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?