Saturday before NH Primary

Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello . . .

Dirt Track NH is actually getting some attention, but I'm yet to get any comments at all from this blog. Except for the interview with Reggie Mantle, of course, but that's understandable. FYI, sometime in the near future there'll be an interview with Jughead Jones! I've still got editing to do, but it was a great time, if a little tense.

Anyway, it's the Saturday night before the 2008 New Hampshire Presidential Primary, and I would be remiss in my duties as a sharer of deep thought if I let it pass without saying something. It's also turning out to be a pretty exciting contest, in spite of a dearth of candidates. Oh, there are names on the ballot, but JEEZ!

I'm a registered Independent, as is my lovely wife, Lynn, so we're getting mail and phone calls from EVERYONE! Lynn's seriously thinking about taking a Democratic ballot, but I'm pretty sure I'm taking a Republican one. As I write this, I'm watching a 24-hour news channel - I refuse to say which one - and the fallout from the Iowa caucuses is still falling. Obama won handily for the Dems, with Edwards second and Queen Hillary an embarassing third. On the Reps side, Huckabee beat Romney by about 10 points.

So, from a STILL undecided NH Independent (and aren't we all, really?) here are my thoughts on most of the major candidates. And, to make it all on the up-and-up, I'll list everything alphabetically. But first, my thoughts on some of the major issues of the day.

COMPETENCE: I think this is an important thing to think about when choosing a President. In my lifetime I've seen every president from Eisenhower to Bush 43, and it looks like a pretty difficult job. I've seen people take the job that had the best ideas and intentions, but simply were in over their head they day they got there. Think Jimmy Carter. Was there ever a nicer man? I believe he honestly did what he thought was the best for everybody, but nothing went right for him. The economy tanked, the middle east went in the toilet, and when he left we were in the 444th - and last - day of the Iran hostage crisis.

On the other hand, for all his problems and general bad attitude, Richard Nixon was imminently competent. Yeah, he tried to clothesline his opposition in the '72 election and had the secret enemies list and acted like a despot, but when it came down to the day-to-day business of running the country, he could do the job. He was a master politician, which means he was a juggler of ideas and people and managed to almost always keep all the balls in the air. He ended the Vietnam war, and even got us out on our own terms. He negotiated the SALT 1 and 2 treaties with Breshnev, which is the most anyone's done to date about nuclear proliferation. And, he opened China. Even when faced with a major inflation problem, he tried to solve it with his Phase 1 and Phase 2 price controls. They didn't work, but they were inspired ideas that had never been tried before.

The most amazing thing about Nixon is that he built his reputation on being a far-right-wing anti-communist, but as president did more for more liberal causes than Kennedy and Johnson put together. I remember a scene from near the end of Oliver Stone's movie bio, where Nixon is weeping, and says to Kissinger; "I gave them everything they wanted. Why do they still hate me?"

Good question. Personally, I think Nixon was a better president than Carter, because he was competent. In my lifetime, I would rank Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton the highest in this catagory. The lowest would be Johnson (and I liked him), Carter, and Clinton.

GAS PRICES: Is there anybody, outside of a few conservative talk-show hosts, that don't believe that the price of gas is decided by the companies together? If the free market were truly in charge here, it would be going down. It's a mature industry. Plus, it's not like there's not a plethora of sources for the stuff. We all know that the Arabs and Venezuelans and Mexicans and everybody else get together to set the price, which has nothing to do with the cost of production.

There is one fact that should be considered; the money we spend on oil is the only tangible influence we have on the middle east. We're their biggest customer. The more we become energy independent, the less influence we will have there.

It also suggests that the oil companies have too much influence on our government, because we should be negotiating a better price with some of the providers. If we could cut a deal with Saudi Arabia, then Venezuela would have to drop their price to sell to us. The dirty secret that too many highly-placed conservatives don't want to address is the huge influence that oil companies have over them.

In the end, it is imperative that we DO come up with a viable alternative to oil. For both the short and long terms. Not just for our national security, but for the future of the race and the planet. Have you ever realized that most modern energy sources involved burning something? Whether it's oil, or wood, or coal, or the oxidization of plutonium, most modern energy sources leave a residue that is very hard to recycle. Maybe it's time to look back, to the days when wind and water powered the engine of industry and transportation.

Because industry and transportation will continue. It is what differentiates the most powerful countries from the poorest. It is also, especially in the case of transportation, what a free people do. We make things and go places. America produces the pollution it does because we all travel, wherever we want, whenever we want. We are a car culture. If you follow the logic of most liberal environmental policies, they would inevitably restrict that car culture. Think about that next time you want to go somewhere.

The fact is that on this day, at the store down the street, the price of regular is over three dollars a gallon. There is nobody running for President who is going to be able to change that. It will change when the oil companies and the producers wish it to change. Which means, either we will do something to please them, or to intimidate them. All the Democrats will stroke the providers and piss off the companies. All the Republicans will do the other. And we won't be rid of either. Alternative energy can get rid of them both. Then, the middle east can go back to what they were before 1900; poor.

HEALTH CARE: Do I think there should be a Government program that will provide health insurance for everybody? No. It's too easy to abuse. I personally think most government programs should be done from the state or local level. If the State of New Hampshire wanted to consider a state-run health insurance plan for those who could prove they can't afford any other kind, I'd consider backing it if it were written wisely.

The problem with anything like this - and by that, I include Social Security, Medicare, etc. - is that it's so easy to abuse. Granted, publicly available free health insurance would be a heck of a lot better than a totally socialistic health care system. I can remember watching a debate on C-SPAN between the leaders of the five major Canadian parties back in the '90's. Even the most conservative didn't dare suggest the possibility of privatizing health care, they just promised that they'd run it better. Once it's in, we're stuck with it.

The fact is that we have the best health care system in the world. Presidents of other countries come here when they have major health problems. Most of the advanced drugs, technologies, techniques, etc. in the field of health care come from here. Yes, some doctors, hospitals, and maybe even some nurses and orderlies are overpaid and abuse their power. I suppose socialized medicine would cure that, the way that shooting a dog would rid it of fleas.

I simply think that the free market has way more potential for fixing problems than the federal government. As for people who don't have insurance, we should tread lightly and carefully, because some of those people CAN afford to have it. They're just waiting to see if there's a hand-out in the offing.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: The thing to remember in this phrase is that it includes two words, the first of which is ILLEGAL. We have immigration LAWS, which should either be enforced, or changed. PERIOD. If we're going to have borders, and regulate who can and cannot cross them, then we should do whatever it takes to enforce those regulations. Walls. Troops. Whatever. As for the people who came here illegally, they should be made to leave. Tough job. Gonna take a long time. Better start NOW.

Some on the far left are trying to recast this argument as one about immigration. I have nothing against people trying to come to this country. There are legal ways to do it. Use them. If you snuck in, no visa or passport, go home. Don't go to our hospitals, ask for a hand-out, or put your kids in my kids' school. GO HOME. Get a passport and a visa and drive or walk up to the border. Smile, show your paperwork, and welcome to the US of A. Call ahead, and I'll bring some sandwiches.

IRAQ: How long have people been begging God for someone to do something about the Middle East? Well, George W. Bush is finally, FINALLY doing something. And it's very good thing that we, as a nation, are trying to do. It is important that we win, not just for us, or the Iraqis, but for the rest of the middle east and for the world.

That thing is, bring a Democratically elected Republic to the middle east. Some people say that this form of government won't work in the Muslim world. They said that about Japan after World War 2. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government . . . except for all the others." Democracy CAN work in the Muslim world, just like it worked in the Buddhist/Shinto world, the Catholic world, the Protesant world, and anywhere else, because it is governing at the direct endorsement of the governed. We have a major revolution every four years, and a minor one in between. We, the people, overthrow our own government on a regular basis. This keeps us from, so far at least, getting stuck with a Hitler or Saddam Hussein because of a couple of bad days.

The United States is an ongoing experiment in this form of government. In 1776, it had never been tried. Some really intelligent people decided that it was time. So far, it's worked out pretty well. For all the problems, possibility and reality of corruption, unfairness, it's still the closest thing to a Heaven on earth that has ever existed on this world. Maybe Haliburton is running the version of it that exists in Iraq right now - and maybe they aren't - but as soon as we take our hands off it the people of Iraq can change it. Democracy works. We've got it, let's export it.

And just a quick aside on this whole "weapons of mass destruction" complaint. First of all, that was one of 14 reasons to go in, all of which were valid. And, everybody everybody EVERYBODY believed he had them. Then, thanks to the UN's dithering, we gave him fourteen months to get rid of them, which he did, in Syria. What they did with them, God only knows. President Bush can't say that, though, because we have to maintain the illusion that we're nominally allied with Syria. And that's the way it is.

WAR ON TERRORISM: It's simple. There are people in this world who have banded together against us, the USA, because we are infidels who, in their opinion, wrongly influence the world. They wish us dead. We have to stop them. Not out of hate, but because they won't stop unless we MAKE them stop. That's another reason why I support the war in Iraq; because Saddam's Iraq was a safe haven for these people.

The real question is, does America deserve to survive? If you think not, then you should join Al Qaeda. They are the strongest force currently trying to destroy us. If, on the other hand, you DO believe America deserves to survive, then you shouldn't get in the way of the people that are trying to stop our enemies from destroying us.

I'll agree that there is corruption in our government. Democrats say it's all on the Republican side, and vice versa. Both are right. At the end of the day, where else would you want to live? If, by the miracle of the internet, somebody from another country is reading this, there has to be at least some small part of you that wishes you were here. This isn't a cut on Europe or Russia or Japan or anywhere else. It is a simple statement of fact. We are the movers and shakers of the world. The poorest Americans are better off than the middle class of a lot of countries. Without us, your lives will change, and not for the better. If Al Qaeda or anybody else takes us out, you will suffer for it. Please, for your own sakes as well as ours, help us win this thing.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY:

This is not the Democratic party I grew up with. My wife is 14 years younger than me, and raised by conservative Republicans. I like joking with her that I'm old enough to remember when the liberals were right. You know, back when the issues were Vietnam and civil rights. Whatever happened to those people?

I recently read a book on the history of the Whig party, and I was amazed by how little things have changed from the 1840's. Politicians do the same dirty tricks; they're just better equipped now. The Whigs came from the remnants of the Federalists, along with the Democratic Republicans who didn't like Andrew Jackson. They were bound together less by ideals than by opposition to Jackson. That's how todays Democrats look to one who remembers Kennedy, Humphrey and McCarthy and has read a lot about FDR, Truman, and Adlai Stevenson.

Clinton, Hillary Rodham: Is there anyone who actually believes a word this person says? I'm sorry, but let's face facts; right now, this whole election is about her. 80% of the electorate has already decided what they think of her, and the main reason for holding the election is to find out which way most of them will go. We either love her, or hate her. The ones who are undecided may very well decide the outcome of the 2008 election IF she gets the nomination.

Disclaimer: I listen to many different sources for my news. I firmly believe that every news source is biased, because that is simply human nature. So, I listen to NPR, watch CNN and Fox, and also listen to conservative - and liberal, when I can find it - talk radio. I say that because I want to tell you that I heard this on Rush Limbaugh. Supposedly, Hillary's senior thesis in college was about Saul D. Alinsky. Mr. Alinsky proposed that there should be revolutionaries that sneak in the back door and change the system from inside. This suggests that Hillary is one of those. (I would refer the gentle reader to a book published around 1980 called "The Aquarian Conspiracy.") This, from a former Goldwater Girl. FYI, here's a link to the MSNBC story on the topic:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/

With all due respects to Mr. Alinsky, if that's true, and if she wins, she's going to have to filter everything she wants to do through the democratically-elected congress, and the Supreme Court that was left in place by her predecessors. Don't worry, she can only do so much damage. We're America. We've put up with worse than her.

I see her as Bill Clinton with a mean streak. You may have noticed above that I ranked Bill Clinton among both the most- and least-competent presidents. That's because he really did nothing. He leaned a bit to the left, but not enough to derail the healthy economy that Reagan and Bush built. Still, it would have been nice to have someone with vision in charge. I think Hillary has vision, and she's yet to reveal it. She spouts the platitudes she thinks people want to hear, but she has a secret agenda. Her '93 health care plan revealed part of it. I believe she's a socialist, but she can only do so much.

Edwards, John: This guy should be made to watch tapes of his own stump speeches. I get the impression he's never heard anything that he himself has said. Listen up, people; he's a trial lawyer. That's how he made his money, and he's got plenty of it. He's a rich fat cat who made his money off the misery of others. His answer to everything is to surround himself with victims, and then promise to use the power of the Presidency to get back at the people who have made these victims miserable.

Obama, Barak: Nice kid. Come back when you're not so wet behind the ears. Oh, he won Iowa, and is tied with Hillary in NH? Shit, he may win. Y'know, he's a little too free with the public purse, and he sounds like a warmed-over Hubert Humphrey in his stump speeches. Even Jack Kennedy knew that if you cut taxes for the rich, they invest. Don't kill American business and send us back to the Carter years, please.

In all seriousness, the thing I'm keeping an eye peeled for is his handlers. He's a kid, as far as politicians go. He has liberal ideals, and that's not altogether bad, because I honestly believes he cares about people and thinks he's on the right track. He's enough of an idealist to be . . . acceptable, I suppose. BUT, he will need a lot of help. There are a lot of strings between the fingers of the President, and he doesn't realize yet just how many. If his handlers are crooks, then he'll be another US Grant/Warren G. Harding/Jimmy Carter. If they're people motivated by a clear vision of how the world should be, he could be the liberal George W. Bush. Which means he'll try and do idealistic things. So look out.

Richardson, Bill: Governor of New Mexico. No chance. I've heard he's strong on controlling the borders, and the gun people like him. My wife, Lynn, is seriously considering voting for him. Or Obama, just to tweak Hillary. Imus likes him too, but I think he's still backing McCain. To his credit, he's probably got the best ideas, but he's got no chance. If Iraq's an issue for you, he's promised to have our troops home within 6 months of his inauguration.

REPUBLICAN PARTY:

The Republican party has also changed. The party that nominated Dwight D. Eisenhower had a wing that followed Coolidge's dictum; the business of America is business. What's good for General Motors is good for the country. Then you had the populist wing, which was a lot more electable after the Great Depression. That wing was probably a remnant of the party that nominated Lincoln.

Barry Goldwater changed things, by codifying some new ideas on conservatism. The big business wing became the right wing. Barry may or may not have made a good president, but Ronald Reagan put a lot of his ideas to work, and work they did.

Back in '88 Newsweek printed a list of some of the subdivisions of the major parties. The one I most identified with was "God-and-country Democrats." In a nutshell, I have a social conscience, but it leads me to vote Republican. I come from New-Deal-Dem stock, and my ideals and values haven't really changed, but as time goes by I see the Republicans as having the better way.

Basically, everybody wants the same things, and all politicians promise them. Peace, prosperity, security, equality, and liberty. Gone are the days when a ruler could just decide to declare war on a whim, raise an army, and go get a whole bunch of innocent people killed. You don't like Bush? Read some European history.

Also gone are the days when one group could overtly insist on better treatment than another. I can actually remember when the public debate included topics like, were black people as good as white? Were they worthy to eat in our resturants, ride our busses, or date our girls? I know there are still people who think in such narrow terms, but they keep it to themselves.

Anyone who considers themselves a conservative in 2008 should ask themself if they could have been one in, say, 1964? 1929? 1860? Would you have thought that schools, etc. should be segregated? That big business should be allowed to manipulate the national economy, no matter what the outcome? That some people should be kept as slaves? I used to be a liberal, but guess what? We won! Progress happens.

Giuliani, Rudy: I keep coming back to this guy. I think Hillary would shred him, but we might not have to worry about that. Let's face it, the guy's got mob connections, he's been married three times, I disagree with a lot of his social positions, and his own kids aren't going to vote for him. But I might. I like his ideas on reducing the size of the federal government, and nobody else has ever paid more than lip service to the concept.

He's proven himself capable of making tough, unpopular decisions and seeing them through. Sometimes people forget that everybody in New York hated him until 9/11. He did completely turn that city around, though, in spite of all the opposition. He uprooted a lot of deeply entrenched corruption while he was there. I think the beltway dreads this man. I wish he was pro-life, but the Supreme Court's in pretty good shape.

Huckabee, Mike: Congrats on winning Iowa, Mike. You may be the guy that keeps me from voting for Romney. Not that I'm going to vote for you.

Don't get me wrong, now. I appreciate the fact that he is up front about his faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. There are two simple reasons I'm not voting for him. One is that I simply disagree with a lot of his stands. He's doing that populist thing, which means he's promising that Government will solve their problems. Government does a lot more to cause problems. Shoot, you take away his talk about his faith, and he sounds like John Edwards. Plus he's pretty weak on border security, and he doesn't really believe in the Bush doctorine.

The other reason is that competence thing. I just don't think he's got what it takes to do the job well. He'll be bound to his handlers, like Obama, and there's too many times that this simply hasn't worked out. I think he'd wind up a Republican Jimmy Carter. Mike, you're in over your head. Go home.

McCain, John: If he gets the nomination, I'll have no problem with voting for him. I think he may be the most capable candidate of either party. He will do the job expertly. I do have some serious differences with him, though. I think he's too soft on illegal immigration. I also think he'll be a little too free with the public purse.

He will strongly prosecute the war on terror, though. He will also get things done. He is probably the most capable of crossing the lines on the floor and getting people to work together. I also think he will be the most comfortable working with foreign powers. Plus, he will not be subject to his handlers. He's a leader.

Paul, Ron: No, really. Oh, okay.

Truthfully, he's got some halfway decent ideas and raises some salient points. He's right that the special interests have far too much influence over our government. I like that he thinks we should balance the federal budget, every time. In the end, I think he's pure-d-wrong about Iraq. He talks like 9/11 never happened. He's casting the Bush administration in the role of evil conquerors, and I'm sorry, but that's not the deal. There is no way on God's green earth that I would vote for this man.

Romney, Mitt: Up to last week, my most respected political confidants on the right side of the aisle were all undecided, but this man was their second choice. And, their wives were voting for him, and that's it. As of now, my wife has rejoined the ranks of the undecided, but she was trying to talk me into Mitt for the last month.

I think he'd make a pretty good president, actually. I actually find his candor regarding his changes of heart on some issues - or, as they're commonly known, flip-flops - refreshing. I especially liked his explanation in a debate regarding why he changed his stand on abortion. He said that he was for it, until the first time he had to sign a bill that allowed it. And he found he couldn't do it. He admits to being human. I'd like to see a little more of that, instead of a bunch of juggling to prove that yes was really no. I find the words "oops, sorry," from a politician to feel like a breath of fresh air.

One quick note, on the outside chance that somebody from the National media ever sees this. New Hampshire Democrats identify with their counterparts in Massachusetts, but NH Republicans consider Mass. Republicans to be just another kind of Democrats. Being from our immediate Southern neighbor is not to Mitt's advantage. And, Curt Schilling has already endorsed John McCain.

Thompson, Fred: I'm seriously tempted to vote for this guy. In a lot of ways, I like him the best. He's ignored NH, though, and will likely leave with no delegates. That didn't affect me in 2000 or 1996, when I voted for Alan Keyes. I was making a statement. Fred's hoping for a good showing on Super Tuesday. So far, that strategy's never worked. It sank Al Gore in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1976. Fred and Rudi may find that the question is already decided, and they're left out.

As far as his stands on the issues, Fred is the John McCain that I can agree with. He's a good old-fashioned Goldwater/Reagan conservative, and I've got to tell you, it works. Confession: I was raised by FDR-New Deal liberals, but the Democratic party left me. I got out of the service just before the Carter administration and watched how the country changed under Reagan, and I'm a believer. So is Fred. But, like Reagan and George W., I also suspect he'd let the Federal Government keep growing.

GEORGE W. BUSH:

Might as well talk about him. After all, he's the fellow all these other people are anxious to replace. Good luck to them.

I think he's been an excellent president. A man of action and decision. He has, once and for all, proven the dictum of the beltway; if you want to make enemies, do something. Most politicians spend their time desperately trying NOT to do something. It's like a dance, with a lot of movement, and a lot of noise, that keeps the status quo in place. After all, things are pretty good as they are, right? Let's create the illusion of activity and call it progress.

I think that Bush spends way too much money, and that he's probably in the pocket of big oil. But, when we needed action, he provided it. He showed the UN for the dithering do-nothings that they really are and began a process that, one way or the other, will result in change. Either we will continue his work and all be the better for it, or we'll back up and the people who suffered under the status quo will continue to rise up against us.

I believe that history will be very kind to Mr. Bush. One thing it will not do is compare him to Neville Chamberlain.

TWO PEOPLE I WISH WOULD RUN:

Jerry Brown: Former Governor of California, son of Pat Brown, former Governor of California. This is the guy that Mitt Romney reminds me of when Mitt's explaining why he changed his mind. Brown had this gift as well. When California agriculture was falling victim to the gypsy moth, he refused to spray for environmental reasons. When it became clear that the people wanted it, he threw up his hands and led the charge.

He ran for the Democratic nomination in 1976 and again in 1992. In '76 he started too late, and Jimmy Carter got the jump and the nomination. Our loss. In '92 he was a dark horse that was given no chance. But he hung in there, won the Maine primary and a couple of small caucuses, and when the circus got to New York there was only him and Clinton standing.

I watched Clinton beat him, in a one-on-one debate on Phil Donohue's show. Brown is a visionary, and he would lean forward, practically rubbing his hands while describing what he perceived to be the reasons to vote for him. Clinton sat back, relaxed, and agreed with almost everything he said. The way it came off was, Brown looked like a lunatic while Clinton was polished and controlled.

The big difference is, Clinton didn't really do anything. Brown would. Check out the work he's doing as mayor of Oakland, California. Or did as Governor. He has visionary ideas on mass transit that could actually make them an acceptable alternative for people who travel by car. Granted, I certainly don't agree with all of his ideas, but he has so many that there's plenty of good ones.

Condoleeza Rice: The current Secretary of State, and a damned good one. She is brilliant. I have to admit, I don't know what any of her stands are, except for the assumption that she's in favor of President Bush's foreign policy. One thing is for sure, she's very intelligent, highly accomplished, and a super hard worker. She is the most travelled SecState in history. She has negotiated successfully with the leaders of nations where a black woman normally isn't allowed to show her face, much less represent their government in sensitive negotiations.

She is also living proof of the liberal bias of most of the American media. Remember all the acolades when Nancy Pelosi became the first female Speaker of the House? Where were they when Bush named the first black woman SecState? It would have been big news if Bill Clinton had named her to the post. But he didn't. Most of his cabinet was white men.

. . . and finally . . . The President we need now:

Everybody likes invoking the names of great Presidents past. Truman, FDR, Lincoln; all great. The Republicans like calling on the spirit of Ronald Reagan. Another good choice. On tonight's debate, John Edwards compared himself to Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican. In your dreams, John. Here's three of my favorites, who don't get mentioned often enough:

Andrew Jackson: I'll grant you, he was cruel to the Indians and owned slaves, but as far as running the government he was one of the best. He had the courage of his convictions right down to the bone. He took on the Bank of the United States and its president, Nicholas Biddle, in a fight that threatened to ruin the American economy. The bank ruled the economy, and Biddle thought he ran the country. Jackson refused to re-sign the bank's charter, which came up every five years. He thought it was too much power in one man's hands.

Biddle proved him right by immediately calling in all its loans on businesses and farms. By the time he got through squeezing, public opinion was firmly behind Jackson. I think about this every time I hear anything coming out of the Federal Reserve. People thank Bill Clinton for the good economy of the 90's. They should thank Allan Greenspan, and then thank God that Greenspan liked Clinton. He didn't like George H. W. Bush, and so he engineered a little recession in time for the '92 election. It's amazing what you can do over the short-term with a little adjustment to the prime interest rate. Yeah, a little of Ol' Hickory would be nice.

John McCain strikes me as the candidate that has this kind of moral strength, and possibly Fred Thompson and Rudi Giuliani.

Grover Cleveland: This man made his reputation as a reformer while Governor of New York. Under his administration, the size of the federal government actually shrunk. It may have been the last time, to date. He ticked off so many people with his unwavering frugality he got beat out of a second term. His replacement, Benjamin Harrison, was so incompetent that Cleveland got reelected the next time around.

Rudy Guliani's simple but effective plan for reducing the size of the federal government reminds me of Grover.

Woodrow Wilson: Wilson was the whole package; a visionary who could stand on the ground and get things done. If the allies who won the First World War had followed his 14 points, we might well have avoided the Second World War. As it went, France and England insisted on cruel retribution in the old-fashioned style, and the League of Nations went the way of the Articles of Confederation. He was a man ahead of his time.

I think Jerry Brown could be that kind of president.

If you're lucky, that'll be all I have to say on politics for a very long time. Pop the champagne, and don't forget to vote. And while you're at it, lie to the pollsters at every opportunity.