Diary of a Mighty Bastard

Since the only pick the Presidential candidates make before the election is the Vice-President pick, I end up putting a lot of emphasis on it. A BIG part of the President's performance is based on the people he surrounds himself with. (I think the American public would be better off if we insisted the candidates announce their choices for the Cabinet before the election)

With that in mind, Barack Obama selected Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate.

It's a good choice. Maybe not an inspired choice, but rock-solid. A Vice Presidential candidate should fill four qualifications for the Preisdential Candidate:

1- If anything should happen to the President, could the VP step into the office and take over the duties as President?

2- Does the VP help the President with any perceived weaknesses of the Presidential candidate?

3- Will the VP nominee hurt the Presidential candidate?

4- Can the VP nominee help the Presidential nominee get elected?

With Biden, his experience definitely hits the "He can take over" criteria. He also helps with (2)- Obama's biggest weakness is experience, and Senator Biden has been around for years.

He doesn't help with (4)- Delaware was already going Obama's way. (3) is the question mark- Biden has a reputation for running his mouth off. He withdrew as the Presidential nominee in 1988 based of accusations of plagarizng a speech, but I don't think the public will hold that against him. On the other hand, if you have to pick a flaw, "Constant talker" isn't the worst one to pick.

Thinking it over, I think Senator Bayh might have been a better pick, just because he had the same advantages and could put Indiana in play. But overall, a good pick for Senator Obama.

By winning Florida, John McCain becomes the frontrunner to the Republican Presidential Nomination.

(Why, yes- I am that damn good)

Senator McCain's ticked off a lot of Conservatives in the past. And I can think of some major issues that I disagree with him on: McCain-Feingold and the immigration bill last year.

But the anger from people like Rush Limbaugh and National Review is surprising me. McCain's not my perfect candidate- none of the major Republican candidates were ideal- but McCain is a war hero, a Senatorial leader, a good man, and he's been a consistent Conservative. I don't like all of his positions- but hell, I didn't like all of Geroge W.'s positions, either.

I don't know if McCain can win- in fact, I think if the Democrats are smart and nominate Obama, the Republicans will lose no matter what. But a party that can't untie around it's frontrunner is going to be killed in November.

I'm making a prediction right now. If I'm wrong, you can laugh it off. If I'm right, remember that I'm saying this on December 4th, back when he's considered 4th or 5th in the polls:

John McCain will be the next Republican Presidential Candidate.

Look, as a member of the Vast-Right Wing Conspiracy (Membership number: TK-421), I'm on the inside privy to the ways a lot of Republicans are discussing the candidates. So I've heard lots of talk about the various candidates. And, from everything I've heard, I think he'll be the one to pick up the nominee.

Here's how he'll win:

Right now, there are five realistic Republican Candidates (Ron Paul has been making noise and raising money, but I haven't seen that translate into votes). But the voters can be broken into three categories:

The voters who are Financially Conservative and don't give a damn about 'Social Conservative' issues like abortion or gun control- Rudolph Guiliani's got them cornered

The people who are primarily concerned about 'Social Conservative' issues and don't really care about Financial issues- these people are supporting either Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney

The people who are concerned with both- my reading of these voters (who I think are the most numerous of the Republican Primary voters) is that they aren't sold on any one particular candidate. They'll support any of the five if they are the nominee, but they are looking for someone who's not as squeamish on the social issues as Guiliani or the financial issues as Huckabee.

There's another concern, also- the top two 'names' have been Guiliani and Romney- top two in terms of money and organization. But both of them give off vibes that are very Clinton-like (not a good thing for a Republican). With Romney it's the constant flip-flopping on issues of his past. People expect politicians to triangulate, but doing so constantly- on so many issues- makes you wonder what exactly his core beliefs are.

With Guiliani it's his utter ruthlessness. Guiliani (like Hilary Clinton) comes off like a street fighter- when either one encounters any resistance, the gloves come off and they go for the throat. There are times when that's a good thing. But as a voter, I've felt like the past 16 years have been dirty fighting, on both sides. A Guiliani-Clinton Presidential Race would be an absolute bloodbath on both sides, with allegations and counter-allegations every minute. Do you know anyone, even supporters of either candidate, who is looking forward to that?

So I'm sensing that most of the Republican voters are wanting an alternative to either side. That leaves Fred Thompson and John McCain among the Republicans. And Thompson- I like him, I want him to serve, I think he does a fantastic job spreading the message- but when the chips are down, I want John McCain in the White House. He's the adult, he's the one I know will act smartly.

So here's the scenario I'm pitching. Iowa goes Huckabee-Romney, with McCain battling Guiliani for third spot and Fred Thompson barely cracking 5%. Then move on to New Hampshire, with McCain beating Romney in a close race.

At this point, Fred Thompson steps down, and all of his support will go towards McCain (because if you're support Fred Thompson, which other candidate appeals to you?). The race becomes a four-man battle, but McCain (with Thompson's support) will continue to gather steam. He'll beat out Guiliani because a large percentage of republican voters won't support Rudy, and he'll beat out Huckabee because many fiscal conservatives won't support Mike Huckabee. And, given a two-man battle between Romney and McCain, I think more voters will go with the Senator from Arizona.

You heard it hear first- John McCain will be the next Republican presidential nominee.

I haven't talked much about the 2008 election, partly because it's early. Partly because... well, I can be lazy. But mostly because I don't have that strong of opinions on the major Republican candidates.

Of the top four candidates (I'll put Governor Huckabee in the top tier when he finishes first or second anywhere but Iowa), all have their strengths. All have their weaknesses. I feel like a divorced person heading out onto the dating scene. I'm not looking for someone perfect; I'm looking for someone who's flaws I can tolerate. The fact that none of the candidates even cross the 70% part of the SelectSmart test with me is a good indicator that I'm not going to find an ideal candidate in this bunch.

I am starting to come around to the theory that it'd be best for the country if neither Hilary Clinton nor Rudolph Guiliani wins their nominations, though. And I say this even though I agree with Senator Clinton much more than Senator Obama.

I'm all in favor of hard-hitting politics. My way of thinking is that if you can't handle political shots from either the media or the opposition party, you have no business being President and dealing for foreign powers. But over the past 16 years, the partisanship has gotten so vicious and personal that I think it's really hurting the country.

It has gotten to the point that a significant portion of the country believes (or say they believe) that "9/11 was an Inside Job". That the government is so corrupt that they caused over 3,000 people to... do something. That's not healthy for the nation.

Both parties can claim responsibility for this mentality. And maybe a fresh face is needed to give both sides a chance to breathe and realize that they both want the best for the United States.

I don't think Guiliani can do this- his entire career has been with him as a street fighter. If he is elected President, the viciousness will, if anything, escalate. Same with Hilary Clinton- the MO of her entire career has been a trench mentality of "Us against Them", and giving 'Them' no quarter.

Will a Barack Obama or a John McCain or a Mitt Romney draw criticism? Yes, absolutely. But my hope is that such criticism would be tempered- a case of "He's wrong, here's why" as opposed to "He's an idiot" or "He's so corrupt he curdles milk when he walks by!". That's bad for the country, and I'd rather vote for someone I disagreed with if I thought it could end this level of viciousness.

One of the topics Bill Simmons discusses is "That Guy"- an actor that's been in a lot of movies, and you recognize the character, but can't ever remember the name. The top name was JT Walsh, but other names included Joe Pantoliano and David Morse. You might not recognize the names, but they've all been in a bunch of movies or TV shows.

And now one is running for President.

Fred Thompson announced on the Tonight Show that he is running for President in 2008

Fred Thompson has a pretty impressive resume. He's been a Senator in the past, and was a member of the Watergate Council. And he does appear to be a very good speaker.

There's four top tier candidates for the Republican Presidential nominee: Thompson, Senator John McCain, former Governor Mitt Romney, and former Mayor Rudy Guiliani. Among the four, Thompson has the least impressive resume. But the other three all have concerns about their stances.

I'm not commmitted to any of the candidates yet. I'm interested in seeing them on the campaign trail. And I'm glad DA Arthur Branch is among them.

This question goes out to those on the left side of politics, and it regards Sen. Hilary Clinton. How much credit should Hilary receive from the population for being the First Lady during the Presidency of her husband?

I can see either side of the issue:

* On the one hand, if she should receive 'credit' as being a vital adviser to her husband, then the entire span of those eight years is available- both the good parts (the economy) and the bad parts. I'm not talking about the Lewinsky scandal (though there are other scandals that can be and will be discussed)- I'm talking about the foreign policy issues (Palestine, the first World Trade Center bombing, China) during Bill Clinton's Presidency.

* On the other hand, if Hilary should not be criticized for any actions taken during her husband's Presidency, then she's a Senator from New York with only six years of experience under her belt. I concede her intelligence but that's not a lot of experience to be running for President with (I have the same problem with Obama)

I'm willing to work on either principle but I don't want to say "She gets points for the good things under the Clinton Presidency but no blame for the bad things". Or the other way around. Can we figure out one standard and stick with it?

Senator Barack Obama (D- IL) is one of the top nominees for the Presidential Race.

I don't really know that much about him- he's only served one term as a Senator. I know that Project Vote Smart has him listed as one of the most Liberal Senators in Congress, based on his voting record. Based on his votes, I don't think I'd agree with him on the issues.

But people aren't talking about the issues with regards to Senator Obama. They talk about his charisma, his ability to look good on television, his desire to stop the partisan bickering...

But there are serious issues in the United States. Serious issues, and deeply divided opinions on how to deal with them. The partisan objections-on both sides- are going to continue, no matter who is in the White House (remember, in 2000 George W. Bush was going to be the candidate who calms the partisan arguments from the Clinton years).

Honestly? I think Barack Obama as a top Presidential candidate is just... weird. Weird, and not good for the country. It's as if a large portion of the population decided "Well, we don't care who the President is as long as he's good looking and won't cause any problems."

But who the President is- and what he or she believes in- has a huge impact in our lives, both directly and indirectly. We are at war- and anyone who thinks we can end the war by leaving Iraq hasn't been listening to what the other side considers 'victory'.

There are consequences for staying. There are consequences for leaving. There are consequences for doing the Hokey-Pokey and turning yourself around. The purpose of the Presidential campaigns is to discuss our leaders based on what we think they will do, determining what the consequences are from those actions, and deciding how to deal with them.

Supporting a one-term Senator who's primary platform is 'politicians argue too much and too loudly' is a cop-out. It is Ostrich politics: stick our head in the sand and every problem will go away. It is not serious, and it is not something a serious nation should do.

This actually isn't meant to be attacking Obama. I don't blame him for running- hardly anyone has the kind of momentum he's developed, and he'll never have it again. And in a few years, when we have a better measure of what he wants to do, I'd consider supporting him. But the idea that so many people want this blank slate to be President- primarily BECAUSE he's a blank slate- worries me.