A couple weeks back, I questioned whether Ron Paul's claim of being "the taxpayer's best friend" was true. We had a Ron Paul groupie come in to try to change our mind... which meant not providing any substantive info, but just leaving what looked very much like a form letter.

After seeing Ron Paul's followers in action since, I'm starting to wonder what it is about him. I have received some amazing emails from people who hunted down my real-life email address, and started sending me masses of "information." Plus some threats (not to me but about what the future would be like without Ron Paul as President). Plus, a whole lot of "if you dont suport Ron Paul your not a real conservtive"[sic].

One of the parallels I remember from my college days was a table that would get set up every day at UH, operated by a fanatical supporter of a man who pretty much runs a cult: Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouchies are borderline insane. They hang on every word of LaRouche. At the table, they had publications that said he'd predicted things like stock market fluctuations and other events (the quotations could never be sourced and weren't even sourced to their own publications for verification purposes), and they were crazy. One of the more entertaining things at UH was to sit down with them and work out what they were actually thinking, which usually was "LaRouche is my god."

Interestingly, LaRouche supporters and Ron Paul supporters have an interesting number of parallels, even with some differences.

- Both claim to be from an established party (Ron Paul a Republican or Libertarian RINO, LaRouche claims to be a Democrat)
- Both run very much on a cult of personality
- Both make sweeping statements and accumulate people who set up their entire worldview around what the cult leader says.
- Both make claims about things they've said that aren't necessarily verifiable

- Both are complete freaking lunatics

The key difference is that the Republicans have somehow allowed Ron Paul to maintain office, while the Democrats don't have to deal with that.

It is an interesting thing that Ron Paul has been allowed into the televised debates for the Republican nomination. One imagines that it is partly because it allows the rest of the candidates (Guiliani especially) to shoot down a man who, in many ways, is the perfect strawman of the Democrat position on certain issues (9/11 and terrorism for examples).

One imagines that it's also partly because if they didn't, there would be Ron Paul hecklers, just like the Democrats had to throw out a LaRouche heckler from each of their debates back in 2004. It's probably easier to let the loon have a couple minutes on stage, and destroy him, than it is to have to check for hecklers at the door.

[Update]: MSNBC's comment on their poll, where Ron Paul came in dead last? "Just please stop e-mailing us. Thanks.

After being spammed by Barack Hussein Obama's campaign, I followed their unsubscribe link. I figured a political campaign ought to get the message: you don't spam people.

Nope. Another message, subject "Not playing by the rules", from one David Plouffe (again at the info@barackobama.com address) hits my inbox. This one is trying to get people to convince Republican Senators to help Obama's effort to override the Presidential veto.

Obama can go screw himself.

Those who know me know I'm no supporter of Barack Obama. I'm no fan of the racist church he attends. I'm no fan of the behavior of his campaign in the theft of an unofficial fan-support myspace profile and their subsequent attempts to lie about and vilify their former supporter after the stunt.

So, so far, I considered Obama the usual sort of politician, leaning towards "lying jerk."

Today, that changes. Obama's the worst kind of person, save perhaps for a serial murderer or serial rapist. He's a spammer..

I have never contacted the Obama campaign.
I have done nothing to give them my email address.
I have done nothing to indicate to them that I would ever want to support Obama as a candidate.

What do I find in my email box today? An email from the Obama campaign titled "Taking it to the streets." Sender ID is "Barack Obama <info@barackobama.com>", ID of mailer is mta2.bluestatedigital.com (IP address 207.234.209.148). This is most definitely from the Obama campaign.

The gist of the email is a form email trying to get me to be an organizer for their supposed "Walk for Change" campaign to happen in June. They are "offering" to send me informational packets to set up a "neighborhood walk" in support of getting Barack nominated for the presidency.

I don't want this spammer nominated for dogcatcher, much less the presidency. And I may just look up a walk in my area so I can show up and pass out a few pamphlets on what Obama is REALLY like, rather than what his campaign says he is.

One down, Dems. 7 to go, unless someone else jumps into the race. My offer still stands. Give me someone I can trust to do the right thing 70% of the time - I'm willing to drop 3 out of 10 serious issues here - and I'll support them and vote for them.

But don't you dare give me Obama any more. Put him in your nomination, and I don't care if the Republicans nominate a Freddie Kreuger/Jason Vorhees ticket, they'll get my support against Barack "The Spammer" Obama.

Mike Ahlf, in "Burro and Monoceros" below, argues that George Bush has been terrible for the Republican party and complains graphically about the poor choice offered in the 2004 Presidential election. I think that he is grossly overstating his case.

Mr. Kerry has largely faded from view, but that does not mean we should wax nostalgic over him. He was, and remains, a self-styled war hero who returned home and slandered his own army; a self-appointed peace activist who discussed strategy with the North Vietnamese delegation to the Paris peace talks; and a self-proclaimed victim of slander who somehow could never sign the form 180 that would have settled the issue. Aside from that, though, he seems like a perfectly normal doctrinaire liberal.

With all the talk of Fred Thompson running or not running in the previous two weeks, it's tough not to forget about The Other Man From Tennessee, former Vice President Al Gore.

Well, apparently some people haven't forgotten:

Mr Gore, President Bill Clinton's deputy, has said he wants to concentrate on publicising the need to combat climate change, a case made in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won him an Oscar this year.

But, aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop. [...]

The former aide, who has himself signed up with Sen Edwards, said: "The question is: where have all the Kerry people gone? The answer for most of them is nowhere. Now ask yourself why."

Al Gore is like that ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend with whom things came so close to working out but ultimately fell apart. This is made all the more tragic if you feel that the bozo that came after wasn't worth your time. Gore was loyal, sturdy, and an all around good guy. What didn't he have that the other dude did? Oh, right, that flare. Was that really important? You're single, you're lonely, and you're given the opportunity to try again. You're waiting at the table for him to show up and you're wondering whether you'll fall in love with him the second he enters the door or whether you will remember all of the things that lead you to break it off with him in the first place.

Really, what was so bad about Al Gore? It's hard to remember. He was stiff, he was dorky, he was wooden, he was supposedly an inveterate liar but really wasn't. But he also came across as earnest, good-natured and smart. He was the kind of guy you could trust to escort your daughter, which his former boss wasn't, and he was the kind of guy that you could trust to sit your house, which his opponent in the eyes of many has turned out not to be. I wonder if the nation isn't that ex-girlfriend, looking at Gore and wondering what might not have been had it not been for the superficiality of bad decisions.

This leaves Gore with an absolutely huge opportunity. The kind that a bland politician with a lack of people skills rarely ever gets. Gore's campaign almost writes itself.

Al Gore: A serious man for serious times.

He's willing to let bygones be bygones. He's not going to say "I told you so." He doesn't have to. All he has to do is be there. Be the steady, reliable guy coming to the high school reunion years after being stood up at the prom. The mistakes this country made by standing him up are utterly apparent. We're at war, the economy is perpetually on the rocks, health care costs spiral out of control, environmental degradation runs rambant, the middle class is getting squeezed from every direction. We chose Bush and when our choice eventually became clear be bowed out, into the shadows, and let life go on without him. But now he's back. Things are bad in ways they wouldn't have been bad if we'd have chosen him in the first place.

I disagree with this assessment of Al Gore in a number of ways. Yet it is compelling on so many different levels that it's hard not to breathe in the intoxicants even if you're not drinking from the cup. Gore appears in many ways to be exactly what this country needs right now in the same way that Bush seemed like what the country needed in 2000. Maybe the results will be better or maybe they'll be worse. But it's his time in a way that it wasn't in 2000 or 2004.

At the same time, Gore was stood up at the prom for a reason. He was at times insufferable. He came across as opportunistic (though compared to Kerry it's easier to overlook now). And whether it was true or not the Republicans were able to paint him as a phony who wore a different mask for each occasion and whose face you never really saw. If they did it before, they did it again. In fact, they have one more reinvention of Al Gore to point to in order to back up their theory. It's possible that a renewed introduction between Al Gore and America will fall apart again because maybe the two were never really all that compatible to begin with. And yet, so close.

On a more practical level, the major Democratic candidates fall into two categories: inexperienced potential lightweights and the heavyweight with a lot of baggage. John Edwards has six years in the senate under his belt and a VP campaign and that's about it. Barack Obama makes Edwards look experienced by comparison. Maybe they'll be able to overcome it because they've "got it". But stick them on a stage with John McCain or Rudy Giuliani or even Fred Thompson, and they'll look lighter by comparison. As GWB proved that's not an insurmountable handicap, but I'm not sure how eager the country is to elect the next President Bush. As for the heavyweight Hillary Clinton, whose air of invincibility has been punctured and who has yet to find a real rationale for running or getting people to vote for her.

And in comes Al Gore. His rationale is clear if unspoken: vindication, a return to competent leadership, honesty, and integrity. Save America, save the planet. And unlike Edwards and Obama he doesn't even have to say these things to say them. Stand him next to John McCain and Rudy Giuliani and he will be the pinnacle of sanity and the promise of a return to normalcy. Stand him next to Fred Thompson and he will exemplify the experience that Thompson can only convincingly convey.

If I were to name the Democrat that I fear the most, it's Al Gore. Without hesitation.

At the same time, if I were in Gore's inner circle I'd tell him not to run. Despite all of his strength and the convergence of moods that bode so well for him almost two years from now, his chances of becoming president are still way less than 50%. It's more than just possible that the people that have fallen in love with him will remember why they never truly loved him the first time around. Right now in the eyes of many he was the guy wronged by an arcane system and suspicious election practices. He loses again and he'll be seen by everyone as a two-time loser. Mostly, though, he seems to have found a piece that will more likely than not unravel if he runs again, whether he wins or loses.

But I guess it's just that hard to come so close to something and not give it your all. Like Fred Thompson, even though he has more to lose than he has a chance of winning, if given the opportunity to serve this country in the greatest possible capacity, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to pass that up.

For the first time in my taxpaying history, Camille and I had to file for an extension. Unfortunately neither of her W-2 forms came in. Being completely inexperienced with tax extensions I didn't realize that you were supposed to have an idea of how much money you paid in taxes and how much you owe. Well heck, if I knew that I might not have to file for an extension!

Anyhow, that brings me John Edwards's proposal to have the IRS pay my taxes for me:

Under his plan, the IRS would gather tax information for 50 million Americans with relatively simple returns, including those who don't need to file itemized deductions to record charitable contributions or capital gains.

The IRS would calculate their tax bill or refund and mail a final report to the taxpayer. That person would be able to just sign and return the form. Edwards' campaign estimates that process would save taxpayers an estimated 225 million hours each year.

The IRS already collects basic tax information for audit purposes, but Edwards questioned why the service makes taxpayers spend days "gathering their information, hunched over tax forms and tax tables and calculator trying to figure it all out, just to tell the IRS the information it already has and it already knows."

I've always wondered about that myself. It seems to me that a whole lot of information is duplicated between employer and employee. Apparently a program like that was tried in California and was a smashing success.

RAW touches on an interesting phenomenon with regard to Presidential elections: how much support a candidate can expect merely for partisan affiliation, and how much slack a candidate can get for disagreement with his base.

Interestingly for me, this set off a tangent thought regarding "Partisan Affiliation." Long ago, in his final words to the nation, George Washington warned the nation to avoid entangling alliances (oops!) and strongly suggested that political parties not be allowed.

The theory behind this is that political parties short-circuit the idea behind the checks and balances in the constitution; it's not very useful to have a congress, president, and courts able to overrule each other if they're both members of the same political party.

Regrettably, we have political parties, so one of my major factors in trying to choose a Presidential candidate is simple: try to preserve the balance of power. If the Democrats control Congress (or at least one branch of it), I'm more likely to vote Republican for President. If the Republicans control the House, I'm more likely to vote Democrat.

And yet, in 2000 and again in 2004, I didn't vote for the Democrat. Why? Because despite it being "their election to lose" for me - all other factors being equal, they would have won my vote by default - they put forth a candidate that I couldn't possibly support. Each of them had policies I couldn't support, a record I couldn't get behind, and a platform the was formed mostly of the various shibboleths by which any candidate must pass through to get the Democrat nomination - kiss Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton's ass, proclaim that global warming is the antichrist, be pro-choice or else be booed off the floor, etc.

In 2006, the situation was so odious I just skipped it.

In 2008, compared to 2000 and 2004, the situation will be reversed. Since the Democrats have the House and Senate (barring something weird, like some of their aging/embalmed jokes like Kennedy suffering a heart attack or not escaping a murder charge), the election is then - by the balance of power vote - the Republicans' to lose. By default, I should vote Republican.

As of yet, however, the candidates being put forth from both parties are completely disinteresting. Both Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton appear to be peaking early, and I suspect the more people know about who Obama actually is, the more they will wonder whether he's to be trusted. Race-baiting and gender-baiting can only take you so far.

On the flip side, for the Republicans, the field is terribly thin. John McCain spent himself last election, and his behavior since may have terminally killed his chances with his base. Guiliani has great name recognition, but as policies go, he could probably run with either a D or an R next to his name and nobody'd know the difference, which isn't a good way to get the nomination.

On the lower part of the ladder, there's Thompson (the arguments against which RAW summarized pretty well). There's Ron Paul, who bills himself as the "taxpayer's friend" but whose voting record says pretty consistently otherwise, and whose other statements (border, national security) are directly contradicted by his voting record as well.

I don't know what's scarier; the idea that the Republicans, given a great shot like this, might manage to lose this one when it's theirs to win, or that somehow, the Democrats might manage to go 3-for-3 and lose it right back.

And if both of them lose it (as concerns my vote), who do I give my vote to?

Fred Thompson is an odd choice for the torch-carrier for the conservatives in the Republican primary and an indication of how desperate they are to field a single worthwhile candidate in the race. The most obvious and much-cited example of this is his support for the odious McCain-Feingold, which accomplished nothing except to infringe on the right to free speech. Many believe that it was McCain's crusade on this issue that permanently put him on the outs with conservatives and here they are lining up around one of the other Republicans to actually vote for it.

A number of conservatives are making the comparison between Thompson and Ronald Reagan, as they did with George W. Bush eight years ago, and once again (though for different reasons) the label doesn't really fit. Thompson may be a great many things, but he does not appear to be a visionary. He comes across, rightly or wrongly, as a president that would be more of a sober-minded administrator rather than groundbreaking president. He really doesn't seem to have "the vision thing." I actually think that's part of his appeal since since this is a more serious-times-call-for-serious-people election rather than a Jesus Jones "Right Here, Right Now" election. If he ends up in a general election against John Edwards or Barack Obama I think that it would serve him quite well, though less so if pitted against Hillary Clinton or Al Gore.

By and large, there is a degree of latitude that a candidate can take when it comes to ideology. By emphasizing different issues and taking either moderate or more idealistic stances on issues where the candidate is conflicted, someone like Thompson could either come across as a conservative firebrand or a relatively moderate conciliator. I am a little concerned that he will dance a little too closely with the ones that brung him, the conservatives, and cede too much center-ground in the 2008 election. I'm worried that his center-appeal will be forsaken in an attempt to fill the present vacancy for the role of a stalwart conservative.

All of this is something of a moot point if Thompson doesn't run. Up until the last few days I really didn't think he would, but I think the newest polls give him some encouragement to toss his hat into the ring. Not only is Thompson polling well for a candidate that's not even a candidate, but he's pulling support from the right places. One of the chief impediments to a Thompson candidacy is his close friendship with John McCain. There's no doubt that if he can't be the nominee himself, Thompson would want to see McCain get the nod (Thompson was one of McCain's chairmen in 2000) and a worst-case scenario for Thompson would be running, losing, and bringing McCain down with him. But interestingly he is pulling most of his support not from McCain, but from New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. that actually gives him an opportunity to have his cake and eat it, too. Not only could he run without hurting his friend, he could run and help his friend at the same time.

I've been watching The West Wing recently, and at the beginning of the second season Josh Lyman and Sam Seaborn are talking about the presumptive Democratic nominee John Hoynes. They meekly declare (or resign themselves to the fact that) of Hoynes, "He's our guy," with a clear sadness that they don't have anyone they can really rally behind (enter, of course, Martin Sheen). That's more-or-less how I feel about McCain, who (current polls notwithstanding) I believe to be the presumptive nominee. In many ways, Bush has become many of the things that I feared McCain would, so I don't have as much to fear in that area. Also, the McCain-Feingold damage is done so it's a moot issue for me. And there's a lot about McCain to like, notably that in 2000 he was the most serious of the four major candidates (Bush, Gore, Bradley, and McCain) about the deficit and he's a stubborn enough sunnuvagun that he might veto excessive spending, though that's a pretty tall order. The downside is that Bush himself has shown us some of the perils that come with stubbornness (though I think the upsides of his stubbornness, which were very real, have been forgotten by many and conservatives in particular). And there is the sense among many of us that he is the Natalie Maines of the Republican Party, always eager to make sure that outsiders understand that he's not like others of his ilk.

Where a potential Thompson candidacy seems most strong in the primary is that a lot more of us can point to him and say with at least a little enthusiasm, "He's our guy!" With Thompson we theoretically wouldn't have to worry about what's going to happen in the debates. We wouldn't have to worry that he'll mangle his sentences or come across as clueless or petty. If nothing else we know he can act his way through it. And unlike our current party leader, he exudes a certain authority that it's easier to rally behind. The question at this point is whether or not we would be able to get the rest of the country to rally behind him, too.

Of the last eleven elected presidents, five had most recently been elected governor, four most recently elected vice president, one had never been previously elected to office, and exactly one a United States Senator. Historically, the American public is quite reluctant to turn the keys of the White House over to a US Senator. We much prefer governors and vice presidents.

But one of the peculiarities of the upcoming election is that nearly every credible candidate for president on both sides is either a current or former senator. The only two people really standing in the way of a senator-president are Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney and Democrat Al Gore. The only governors running are Democrat Bill Richardson and Republican Romney, and they're longshots (Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore are apprently making a go at it, but "longshot" seriously overstates their odds). At a time when frustration with Washington DC is at a peak, this is a most curious development.

My first thought is that after having buyers remorse by electing an inexperienced governor to the presidency six years ago perhaps people are just putting a premium on Washingtonian experience, but with the exception of John McCain none of them have been a senator very long. Edwards served for six years and quit, Clinton will have served eight, Obama will have served four, and Fred Thompson served eight and quit. Furthermore, Edwards, Thompson, and Clinton had never held elective office prior to their election as senator (though Clinton can obviously claim other relevent experience).

We know why the Vice President isn't running, but where are the governors? I guess that the governors were having something of a rough time of it back in the recession and so you didn't have any of them claiming as impressive records as a governor can during an economic boom. But mainly I'd guess it's the prevalence of foreign policy as an issue and governors don't have much experience in that area. But even then senators (except Obama) are having to explain away or justify their votes for an unpopular war, so what they've done so far in the foreign policy arena isn't entirely an asset. I think some of it comes down to is that with foreign policy so dominant, it's primarily the national lawmakers that have our attention and the bad publicity the senate has gotten has been balanced out by the fact that they're getting attention whereas governors like Mark Warner and Tom Vilsak never really did. And the other of it is just luck.

The only real downside is that every senator already believes that he's going to be president someday and this election (unless Gore gets in and kicks butt) will very much bolster that belief.

Wha tthe heck?

Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide. Proponents say that would force candidates to broaden their reach to major population centers such as California.

The bill is part of a 3-month-old movement driven by a Bay Area lawyer and a Stanford computer science professor. The same 888-word bill is pending in four other states and is expected to be introduced in every state by January, its sponsors say. The legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 13 states, depending on population.

"This is a bill that would allow California to be able to play a role in presidential elections," said Barry Fadem, the Lafayette, Calif., lawyer spearheading the drive. Now, because the state is largely ignored, he said, "A vote in California is not equal to a vote in Ohio, and everyone would concede that."

Wow. What a monumentally stupid bill. If this goes through, a California vote has even less weight because a voter in Texas has as much weight for California's electoral votes as does a voter that actually lives in the state -- and the Texan's vote counts for Texas, too! If they're interested in empowering what are admittedly relatively unimportant votes in California, then go the Maine route where electoral votes are divided by district rather than the whole state. Or dole them out in proportion to the vote within the state.

I gotta give the legislature credit, though. This bill empowers Republicans (under this, Bush would have gotten California's electoral votes in 2004) but it was Democrats that pushed it through and Republicans that oppose it.