My hero this week is Congressman Tom Tancredo, who just dropped out of the 2008 race. That's not why he's me hero, though....he's my hero this week because Tanc has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the problems that illegal immigration causes in this country, and I know he will continue to do so.

Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines, said Tancredo forced his GOP rivals to talk about immigration.

"What Tancredo has done is analogous to what a third-party candidate does," Goldford said. "They call attention to and articulate an issue that the other two main parties neglect or don't see" and then after forcing the issue they disappear.

My hacks this week are Congressional Republicans who are still high on pork:

The demise of the bridge to nowhere notwithstanding, Sen. Ted Stevens and other Republicans remain the kings of pork-barrel spending, proving that GOP mastery of "earmarks" can withstand public scorn, a president's rebuke and even a Democratic takeover of Congress.

The Senate's two biggest sponsors of this year's pet spending projects are Republicans Stevens of Alaska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, according to preliminary reviews of fiscal 2008 spending bills by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group. Two of the House's three biggest claimants of earmarks also are Republicans: Bill Young of Florida and Jerry Lewis of California, the group found.

Labels: 2008 Watch, Congress, Culture of Corruption, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Pork, Tancredo

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:30 AM | Permalink | |

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 | |

I thought overall, the debate was better than the last one, though not as lively as the Democratic one, because Ron Paul isn’t as angry as Mike Gravel, and because the Republicans generally refused to attack each other head-on the way the Democrats did.

Giuliani did particularly well, especially compared to his prior performances. The lightning moment was probably the most entertaining thing in the whole debate (video). He apparently was also holding Mitt Romney’s leash. Every time that Romney spoke after Giuliani did, he agreed with him, from Iraq, to gays in the military, to the immigration bill, it seemed that Romney was the “me too, Rudy!”

It is interesting that Sen. Sam Brownback supports the ‘Biden plan’ of the three-state solution to Iraq. I also thought that Gov. Mike Huckabee did particularly well, especially on the “creation question” nailing it down to what the media is really asking: “Do you believe in God?” and providing a well-spoken answer. Of the “second-tier,” he and Tancredo stood out the most, though admittedly Ron Paul has his niche. Gilmore, (Tommy) Thompson, and Hunter blended into the background.

Immigration was the central issue of the debate, it seemed, and the most divisive overall. This is bad news for John McCain. Tancredo shone on the issue of immigration, and I think that his anger toward the bill and the Bush-McCain-Kennedy coalition will resonate with the average American, who does not like pressing “1” for English. Another highlight was when John McCain asked aloud if anyone had had any better ideas and was met with hands going up and shouts of “Senator” from all parts of the stage.

I also would like to note that between the two debates, my dislike of Wolf Blitzer as a moderator almost overpowers the entire debate. The one question I have of CNN’s coverage is how does a question about conservation translate to “TOPIC: GLOBAL WARMING” on the bottom of the screen? Interesting that Giuliani, Romney, and Richardson all want an 'energy Apollo.' I'm not necessarily opposed, if it has a concrete goal like Apollo did.

Labels: 2008 Watch, Climate Change, Giuliani, Huckabee, Illegal Immigration, Iraq, McCain, Romney, Tancredo

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:20 PM | Permalink | |

As mentioned in the previous post, this is post two of four on CPAC, and as indicated in the title, this one will focus on the 2008 elections and the ramifications of CPAC.

First, the John McCain no show. He claims a calendar conflict, but I don't buy it. Everyone else made the time to be there, and this would have been an important venue for him to attempt to rebuild some political capital with the grassroots.

Duncan Hunter I thought spoke well, though he is still an unknown Congressman from San Diego. The other Delawareans I was with had generally favorable things so say.

Mike Huckabee was the candidate that impressed me the most. I was not expecting much, if anything out of his speech, and had sort of forgotten he was even running. He gave one of the better speeches I saw at CPAC this year, and perhaps the best by a presidential candidate. He has agreed to sign the Americans for Tax Reform pledge to not raise taxes, which is good news for fiscal conservatives. Of the other Delaware people I was with, he seemed to garner the most favorable opinion post-speech, and several voted for him in the straw poll. They said he had realistic ideas, seems a solid conservative, and has an identity outside being a conservative. He is also the first governor in the nation to have a concealed carry permit, which is pretty cool.

Rudy Giuliani seemed to position himself as a leader in the Reagan model (though he might have mentioned Reagan least of all the people who spoke). Rudy said that we need leaders, not commenters, and promised fiscally conservative, optimistic leadership with a "peace through strength" foreign policy. He spoke to a packed audience, possibly the most packed of the entire weekend. I thought his speech was pretty good, but I think it probably came across better on television.

I saw Tom Tancredo at a reception Thursday evening with Ron Paul. Tancredo acted as if he were among friends, and was fairly candid for someone running for president. His feelings on Iraq aside, I really don't like Ron Paul. He's tried to combine Austrian economics with protectionism, I just don't think you can do that. As for Tanc's speech, I thought his little riff on "hyphenated" conservatism was interesting, and I liked it. So much for the paleocons who want to claim him as their own.

I don't like Mitt Romney. I really just can't think of one positive that he has. He acts too much like a politician for his own good. His speech was lame, and he only won the straw poll because he had the most paid staff in attendance. As for his association with Ann Coulter, he gets what he pays for.

Labels: 2008 Watch, CPAC, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Tancredo

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:13 PM | Permalink | |