Some thoughts on '08

2008 is still far on the horizon, but since I can never keep my mind off of presidential elections, here is the first of many posts on the 2008 presidential elections.

There were three articles in the New York Times today that directly or indirectly dealt with the 2008 election (here and here are two of them; you can't get the third unless you're a Times Select subscriber). And each of them was interesting for different reasons.

The first, which was about the "budgetary restraint" theme in the GOP primary, was interesting enough in its own right, but the funniest bit was a glaring error by its author, Adam Nagourney:

One of the most striking moments involved a speech not by a possible presidential candidate, but by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Mr. Graham stood up, speaking softly but urgently, and apologized to the audience for what had happened with spending in this era of Republican rule in Washington.

Since when is Lindsey Graham not a potential presidential candidate in '08? He was lumped in with the "potential candidates" group by others reporting at the event, and I would consider him the strongest candidate the Republicans have to offer (certainly more so than the cat-torturer Frist, the too-edgy-for-GOP-primetime McCain or Giuliani, or the funny-named Huckabee). If he doesn't receive the nomination, I'll thank the Democratic Party's lucky stars.

But how about that Republican primary? I know I will be contradicting what I just wrote, but the liberal candidates (which do not include McCain, as Paul Krugman rightly pointed out today) may have a better chance than conventional wisdom tells us. The reason is clear: the field is crowded with conservatives. Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, George Allen, Bill Frist, Tom Tancredo, John McCain, and potentially more. The liberal side, in contrast, is meager: Giuliani is all alone right now. Giuliani has little chance of winning the primary, but not because of his politics; no, personal baggage will derail his chances. However, if Condi Rice entered the race, I would call the nomination for her right there and then. Not only would she be the only credible liberal, but she would probably pick up some conservative votes to boot. She recently won an online poll of Human Events readers as the favorite GOP candidate; this is hardly scientific, but impressive nevertheless considering HE's radical conservative credentials.

Finally, on the Democratic side. I like what Russ Feingold is doing. No, that doesn't mean I would like him to win the primary (I like the guy, but he would be a disastrous nominee). Rather, I like that he's putting pressure on Hillary from the left by tossing some slabs of red meat to the Democratic base. Caught between Feingold and Clark on the left and Warner and Vilsack on the right, it's looking more and more possible that the nomination will slip through her fingers. From there, hopefully it will fall onto Mark Warner's lap...

Anyway, that's my round up. I'm sure there will be more as the months wear on.

Dubai

Perhaps making this the subject of my first post in months is akin to Bush threatening to make it his first veto, but here goes...

The Dubai deal was not a very big deal.

This is certainly not administration apologism. There are a million things I disagree with Bush about. But this wasn't one of them.

The argument that this was a security threat was always ridiculous. The firm would not be handling security at the ports. 80% of U.S. ports are held by foreign companies in the status quo. And port security in America couldn't get much worse.

Unfortunately, I think it's telling that Michael Savage was the one who first made this issue nationally prominent. Even more unfortunate is that Democrats joined him. I don't think the Dems are guilty of racism by any means (as Savage, Hannity, et al certainly are). But I do think they're guilty of political grandstanding.

At least it's all over now.