gave him in the Wall Street Journal this past March: "Go on a diet."

Meet Virginia

2004-11-11T13:29:00.000-05:00

First of all, thanks to everyone who checked out the site yesterday after I was mentioned on Instapundit. I'm flattered to have all the attention. Hope you keep coming back. For those of you who were disappointed that this blog isn't "serious journalism" (or just pissed at that Ashcroft prank) - well, sorry. My goal here is to provide semi-humorous commentary on the race for 2008. And if people learn something in the process, great.

Several of you mentioned Virginia Sen. George Allen as a possible presidential candidate in four years, and wouldn't you know it, there's an article in today's Washington Post about Allen's prospects. (I couldn't find it on the Web, but it is available on Lexis-Nexis. Headline: "Bush Win May Help Allen, Warner"). Allen is still a first-term senator, so it may be a bit premature for him to be thinking about the Presidency. No, that didn't stop John Edwards from running, but he may have won more Southern support in the primaries had he established more of a reputation in the Senate. The Post mentions that Allen has spent little time in Virginia recently due to his duties as chairman of the National Senatorial Campaign Committee, and notes (sarcastically?) that he is likely to embark on another of his 'listening tours,' in which he travels across the state, attempting to connect one-on-one with potential voters." How Hillary-esque of you, Mr. Allen.

As you might be able to tell from the headline, the article also discusses the presidential prospects of Virginia Governor, Mark Warner, a Democrat. On the surface, Warner appears to be an attractive candidate. As reader Larry Woods pointed out, Democratic governors - Carter, Clinton- win in general elections, while senators - Kerry, McGovern, Mondale - lose. (Boy, in that company, Kerry seems like a smashing success, doesn't he?) He also has the added benefit of being from the South, something Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack don't have going for them. However, according to the post, "Warner won in 2001 by distancing himself from his party's stands on social and cultural issues such as guns, abortion, capital punishment and gay marriage." Could such a candidate succeed in the Democratic primaries? Just thinking about it makes me want to do like Renee Zellweger and take an extended break.

Ashcroft for President?

2004-11-10T11:43:00.000-05:00

Last night, John Ashcroft officially announced that he won't be returning for a second term as Bush's Attorney General. Now the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting that he may be mulling a run for President in 2008. Watch out, Al-Qaeda!

Ha ha, you got punk'd! There's no such article. That was actually a link to my schedule of upcoming comedy performances. Admit it though, you were scared, weren't you?

Inconceivable!

2004-11-09T11:17:00.000-05:00

I'm a little tired of the mainstream media with all their Iraq coverage. All I ever hear is Fallujah, Fallujah, Fallujah. What's with all this fluff? Where's the hard news, the substance? You know what I'm talking about - the horse race for the 2008 campaign! I guess that's where I come in.

Actually there are a couple of interesting tidbits about '08 in the news today. First is the possibility that Howard Dean might bid to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Former DNC chairman Steve Grossman said Dean told him he was thinking about it. Dean would make an excellent chairman of the national Democratic party for two reasons. First, Dean demonstrated in the Democratic primaries that he's excellent at fundraising, grassroots organizing, and bringing in young and first-time voters. Secondly, if elected, he will have to pledge to serve a full four-year term, meaning he couldn't screw up the Democratic primary again by running. Woo-hoo! (Howard, I keed, I keed. You'd make a great presidential candidate - for me to poop on!)

Speaking of screwing up 2008, John Kerry's brother tells the Boston Globe that it is conceivable that Kerry might run again in four years. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It should be crystal clear to John Kerry at this point that there is no way in hell he can win a presidential election. It would be a imperial act of hubris for him to run again. Then again, it would Kerry's shortcomings should be obvious to primary voters as well, who would hopefully have the good sense to support a more legit candidate. Kerry should take a page from Al Gore's handbook and bow out gracefully before this becomes an issue. Then he'll be free to do his Trent Lott impersonation on SNL and make crazy speeches about global warming on the coldest day of the year. Seriously, John, failure can be very liberating - just ask Bob Dole.

Problems for Hillary?

2004-11-08T13:54:00.000-05:00

It's impossible to discuss 2008 without talking about the Hillary question. Hillary's decision whether or not to run is not only of great importance to the Dems but one of great historical significance. She'd be the first former First Lady to run for the presidency - not to mention, if she won the nomination, the first woman to be a major party's nominee for the top job. So we're talking a pretty big news story here. Like, Lewinsky/9-11/Ashlee Simpson big.

Over on CNN.com, Time's James Carney discusses the Democrats' plans for '08, which of course hinge completely on Mrs. Clinton. Oh, he pays lip service to some other potential candidates. But let's be honest, Jim - Howard Dean needs more than a "serious image makeover" - he needs a miracle. And we know what it means that Evan Bayh looks like a "dream on paper" - that's what people said about Kerry. It means you have the resume but lack the charm or magnetism to attract people. "Paper" isn't a word you want people using to describe you when you're a potential presidential candidate, unless you're some sort of paper magnate, and I don't think Mr. Hammermill is planning on running until at least 2012.

Carney, however does bring up an interesting point about Hillary. She does face what could shape up to be a bruising 2006 Senate campaign, against either Pataki or Giuliani, if either of them decide to run. A loss could be a devastating blow to her Presidential campaign. Personally, I don't see it happening - the Senate would be a step down for Pataki (in large states like New York, governors are generally more powerful than senators), and Giuliani will most likely skip 2006 to gear up for a run for the GOP nomination for President in 2008. But a tough campaign could expose some flaws in Hillary, making Democrats skeptical about her chances in a national election and leading them to support a safer candidate, like Edwards, a southerner with sex appeal, like our most recent Democratic President, Mr. Hillary.

Is Mitt Legit?

2004-11-05T11:50:00.000-05:00

You could probably read any city's newspaper in the next few days and read speculation about whether such-and-such local politician plans to run for President in 2008. Seriously, crack open the Albuquerque Journal next week and see if there are any articles touting Mayor Chavez as a viable candidate for President because of his success at graffiti removal. So it's important to take coverage of local politicians with a grain of salt. But The Boston Globe sure seems to be taking Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney seriously. Excuse me for being a little skeptical. To wit:

1. Romney would be the first U.S. president named after a piece of catcher's equipment. You can't ignore a trend like that.

2. He'd be the first Mormon president. I think many Americans probably fear Mormons, and based on my brief visit to the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, those fears are probably well-founded. Although from a comedy perspective, I'd like to see him win the nomination just so I can make bad puns about polygamy for no apparent reason.

3. He's from Massachusetts. Didn't the Republicans just spend the last year claiming that someone from that state would be out of touch with mainstream America? Seriously, how funny would it be if Romney was debating John Edwards on taxes and Edwards co-opted Bush's line, "I don't know how you do things up there in (sarcastically) 'Mass-a-chu-setts'...."

4. He's an inexperienced governor whose previous experience was in the field of sports, and Americans would never hand over the keys to someone like that. Right? What? Twice? Good God!

The Contenders

2004-11-04T11:17:00.000-05:00

The Baltimore Sun has a rundown of potential contenders for the 2008 nomination. They seem to agree with the conventional wisdom that Hillary and Edwards are the favorites for the Democratic nod (they also mention Kerry as one of the leading contenders, but that seems like nothing more than a courtesy). Their Republican favorites include Frist, McCain, Giulani, Hagel, and Jeb Bush.

Shockingly, I actually agree with Grover Norquist - if Hillary decided to go for the nomination, she'd be virtually unstoppable (unless another candidate with that certain "rock-star" quality emerged), but would too divisive a figure to succeed in the general election. As far as Republicans go, I'm not sure McCain will have the energy left to gear up for a run in 2008. Not only is he 68, but he's looked particularly old and tired on TV recently. He seems destined to become one of those much-loved American political figures who never becomes President. In fact, never becoming President will probably be the best thing for his historical reputation.

There's also a passing reference to Arnold in the article, as Brookings fellow Stephen Hess claims he would be the only liberal Republican who could gain the nomination, because - well, because he's the Terminator. Of course it's a moot point though...or is it? The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings in October on the "natural-born" requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Personally, I think there's a good chance it will be repealed - seriously, who would oppose it? Certainly not the Democrats, the "party of inclusion". Stay tuned, this could be one of the more interesting subplots of the 2008 campaign.