Saturday, February 26, 2005


If you want to know about the Jeff Gannon story, Ann Coulter properly slices and dices it for your eager consumption.

Deacon at Power Line has identified some adults on the Left (whose names are surprisingly not Lieberman and Koch) who also realize what a non-story this is.

You should know by now that I'm an old soul!

You Belong in 1954

If you scored...
1950 - 1959: You're fun loving, romantic, and more than a little innocent. See you at the drive in!
1960 - 1969: You are a free spirit with a huge heart. Love, peace, and happiness rule - oh, and drugs too.
1970 - 1979: Bold and brash, you take life by the horns. Whether you're partying or protesting, you give it your all!
1980 - 1989: Wild, over the top, and just a little bit cheesy. You're colorful at night - and successful during the day.
1990 - 1999: With you anything goes! You're grunge one day, ghetto fabulous the next. It's all good!

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Hinchey & Hannity

I just listened to Sean Hannity arguing with Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) for about an hour in what could have been approximated by the sound of tires spinning on ice. Hinchey is the Congressman who earlier this week claimed that the fake National Guard memos upon which Rathergate was based were in fact planted by Karl Rove. Little Green Footballs was all over this mind-bogglingly ridiculous accusation. You can find Charles' various updates to the story here. Jim Geraghty and Power Line had brief comments as well.

Of course, Hinchey has to date produced not a shred of evidence to back up his wild allegations, which, it goes without saying, has made him a hero to the Left. The guy is just nuts. And yet the interview he just had with Hannity was possibly even more unbelieveable. Hannity began as one would want him to, by directly demanding Hinchey produce his evidence that Karl Rove authored the memos. he couldn't do this and Hannity repeated himself several times asking for the proof. Hinchey, though, launched into a barking moonbat conspiracy involving Jeff Gannon and Hannity himself.

As crazy as people on the Left are, I was actually stunned by this. He kept claiming that Gannon broke the Rathergate story and Hannity wouldn't disagree! I realize Sean in part wanted Hinchey to continue hanging himself and was also more concerned about getting proof, but the guy would not shut up about Gannon. Gannon had nothing to do with the story. Hannity needed to remind Hinchey that it was Free Republic, Power Line and its readers and Little Green Footballs that broke the story. That demolishes Hinchey's entire point, which would then have allowed something to actually come out of this.

What exactly was his point? Well, I believe it was something along the lines of Gannon, in his view, is a White House plant (no evidence of this), who was allowed special access to the administration (no evidence of this beyond getting a daily press pass just the same as Helen Thomas) who then apparently was told by someone in the White House that the documents were fakes and, according to Hinchey, it was Gannon who broke the story and Hannity who invited Gannon on his radio show to publicize it. At least, that's what I managed to piece together from his disjointed rantings and Hannity's frequent cuts of his mike and (understandable) demands for evidence.

I cannot begin to describe how ludicrous this is. As Hannity said, the guy is clearly nuts, but, as happens more often than I like, I became frustrated with how Hannity handled the interview. He's had some really stellar interviews in the past, and he always nails RFK Jr., among others, but he has a tendency to pass on making really good points to drive home the one point he prefers above all others. For instance, whenever he was discussing Kerry with some liberal during the campaign, he's always go back to Kerry's 1971 slander against his fellow soldiers in Vietnam, which was perfectly valid, but there were always so many other points ot make.

In this case, Sean let Hinchey get away with claiming that Gannon had something to do with the memos. While I admire Sean for sticking to asking for evidence, when it was clear that all Hinchey had was Gannon, he needed to step in and instead of saying "Don't talk about Gannon!" he needed to quickly drive home that Gannon had absolutely nothign to do with it. If he persisted with Gannon after that, then I'm all for what Hannity did for the rest of the interview, but by missing the crucial point that the blogs broke the story made it seem that the Gannon stuff could actually be a point of contention.

I was struck by the contrast in style between Hannity, and my favorite radio host out of Denver, Mike Rosen, who was filling in for Rush today. Rosen goes after people's bogus points and makes them focus on the crux of the issue, machine gunning his opponent's argument away. Hannity seems to prefer the cannon approach. It's a powerful punch if it connects, but if he can't hit it, the argument remains relatively undamaged.

What's the point? Just to rant a little. Hinchey is crazy, but I expected that. I was really hoping for a better performance on Hannity's part. Or failing that, remembering that the blogs broke the story. The Gannon stuff is stupid but it's insidious. I'm eagerly anticipating the next issue of National Review, where K-Lo says Byron York will take it apart. I'd recommend everyone arm themselves accordingly. The liberals have latched on to this story and it's vital to be able to expose it for the idiocy that it is.

Asian Crisis?

This Article will appear in the World Affairs Publication

Let me first preface this article by saying that I am not anywhere near an expert in China but recent developments there need to be analyzed and I feel with the focus on the middle East a potential problem is being ignored. For those who are unaware the governments of Europe including Great Britain are preparing to end a weapons embargo against the Chinese’s government. Now to clarify I am referring to mainland China or the People Republic of China. This is a communist government where human rights frankly are a secondary concern and they are a threat to their neighbors in the region. The United States government has a responsibility to protect Taiwan also known as the Republic of China. This government while small is friendly to the United States and at any given point is defended by portions of our navy. The Chinese would very much like to take Taiwan back and have been striving through various means to do so over the past 50 plus years.

With that problem in mind the situation will grow more complicated if China is allowed access to European arms which if sold by our European allies will most likely end up being used against Taiwan and therefore against American servicemen and women. Although our allies should be taking this into account their does not appear to be any concern for what will happen with these weapons. For those unaware China currently gets much of their weaponry from Russia especially their air force. When the Soviet Union fell the Chinese bought an air craft carrier that was under construction from it sport in Ukraine and towed it to China. They are building up militarily and will have a sizable force in the region. The navy will essentially have one purpose and that is to destroy or retake Taiwan.

Now with this in mind we can look at what Japan has just done by saying it has a strategic interest in Taiwan and will help to defend it. Although the Japanese do not have much in the way of troops to contribute their money will be very helpful in paying for the costs of a possible war with China. On that note I am not saying that we will be in a war with China tomorrow but the potential for conflict is escalating quickly with all these side factors. The reason Japan becomes important is because I could in future years seeing a desire to create an army. They are powerful enough to defend themselves now and do not need or probably want US soldiers running around on their island. They also have the capabilities by some estimates to be a nuclear power in 6 months. Now the Japanese do of course have a natural aversion to nuclear weapons after they were used on their own people but strategic concerns may take over that aversion. With North Korea being the belligerent party in the region Japan now has another reason to become a nuclear power.

So to put the complete picture we have North Korea who could have been stopped by the strong insistence of China developing nuclear weapons which is a threat to the whole region. Japan who has a strong reason to fear a nuclear North Korea may decide to arm itself which will add to the tensions in the region but at least be an ally to the United States. China will be acquiring weapons not only from Russia but also from Europe making it even more dangerous. The United States and Japan with their commitments to Taiwan could be drawn into a conflict there which would be incredibly costly in both monetary and human capital. Although the middle east will remain a region of focus Asia is going to increasingly become a region that must have an eye kept on it.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

More on '08

I just have a few thoughts on Brian's response.

I hadn't heard of Frist saying he wouldn't run for President. If that's the case, I'm actually encouraged by that. The GOP often carries the label of the party that rewards people when it's "their turn" (see Blaine, Harding, Nixon in '60, Dole, etc) and the conventional wisdom holds that Frist's turn is up. Of course, I think that's nonsense. I want a good candidate whose views mirror my own to an acceptable extent first and foremost. Beyond, that, though, presidential candidates need to show some leadership. Frist doesn't ahve much to show there, and a knock-down-drag-out fight over judicial nominees of a Supreme Court nomination would do a lot of good for him, and for the image of post-Gingrich Congressional Republicans as overly cautious.

Semi-related to this are K-Lo's thoughts on Romney.

I'm not really worried about what the Europeans think about or president. well, okay, I am a little. I tend to think that the less they like him the better. With so much going wrong in Europe, that shows we must be doing something right. Europe is swallowing the bitter Bush pill anyway and attempting to smile about it. I would note, however, that Condi was greeted with great swoons (nothing like a Gorbasm, mind you) across the pond.

I have to agree with your characterization of much of Bush' domestic agenda as "odious and obnoxious," though that may be too kind for abominations like Medicare prescription drugs and Campaign Finance Reform. I do not agree, however, that the debate about gay marriage is a waste of time. As far as the FMA goes, that is something I think we can do without for the moment. I'd much prefer to fight this out in the state legislatures, not to mention the fact that I don't believe the FMA really belongs in the Constitution. That does, though, make the fight over judges all the more important.

I'm skeptical of the claim that just anyone we find in the party would handle domestic policy better than Bush. Surely Lincoln Chaffee would not. Nor would our favorite punching bag, Arlen Specter. Though I think he's more liberal, I'd trust Giuliani over McCain, in part because Rudy is a pragmatist. McCain is just too much of a preener for my liking. I have to wonder if he'd even be better than Bush on immigration, seeing how he opposed Arizona's Proposition 200. I'm afraid we won't get any serious progress on immigration until Tom Tancredo is appointed Secretary of Homeland Security. I could actually see Giuliani doing something like that. Not McCain.

Back to foreign policy. I don't know what's circulating in the IR department that has you and Kevin so worried about further US military action. I don't think we're in the position for another major operation at the moment, but I'm not certain one is necessary. The correct approach to Iran is to encourage the pro-democracy forces there, which is exactly what Bush is doing. I would add, though, that if the Iranians get too close to developing nuclear weapons (I happen to think they're too close already), let the Israelis take care of it. The Iranians have a stated goal of destroying Israel, so Sharon would be in the right anyway. Everyone in the Middle East already hates the Jews for everything, including their grand conspiracy theories. They may as well hate them for actual slights that have the added benefit of helping all of humanity, but especially Washington and Jerusalem. As for Syria, I think it's best for Israel to stay on the sidelines at the moment in that one and see how the events in Lebanon play out.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005


Well before I get into who I want to see in 2008 I do want to add that although it is not as vehement as Cheney’s denials Bill Frist has said on more than one occasion that he is not interested in running for the presidency.

I am a strong supporter of McCain/Giuliani ticket before one with Condoleezza Rice. I preferred McCain in the 2000 primary and had I been old enough to vote I would have certainly voted for him in the primary. I think his foreign policy will be strong enough to defend us from terror and he has one key advantage in Europe simply he is not Bush. I think he is a very honorable and intelligent man who is willing to cut beauracracy and get the job done. Giuliani is a fantastic manager and his cool poise under 9/11 saved many lives. He thinks the problems through and applies practical solutions something I will admit the Bush administration does not often seem to do. In honesty for all the talk about Bush being to the right I find his policies domestically to be odious and obnoxious. Medicare Modernization act is a disturbing extension of unnecessary welfare, this argument over gay marriage is a waste of time and although from a business stand point I understand the benefit issue let the states decide it. After joining Mary in listening to Giuliani speak I will say he has a way to motivate the crowd and he did a great job in pushing for Bush that day.

With regards to Condi Rice I think she is one of the smartest people out there and I have no fears with her as Secretary of State. If she makes a run for the presidency and was to beat McCain in the primary I would not have any qualms over voting for her and supporting her run for the presidency. I would need to find a great deal more out about her domestic policy but I do believe she would surround herself by smart people who will help shape policy. Let’s be honest at least in my view anyone will be better at domestic policy then Bush. My reasons for voting for Bush were as asinine at the liberals. He simply scared me less then Kerry but I really do not like him as a president. (not that this will surprise anyone who used to read my vast right wing conspiracy articles).

I would tend to agree with David that to date our foreign policy has been very good. We are spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world and standing up to places including Russia where freedom is curtailed. Kevin does make an excellent point that we are NOT in a position to invade another country with significant boots on the ground. I find the draft right now to be hogwash as we are only by good estimates about 9000 soldiers short of what we need. With that in mind a draft is impractical. Conservatively we would need a minimum of 120,000 solders for another invasion and I stress that is on the conservative side. There are better ways to deal with Iran by encouraging rebellion from within and maybe try letting the CIA do what they used to be good at. With that being said though understand that our Navy and Air Force could easily carry out strikes at a number of countries right now without any fear of stretching ourselves to thin. We will see what develops with regards to Syria which I believe will be the hardest to deal with and I would stress that Israel must not become involved in the struggle or we destroy the entire peace process.

Monday, February 21, 2005

RE: Condi, McCain, etc

Kevin, I'm obviously going to take issue with most of what you wrote. To begin with, I don't discount Giuliani and McCain as too liberal necessarily because I find them too liberal, but because they are farther to the left and with a Republican base that can be angered by someone who would not support the FMA (a great deal of ire was directed at former Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell for voting against it), I just don't see them being conservative enough to win a primary. I'm sure you're aware of the chip on my shoulder about McCain, though I think him a man of great personal honor and courage. Giuliani I think I would probably like as president. I didn't actually live in NYC during his tenure as mayor, but I wonder if he would come up with any domestic programs worse than President Bush has. That said, I still would not vote for him over a George Allen or, of course, a Condi Rice. Over Frist and McCain? I could likely be persuaded to.

I have to vehemently disagree about Bush's foreign policy. I think that has been this administrations crowning achievement, and the one thing I was willing to overlook almost anything else to have continue, which, fortunately, it has. Bush has achieved more in just 4 years than his two predecessors put together. Iraq and Afghanistan have been liberated. Yasser Arafat was marginalized until he died and has been quickly forgotten. Israel was encouraged to a point, allowing the killing of Hamas leaders (with some throw-away words about cycles of violence), allowing the security fence to be built, and forging a strong relationship with Ariel Sharon. The Palestinians were put on notice that it was they who had to make the major changes if there was to be peace. Bush has stood firm against China when needed (the Hainan spy plane incident), has pledged to protect Taiwan with force if necessary but has also kept the rhetoric from the pro-independence party there from getting too troublesome. Bush showed the French and Germans that their whining will not dictate out policy and told them to get in line or get out of the way. He strengthened alliances with key allies such as Great Britain, Australia, and Japan and yet he has not been afraid to criticize someone he considers a personal friend, Vladimir Putin. He supported democracy in Ukraine, becoming a hero to many in Eastern Europe, and thwarting Putin's designs on expanding Russian influence. He transformed Pakistan, which created the Taliban, and has a population very much hostile to the US into an ally in the war on terror, despite having to deal with an unsavory despot there. He's refused to give into North Korean sabre-rattling, unlike Clinton and Carter. He has put someone in command of our military who is determined to transform it from a Cold War force to one better suited to the 21st century in Donald Rumsfeld. Bush was unafraid to label Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "Axis of Evil," he called out Syria and Iran during his State of the Union address this year, and he clearly understands that multilateralism is a means to an end, as opposed to an end itself. In short, with the exception of a few stumbles like the WMD issue (which I still maintain was in good faith) and Liberia and his ongoing immigration floundering, Bush's foreign policy has been an unmitigated success. I want to see it continue beyond his eight years, and that is reason number one I want Condi to run and win in 2008.

Kevin, I know you've been taken with the siren song of libertarianism, but I would ask you to point to what missteps you believe are grave enough to want to do away with such a successful foreign policy.

As for McCain-Feingold, I'm not so sure the money needs to get out of Washington. I agree lobbyists have a great deal of influence, but I don't have too much of a problem with it. What I have a huge problem with is the government regulating political speech, in clear, direct violation of the language of the First Amendment. I'm furious that the same grandstanders who gave us this horrendous bill are now proposing an extension of it because they don't like those pesky 527 groups and all their speech.

As I said above, I like Rudy Giuliani a great deal, though his social liberalism concerns me. However, I'd want to hear him speak about that and examine his record closer. I love what he did with New York and his leadership on 9/11, but that doesn't mean I think he's right for the presidency. I don't wish to pander to the South, but my political views are often close to those of Southerners and I think they make up an important base of the party. The Solid South is now solid for Republicans, but for generally conservative Republicans. Bush is no conservative's conservative, but he's much more so than McCain.

You mention Giuliani/McCain as a risk-averse ticket for the Republicans in 08, and my first instinct is to disagree with you, since I do not believe they would energize the base like Bush did last year. However, the specter of Hillary Clinton I think may be enough to do that. Still, you forget the primary process. Whoever the nominee is, he must convince the base that he sufficiently represents their values to earn the nomination. Now, I can see Giuliani doing such a thing if Hillary is running strong, Condi is not in the primary, and the other Republicans are disorganized Seantors.

I think, though, that you greatly underestimate the appeal of Condolezza Rice. The GOP base loves her, she has phenomenal foreign policy experience, and I'm certain she can surround herself with good people to take care of domestic issues. In fact, that's where I think Giuliani would make an excellent VP pick, or someone like Romney or Owens. Condi also appeals across party lines, to more Democratic demographic groups. Plus, putting a collected, modest woman against a power-hungry shameless triangulator cannot fail to produce s harp contrast. Of course, you can't discount the woman vs. woman factor, and if the actions of groups like the NAACP and NOW during Condi's nomination and confirmation are any guide, the left will have an absolute meltdown if she is nominated and that can only help Republicans.

I agree, Bush's handling of the budget has be less than stellar. However, it has been almost entirely on the domestic side, which, again is not my primary reason for voting for him this time. I don't quite see, though, how you expect someone like John McCain, with his friendliness for press memes, or a social liberal, like Rudy Giuliani, to hold the line on the budget. Well, let me qualify that by saying I'm not familiar enough with Rudy's NYC record when it comes to the budget, so if I'm mischaracterizing him, let me know. I know he was better than David Dinkins, but a rock dressed like Michael Bloomberg would have run the city better than Dinkins.

A Quick Way to Say "Thank You"

I'm not one for internet petitions or signature lists, but a friend of mine sent me one that really is worth the extremely short amount of time it takes to add your name. The Defense Department has what is essentially a collective, simple, Thank You note to our men and women in uniform on behalf of the people of the United States.

I don't know what, if anything, will actually be sent to the troops station around the world, but it's a nice gesture to just add your name and make the number of names increase. Ideally, this list would have 280 million names on it, but I think 140 million is a good goal. They've only got around 11 million so far. Add your name and tell your friends and family to do so. It's not much, but it's good for everyone involved.

Add your name here.

I really hate...

Can't these people get a room?

No Condi

First to address the charges about McCain and Giuliani not being far enough to the right - who cares! What, they aren't going to be on the front lines of the March for Life? We're stuck with abortion, sorry to say. But even if I am wrong about that, we need to wake up and stop allowing social issues to define our party. I'll take abortion and gay marriage if I also get massive bureaucratic cuts, balanced budgets, lower taxes, and some backbone while fighting Medicare and Social Security.

More than anything, I am sick of Bush's foreign policy. We cannot continue to even consider invading other countries, either unilaterally or multilaterally. It just isn't sound. I don't like the neocons, I am not a neocon, and deep down neither are the rest of you. Unfortunately, we are stuck with Bush, stuck defending him against morons like Kerry, Moore, Kennedy, and Hillary, which breeds this fear that if we let up the defenses the dems will swoop into the White House and begin their socialist march deep into the heart of America. Yeah, we don't want democrats to win, but that doesn't mean we have to choose a female Bush in 2008. Going to "the left" (which I don't think would be going on in the first place, just a move to a different kind of right) doesn't mean that Kerry and Hillary are correct. We don't have to stick with Bush's brand of policy forever, nor should any of us want to if we examine the situation enough!

Draft the John McCain/Rudy Giuliani ticket in 2008. McCain served his country honorably, he is a good, decent person, and thankfully is not a religious nutbag. Say what you will about McCain/Feingold, it wasn't a great bill but the money needs to get out of Washington lest we become one nation under lobbyists (I, in case you didn't know, find lobbying to be repugnant). Rudy, of course, is the MAN. Cleaned up NYC like none other, is a fantastic manager of government, and is from the northeast. McCain/Rudy may not be the favorite ticket of people in the south (who we shouldn't be pandering to in the first place), but who are they going to vote for instead, Hillary? How about Kerry or Edwards, or Barack. Hey, maybe they will vote for Nader! No, they would vote for the GOP, and McCain/Rudy would win hands down. Throw Condi in there against Hillary and you have a race again. I want to be as risk averse as possible when Hillary Clinton is running to become the 44th President of the United States.

Plus, I don't want to reward irresponsible fiscal management any longer, and I'm sorry to say with Bush that seems to being with the wars. Condi is part of that wave of thought.

Bush Smoked Pot: Fantastic

In the midst of his endless struggles with DirecTV The Revered (by me) James Lileks noted that many people were discussing this Reuters story:

President Bush indicated in interviews secretly taped by a friend before he became president that he had used marijuana but would not admit it for fear of setting a bad example for children.
The White House is not denying it, so I'm assuming that means it is true. My initial reaction is reflected in the headline. This is just plain annoying. I'm annoyed at Bush for doing the deed, and I wince with anticipation the full-on assault this will bring from the Left and the media. Fortunately for the president, he'll be spending the week in Europe, although I'm certain the White House press corps will make Scott McClellan's life a living hell and the pool reporters will be on it as well.

Of course, not adressing this does not make me a very good blogger. Bush has never been perfect, recall that he drank excessively for many years. (Also recall campaign finance reform, prescription drugs for medicare, No Child Left Behind, the budget, and his proposals on immigration.) It does not surprise me, then, that he smoked a joint or two. I'd like to know the date he last particiapted in this unsavory activity, as I would hope it was either close to when he gave up alcohol or before it.

Am I disappointed in him? Certainly. There isn't much we can do about it, though, and a lot of moral outrage will get Republicans nowhere as fights over Social Security and judicial nominations gear up. Bush had the right instinct, however. It does indeed set a terrible example for kids, and rather than revel in it like a significant portion of the Democratic base, he decided not to discuss it much.

What will be simultaneously amusing, dumbfounding, and frustrating here will be the Democratic reaction. These are people who spent over eight years dismissing "youthful indiscretions," trying to claim that "not inhaling" made it okay, screaming about personal witch hunts and dragging in irrelevant personal details. I can't wait until the first Clintonista opens his mouth to criticize President Bush about this.

I hasten to note that the guy who made the tapes is releasing them to coincide with a book release. Let us welcome him into a long line of Bush-bashers who did the same thing, inlcuding such luminaries as Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neal.

Lileks makes a good point as well:
...recall, in the happy halcyon 90s, when Linda Tripp taped Monica? There was great ire poured on her for doing such a despicable thing. I wonder if the same parties will summon up an equal amount of dudgeon now.
I'm sure the Democrats will be eager to turn the hypocrisy charge on Republicans, though. "How could you criticize Clinton but defend Bush?" Well, I don't defend his comission of the act one bit. It was a stupid thing for him to do, set a bad standard, was unbecoming of a leader, etc. I don't recall Clinton worrying that his actions would set a bad standard for kids, though. And in the end, I think that is the ultimate difference here. Bush is ashamed of the dumb things he did when he was younger. Clinton has no shame.

UPDATE: Captain Ed weighs in. Best wishes for your First Mate, Captain. And for the Instawife as well.

It Begins

Instapundit and Jim Geraghty report that there is already a significant "Draft Condi" movement afoot among conservatives. That would, of course, include me. Insty also links a great piece in the American Thinker making the arguments for her candidacy and providing an excellent counterpoint to the charge that she has little domestic policy experience: what about all the guys who became president with little or no foreign policy experience?

Condi is genuine, incredibly intelligent, and doesn't do BS, a strong contrast with the phoniness of Hillary Clinton. I can't think of anyone better to beat Hillary in 2008, nor can I think of anybody more qualified to handle the foreign policy challenges approaching this nation over the next several years (if anyone reading this just thought to themselves, "Joe Biden" take yourself out behind the woodshed; three lashes with the belt).

From what I can tell, though, the main problem is, Condi does not seem to be interested in the job, and least of all the politicking required of it. It's possible she may be persuaded, but how long will she delay her quest for NFL commissioner? Come on, which position is going to make it easier to get complimentary Super Bowl tickets, Former Sec. of State or President of the United States?

I wholeheartedly agree with the writer in the American Thinker that she is without question the most qualified person in the Republican party for President, but because the other candidates are so lousy, that tends to sell her short. Shall I go through them yet again?

McCain: Half the base can't stand him and he's a media darling. A lot of people are still angry about McCain-Feingold, including myself.

Frist: I like the guy, but strapping a party hat on a rock produces the same amount of charisma. He also has yet to demonstrate so real leadership in the Senate.

Giuliani: A great man, but just too liberal for Republicans. I cannot see him winning a primary in any Southern state.

Bill Owens: He's been a fantastic governor, but he has personal skeletons in his closet, even though he's been a great conservative. I'm also not sure a presidential candidate is allowed to wear so many pink shirts. He will be tested these next to years with a Democratic legislature that has gone off the deep end.

Mitt Romney: Very little national recognition. He may also feel too liberal for many GOPers.

Jeb Bush: Another great governor, but his last name is "Bush." Not only are Republicans uncomfortable with that, I think the general public would be as well. Give it up, Hannity.

Colin Powell: Too liberal.

Arnold: No, no, no. Too liberal, and there's no way the required amendment would pass.

Pataki: Too liberal.

George Allen: To me, he's the only intriguing possibility. He's popular and tough on taxes. However only political junkies know him, and being a Seantor doesn't really help.

Cheney: He is vehement about not running.

So, Condolezza Rice is not only the best person for the nomination, she's really the only sensible person for the nomination. I'll have to get one of those bumper stickers or buttons.