From IMCT - February 27, 2005

Although it's kind of like watching hogs breed, with a sick fascination we can begin to follow the 2008 fight for the Republican nomination for President.

Already, the hopefuls are jockeying for position, even though the primaries are three years away. In order to win the nomination fight -- which is actually decided in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and (if the race is tight enough) South Carolina -- you must lay the groundwork in those early states well ahead of time.

Among those making unofficial campaign trips to early states are Tennessee Senator Bill Frist, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona Senator John McCain. One name that apparently won't be in the running in 2008 is Bush, as in Jeb, the Florida Governor who has said he won't run.

An early poll shows Giuliani leading among those creeps who vote Republican, edging McCain, with Bush third and Frist a distant fourth.

At one point, I worried about a Giuliani candidacy, because he's such a feel-good character for leading his city through the 9/11 tragedy. But after watching Campaign 2004, Giuliani might be just the ticket for Democrats to beat. Just like a so-called "Northeastern liberal" a la John Kerry couldn't get elected President, I just don't think it would be that easy for a Northeastern Republican to carry the GOP's Southern base, especially if the Dems countered with any kind of red state Southerner or Midwesterner.

When it got down to the nitty-gritty, I'm just not sure those morals voters (who did or did not exist, depending on who you listen to) would flock to the polls for Giuliani in the numbers they needed to in order to elect Bush.

Obviously, Romney is a long, long shot of this group, a Northeasterner with limited recognition. His only claim would be that he's a Republcian who managed to win in a Democratic state, but that would actually be a negative to the national GOP.

Frist has the regional appeal as a Southerner, but also has limited recognition. (I would say questionable business practices by the company his family owns, HCA Inc., would hurt him, but Bush proved that theory wrong.)

Gingrich could be a spoiler, and I hope to see him run. The national party would never let him win, because he doesn't comform to the neo-con philosophy (that's not in any way a compliment to him, but...) He could cause some division and draw off some of the core conservative votes, serving much the same role in the GOP primary as Howard Dean served in the 2004 Democratic primary, as an ideological alternative before the party machinery cranks out its anointed one during the primary season.

McCain is one that should worry Democrats. Luckily, he's too far to the center on key Republican issues to ever pass muster with that GOP machinery, but he could certainly hinder any Democratic efforts to recapture that middle-of-the-road red-blooded American that the Dems will have to figure out how to appeal to it they are to begin winning elections instead of sliding into an increasingly marginal role.   

From IMCT - February 22, 2005

This whole weak dollar thing isn't getting a lot of attention overall, but at some point it should become a concern in the U.S., even if you don't spend your days on the floor of the stock exchange.

Today came word that the South Korean central bank would "diversify" its currency holdings, and other countries are expected to follow suit. In this case, "diversify" is a fancy word for "dump the dollar."

I didn't get a lot out of my financial class in high school, but it makes sense to me that if banks don't want to hold our currency, they might shortly not want to hold out debt -- and we've got a lot to hold. At the very least, a weak dollar would seem to make our debts even larger.

Not to sound like Chicken Little, but that sky does seem to be getting a little closer to earth lately.  

From IMCT - February 22, 2005

OK, Bush made it clear today that we are not planning an attack on Iran. He then made it clear that we might be planning an attack on Iran.

Here's your fearless leader's quote:

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said.

Are we all clear on that? (Here's the story.)

From IMCT - February 21, 2005

First, we invaded Afghanistan (not a bad idea). Then we invaded Iraq (a very bad idea), irking a good portion of the world (also not a good idea, no matter how much we think we can go it alone).

Now, we're threatening Iran (an invasion there could make Iraq look like the 1980s invasion of Grenada), and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is threatening to suspend oil exports to the U.S. if there is an assassination attempt on him (Chavez appears to be about the same level of buffoon as Bush).

Oh, and meanwhile, North Korea is becoming an increasing nuclear threat, but they don't have oil.

How long after the merciful end of the Bush presidency will it take the U.S. to repair the damage done in those eight years? Or will there even be a chance for repair?  

From IMCT - February 21, 2005

Here we go. Don't know how believable it is, but here's a report that claims Bush plans on bombing Iran come June, and that chickenhawks in the administration still believe such bombing would set in motion regime change. They're stupid, and it's endangering us all.

The same report claims that the administration manipulated the Iraq vote to lower the percentage gained by the Shia to less than 50 percent. Gee, manipulating an election -- they have no practice on that.