Here is a list and my brief thoughts about the 2008 Field as it looks right now.

The Republicans:
The race to distance oneself has begun, unless you're John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thomson. Wait...aren't those the top three candidates? Right now the (official) Big Three are vying to jump out in front, and the second tier is trying to jump into the top tier.

Top Tier

Mayor Rudy Giuliani: I used to say that "America's Mayor" was far too moderate to win the nomination, but as Chris Matthews has said (paraphrasing here) you don't ask a cop that saves you from being mugged how many times he's been married. I think he has a real shot, and could be exactly what voters are looking for. His performance in the debates thus far has been getting better, and he is coming to answer the abortion question without sounding completely offensive to pro-lifers. Sounding being the key word there. Giuliani may be the choice of suburban 'security moms' nationwide.

Senator John McCain: I think he's been stalled by McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold with conservatives, and the war in Iraq with moderates. He has a solid base of support, but it doesn't seem to be expanding at all. Lots of people are aware of John McCain, and they either love him or hate him.

Gov. Mitt Romney: He seems to be handling "The Mormon Question" decently enough, and he certainly has won Hugh Hewitt over. He's been polling well in Iowa and New Hampshire from what I've been hearing, and that means he has a well-funded, well-organized ground game, he's a master at Clinton-style retail politics, or both.

Second Tier

Senator Sam Brownback: Three things I like about Sam Brownback: He's Catholic, he's 100% pro-life, and he cares about Darfur. Three things I don't like about Sam Brownback: He wants to give out amnesty, he has little charisma, and he agrees with Joe Biden on Iraq.

Gov. Jim Gilmore: From the debates, all I know is that he says "conservative" and "Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia" a lot. Is he raising any money?

Gov. Mike Huckabee: I heard him speak at CPAC, and I was really impressed. I saw him in the three debates and continue to be impressed. I think he has the potential to break out of the second tier, but not sure if there is room or if he can pull it off. I good showing in either New Hampshire or Iowa would keep him in the race long enough to be a good VP choice.

Rep. Duncan Hunter: His performance at the debates has been decent enough, but nothing groundbreaking here.

Rep. Ron Paul: He's a real maverick, having voted against the Iraq War, and strong Libertarian Party ties. He has a lot of support on the internet, where a lot of people seem to 1) skew more libertarian than average, and 2) be more ticked off at the establishment than average. No idea if this translates into supporters who will do things other than vote in internet polls and digg stories.

Rep. Tom Tancredo: Did decently well at the debates, but probably scared some people when he said he wanted to put a hold on legal immigration. However, he wins because McCain acknowledged his position, and that's a victory only Ron Paul has been able to achieve. Immigration is his issue, and McCain-Kennedy passing might help him in leading a campaign to repeal it once in office.

Gov. Tommy Thompson I still keep forgetting he's running, and he and Duncan Hunter blend hopelessly together for me.

Wild Cards
Gov. Haley Barbour: I would still love to see Barbour run, and he's got national experience (back when being the RNC Chair was a good thing) and positive vibes from post-Katrina. Would lock up the South for the GOP as a VP.

Newt Gingrich: I loved Winning the Future, and I think it is chock-full of platform building ideas for 2008. " He says he's only running if he doesn't like anyone else. Doesn't sound like the Newt we know and love. Not sure I embrace the idea of a Newt candidacy though. Stick with town hall meetings and alternative history fiction.

Fred Thompson: Still not sure if he's in or out, though he is raising money. I have my qualms about Fred Thompson's candidacy, one that he isn't serious enough about it (nothing to do with him coming in in July, more that he had a reputation for getting bored and not liking the hours of being a Senator), and two that he may be the candidate most connected to the Bush Administration.

The Democrats:
The Democrats have a lot of infighting, with Hillary trying to play statesmen, Obama being Obama, and Edwards nipping at their heels.

Top Tier

Senator Hillary Clinton: I am very scared at the prospects of Hillary getting the nomination. If she can continue to out-class Obama and keep the far left appeased (not tasks to be taken lightly) she may be able to lock it up. She looked really good in the last Democratic debate. I also think the right-wing punditry talks about her way too much. This obsession is a little tedious, and by the time the general election comes around, people may feel that we've been banging the same drum since 1992.

Senator John Edwards: He did singlehandedly bring poverty back on the Democratic agenda, but will it pay off? He's the only candidate to apologize for his Iraq vote, and I am not sure how that is playing with the netroots. He seems to be the choice of the "Clinton's too moderate and Obama's too inexperienced" demographic.

Senator Barack Obama: I like hearing him speak. He just gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling, at least when he's speaking in abstracts (so, most of the time). If the rest of the field were running on an 'anti-hope' platform, he'd win hands down. The thing he has going for him is that he may be attracting people new to being interested in politics. That's a powerful thing to have on your side, and if it is true, it could be a major source of money for him.

Second Tier
Senator Joe Biden: Joe's made a nice recovery from his low point of complimenting Barack Obama, and I think when he speaks during the debate, people listen. He is sticking to his guns on Iraq, and voted for war funding even when Obama and Hillary didn't. His outburst on Darfur during the second debate was actually pretty moving. I hope he stays in the race for a while, because he's actually offering ideas as opposed to just rhetoric.

Senator Chris Dodd: He comes off as aloof, angry, and bitter during the debates, but I'm not always sure at who or about what. Has too much of the "cranky old man" vibe.

Senator Mike Gravel: He may have been out of politics longer than I've been alive, but he certainly provided much-needed fireworks during the first debate. I like that he stands for what he believes, and has the gusto to attack the Democratic establishment.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Has been slightly more substantive in the debates than I thought he would be, but he's still too out there, not to mention his utter failure at being mayor of Cleveland.

Governor Bill Richardson: The Latino Bill Clinton, and I think he is a formidable candidate in either the President or VP slot, as he has arguably the most experience of anyone in his party. It's one hell of a résumé, but he's fairly unknown. He seems to be a slight equivalent to Ron Paul in that he's more popular online than in wider polling. If his debate performance had been anything but lackluster, he might have been able to break into the top tier by now. Still waiting for the "I feel your pain," moment Clinton had.

Wild Cards
General Wesley Clark: He had a good shot in '04, before he started hanging out with Michael Moore. He could make a strong showing for a VP slot with a first tier candidate weak on national security.

Vice President Al Gore: People apparently want him to run. Is he the Fred Thompson for the Democrats? No one else fits, so turn to someone who's been to Hollywood? Perhaps, but he's been very coy about running to date.


The (Rumored) Independents

Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Apparently he could pull an H. Ross Perot and completely finance his own campaign. All billion dollars of it. He's a moderate's moderate, but does anybody really like him?

Senator Chuck Hagel: He's been outspoken and critical on Bush vis-à-vis Iraq (but has found a more mainstream audience than Ron Paul), and some people are saying he could make a break and even team up with Bloomberg. No idea if it is going to happen, but stranger things have, and this is an especially strange cycle.



Overall: I'm hesitant to support anyone completely this early out, and especially hesitant about people with the title of Senator. This is going to be a long and interesting race.

Labels: 2008 Watch, Barack Obama, Biden, Bill Richardson, Brownback, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, Huckabee, John Edwards, McCain, Newt, Romney, Ron Paul, Tancredo

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:31 PM | Permalink | |

Even Newt Gingrich.

Paul at Powerline has some thoughts:

I will shed no tears if President Bush decides to sack Alberto Gonzales. But Gingrich's suggestion that the administration can get a fresh start with a new Attorney General is silly. The Dems aren't declining to cooperate with the Bush Justice Department because Gonzales mishandled the firing of eight prosecutors. They are making a mountain over this molehill because they wish to undermine the Bush Justice Department.

I'm all for replacing Gonzales if he needs to be replaced, but not because the Democrats say they will play nice with somebody else.

Bring back John Ashcroft!

Labels: Bush, Culture of Corruption, Newt

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:48 AM | Permalink | |

Matt Lewis is comparing Newt Gingrich to Barry Goldwater, saying he's the romantic Republican's choice:

The former House speaker from Georgia might be the only Republican presidential candidate, declared or otherwise, who has the potential to be romantic. Other people give speeches; when Newt speaks, the words have music. He's poetic. He's quixotic. He's … dangerous.
He's also incredibly intelligent. He's proposing cutting-edge solutions to vexing policy issues like health care and the tax code. He's offering a compelling vision for a limited but efficiently run federal government.

Something tells me we are heading into a time when conservatives will be willing to jump in the proverbial convertible and head to Vegas on a whim. Hey, Newt's driving.

This echoes something I've said before:

Newt Gingrich is trying to position himself as the Reagan/Buchanan for this decade, and perhaps the next as well. He wants to be the godfather for this generation of collegiate conservatives, and seems to turn out some of the largest crowds at CPAC on a regular basis. I'm not sure if this is a good thing. Gingrich has a lot of ideas (the man is almost his own think tank) but they're not always good ideas.

I generally like Newt, but I'm not a "Newt Believer" by any means. I'm not quite sure where his principles are, and he just has a negative vibe.

Labels: 2008 Watch, Newt

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:49 AM | Permalink | |

Sorry for not posting for most of last week, I was attending CPAC in Washington, and had every intention of blogging from the conference, but did not get the opportunity primarily due to the lack of time and free WiFi.

This will be the first of at least four posts on things that occurred at CPAC, with others focusing on 2008 (later tonight or tomorrow), global warming (sometime soon after that), and the state of conservatism today (that's gonna be a long one).

Here are some highlights that don't fit into any of the above:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said "Republicans [in Congress are] serious about returning to conservative values," having "learned our [their] lesson" and pledged to keep Congressional Democrats in line, claiming that since they came into power, not one "bad bill" had made its way to Bush's desk. He also said that the bill the Dems have pushing the final recommendations of the 9-11 Commission into law (all two of them), is actually centered around giving collective bargaining rights to civilian airport security screeners.

White House Spokesman Tony Snow called for conservatives to "take off the dark colored glasses," and gave a pretty inspiring speech. I've been a fan of of Snow for a while now, and what I really love about his speech was that he has mastered the technique of making the audience feel that he is letting us in on some big secret. It's wonderful, and even though I know it's a technique, it still makes me feel that way. He also used a good amount of humor, and seemed to be really enjoying himself.

Kellyanne Conway, a notable conservative spokesperson, on a panel with Mike Barone and others, said that "Hillary is not the Clinton America misses." She also finds it ironic that a "feminist icon" like Hillary "needs her man to get anywhere in politics." Conway did express her empathy for Mrs. Clinton by saying she feels kind of bad that she probably the only one running for president that is the second-best politician in their family.

Wayne LePierre, of the NRA, is one of the most dynamic speakers I've ever heard, and never miss his CPAC speeches. He talked about what the NRA is up to right now, including fighting the UN and working hard to get the legal guns confiscated in New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath back to their rightful owners. (More on that here and here from the JttR archives)

I went to an excellent panel on China and Venezuela, even if it seemed like both panelists were making the case that their area of expertise was the bigger threat.

Thor Halversson of the Human Rights Foundation talked about Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. Though democratically elected, Chavez has been consolidating power ever since, and has gained more power by revamping the Venezuelan constitution. He is also working with other regional allies like Fidel Castro, as well as China and trying to curry favor with Russia by buying enormous stockpiles of AK-47s. Chavez has said he intends to rule until at least 2030, and the only institutional opposition he faces in his country is the Catholic Church.

Jed Babbin, author of Showdown: Why China Wants War with the U.S, said that great powers historically only rise out of war, and that China seems more and more like 1930s Germany. China's anti-satellite weaponry is a huge potential threat to the US, as are armed forces are dependent on satellites. He praised the Bush Administration for seeking strategic partners in the region such as India and Vietnam, who fear China's growing power.

Newt Gingrich spoke on his "Winning the Future" solutions...again. basically the same tune for three years now. He talked about some 2008 stuff that I'll cover in that post, but seemed to be mostly rhetoric in his speech, especially on foreign policy. Who doesn't want a strong America? Especially in the CPAC crowd. Sheesh.

And no, I did not watch Ann Coutler's speech. Nor Sean Hannity's.

A record 6,300 people registered for CPAC 2007.

Labels: China, Congress, CPAC, Gun Rights, Newt, Tony Snow, Venezuela

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:24 PM | Permalink | |