Romney's Today comments high comedy

I saw Mitt Romney on the Today show on Friday, and I was pretty surprised at the ineptitude of his appearance. First, it's a GOP talking point (that of course Lauer let Romney get away with saying) that Obama "determined his policies in Afghanistan and Iraq before going there." In essence, yes, but John McCain has done the same thing regarding Afghanistan, as Media Matters has thoroughly documented. But, that inconvenient fact hasn't stopped people like Romney, Rudy Giuliani (remember him?) and McCain himself from repeating, over and over, how Obama shouldn't have laid out much of his Iraq policy before going there.

Quite frankly, it doesn't take a trip to Iraq to determine that we need to withdraw from the country as soon as humanly possible. What's more, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has in most ways endorsed Obama's plan to withdraw in 16 months upon taking office. If Obama is elected, of course that plan could always change, depending on developments on the ground, but it sure beats McCain's plan of staying in Iraq for up to 100 years through his first term, oh, I don't know what his position is this week.

Anyway, more on Obama's Iraq and Afghanistan plans in a minute.

What I found really telling in this interview is when Lauer asked Romney about McCain and the differences the two had in January. Romney just laughed and shrugged it off, and Lauer let him get away with it.

Is it just me, or is the media making considerably less of a big deal about McCain's differences with his former opponents like Romney, Giuliani and Mike Huckabee who all now support him than it's making about Barack Obama's differences with Hillary Clinton? The differences in media coverage are stark, and telling.

I do get tired of hearing the same old trite media bias debate over and over and over, but the more I see in the mass media, the more I'm convinced that our corporate media is going to pull out the stop to try and cause a John McCain victory in November.

Oh, and about the coverage of Obama stating his Iraqi plan before going there? Again, McCain has done the same thing, but not according to our corporate media. From Lou Dobbs, late last week:

Above is video of John McCain during an appearance in New Mexico last week, openly mocking Obama's plans for Afghanistan and Iraq. Again, McCain's hypocrisy knows no bounds - as mentioned above, he's done the same thing regarding Afghanistan, a country he hasn't visited since 2006, yet he's laying out all sort of proposals for "victory" in that country.

(Quick aside: It's painfully obvious that our political leaders learned nothing from our national tragedy in Vietnam and from the Soviet Union's disaster in Afghanistan that our presidential candidates (McCain, mostly) are talking about victory in either country. It's just plain preposterous.)

One other quick note, however. I laughed quite hard when McCain said in the video above, "I know how to win wars." Um, exactly when have you won a war, Senator? We certainly didn't win in Vietnam, an experience that I'm certain he didn't enjoy (but never misses an opportunity to remind us about). What annoys me even more than McCain saying "he knows how to win wars" is that the media lets him get away with such "straight talk."

Way to hold 'em accountable, Lou Dobbs - I would expect nothing more.

As for the Faux News channel's coverage of Barack Obama at the end of the clip above, I'd also expect nothing more. (Soon Brit Hume will be gone, what a sad day that'll be.) I'd love for FNC to devote its highly powered flip-flop microscope to McCain's record, but I know it'll never happen. That's okay, liberal bloggers are only too happy to highlight McCain's multiple positions on a multitude of issues. With BIG assists from both Crooks & Liars and Keith Olbermann, I blogged about McCain's many issue changes earlier this month - take a look.

Hill & Bill have made million$ - so what?

[Click for larger image]

I have to give GOP hack Matt Drudge credit for one thing - he's brilliant at coming up with new reasons for totally despising him.

Splashed across his site when I got home tonight - the above headline - which probably marks the 988th time he's taken the GOP lead in attacking the Clintons. If I could get good enough odds from a sucker, I'd bet a few c-notes that this dominates the news over the weekend, especially the Sunday morning talk shows.

After I saw this headline, I got into 1990s mode all over again - frothing at the mouth with partisan outrage. Both Hillary and President Clinton have disappointed me immensely and on more than one occasion during this presidential campaign, but I have no problem at all with this and I really wonder what the big deal is.

Why? Well, first of all, all modern presidents get rich when they leave office. Reagan certainly did. Bush Sr. hasn't been hurting for cash, that's for sure. Neither has Clinton. Quickly now, look into your crystal ball - how many millions do you think Dubya and Laura will be worth? Each successive president cashes in, and Clinton is no exception.

I remember a time not so long ago that people were outraged and outright LIVID that President Clinton raised in the neighborhood of $500 million for his presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas. His political opponents to this day are furious that the list of donors have not been disclosed, and they do have a point. I don't like the fact that outgoing presidents can do all sorts of favors (ahem, pardons) in return for a fat wad of cash for the monument under construction to himself, i.e., the presidential library.

But guess what?

President Bush hasn't disclosed the hundreds, if not thousands of donors to his presidential library. Current estimates have the cost of his self-serving monument costing in the neighborhood of $1 billion. When the day comes that Bush discloses all of his donors and how much they have given, I will be the first to condemn President Clinton and give kudos to Bush on this Website. Guess what? It's not gonna happen. No, let me rephrase that - look right - THAT'S when Bush will come clean with all of his political favors.

I'm not happy about political favors in exchange for money or political donations on the part of any politician in our country. But, it happens, and it's been part of the system for so long, it's impossible to single out any politician for particular scorn, unless it's a hugely corrupt politician or a very special case.

The bottom line is that our Natural Embarrassment, the clown currently in the Oval Office, is the most secretive president since at least Nixon, and I'd make the case the most secretive ever. We probably won't even ever know the extent to his secrecy and under-handed dealings, but I do know this - Kenneth Lay, before the rape and pillage fall of Enron, donated hundreds of thousands to Bush's inaugural ball in January 2001. Following 9-11, guess which company got tens of millions in tax breaks? C'mon, I don't really need to write it, do I?

Here's another cheerful thought - the Clintons were millions and millions in debt when they left office due to legal bills from the GOP witch hunt to get them at all costs. And by the way, Drudge played no small part in that.

One final thought - I wonder if Mitt Romney or America's Profiteer, Rudy Giuliani, would be getting this kind of financial scrutiny if they were still in the presidential race? In a word, no.

I can only hope and pray that McSame will be stupid enough to pick Romney or Giuliani as his running mate. Please, God, PLEASE.

Update:
It's already starting. I don't expect HuffPo to be as blatantly partisan as Drudge is, but really, Arianna?

The political death of 9iu11ani - sweet!

The Florida primary results are in, and all I can say is this: Two down, one to go.

Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani

Next up: Judas John McCain

Mike Huckabee is a political lightweight who has no hope of becoming president, and his religious fundamentalism is the last thing we need in the White House right now. I also have issues with Mitt Romney, but I'd take Romney or Huckabee over (Gasp!) President McCain.

However, I'm thrilled to death that the arrogant, disgusting and despicable 9-11 profiteer is out of the race. Not since Newt Gingrich, uh, Rick Santorum have I been so delighted at someone's political demise.

Here's hoping that McCain gets his political comeuppance, and soon. I heard him on Meet the Press over the weekend, and his hubris was breathtaking, specifically regarding the War in Iraq. He did everything but say "I told you so," regarding the surge escalation in Iraq. McCain would have licked himself all over if he could, which would no doubt have delighted Tim Russert.

As if the war in Iraq wasn't a big enough lie, now we have to endure warmongers like McCain declaring that victory in Iraq is not only possible, but probable. I hate trot out the Vietnam cliché, but it's apropos - McCain is merely another politician who is putting his political future and that of his party over the best interests of our country. I'm so sick to death of politicians like McCain and Joe Lieberman unwilling to accept the obvious - that we will not win in Iraq, and we are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into a hole in the desert - all for the oil and to try and prove a political point.

Long after McCain is dead, we will be paying off Bush's War. And the last thing we need is a Bush clone in the White House, refusing to admit the obvious - that the costs of the war far outweigh any benefit.

Florida Primary graphic via C&L

Mitt's racking up the coveted endorsements

Boy, GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney sure is on a roll with endorsements. First it was Ann Coulter, moments before she publicly called John Edwards a "fagott," and now it's disgraced Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) extolling his virtues.

No word yet on who Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Mark Foley are endorsing.

Mitt Romney: afraid of snowmen

I haven't always been a big fan of Howard Kurtz on CNN, but I have to give him credit for this one. This past weekend, Kurtz was discussing how Republicans do not want to have a YouTube debate similar to the one that Democrats had last week. Above is the video of Kurtz's dig at Mitt Romney, who has a now-famous reason for declining to participate in the YouTube debate:

KURTZ: Mitt Romney said that, he was expressing his reservations about joining the next YouTube debate, "I don’t think candidates should have to answer questions from a snowman." Well let me just say this to the former governor: how are you going to deal with Osama bin Laden if you’re afraid of that snowman?

Nice one, Howard.

Really, couldn't Romney's people come up with a better official explanation for ducking out of the debate than not wanting to "answer questions from a snowman"? Ouch. I can guarantee you he'll be teased and taunted for the rest of his campaign about the gaffe.

I'd like to dig a little deeper and offer my thoughts as to why most Republicans don't want to answer non-scripted questions from everyday Americans like the ones from last week's YouTube debate. I think the reason's quite simple, actually. It's because they don't want to answer the tough questions. Think about it - if you were a Republican who put your arm around President Bush when times were good, do you want to have to answer to that now? Of course not. I can just about guarantee that at least a few of the questions would go something like these:

• Where do you stand on stem cell research?
• How do you feel about campaign finance reform?
• Why did you support President Bush's War in Iraq?
• I'm a woman, why will not not support my right to choose?
• I'm a middle-class American - why should I bear more burden than those making over $1 million per year? Why do they deserve a tax cut?
• What about the ballooning deficit? How can you guarantee me that Social Security will still be there when I'm ready to retire?
• Hey, remember Osama bin Laden?

Yea, I guess if I were a Republican, I wouldn't want to answer these questions that Americans have been dying to ask Republicans, face-to-face, for just about all of the Bush administration. The Republican Party is not a popular one right now, so if I'm a Repube running for president, I want to stay on the sidelines, offer plenty of wind-blown rhetoric on Fox News, and also to answer as few tough questions as possible.

The GOP opposition to being asked real questions reminds me of President Bush's 2004 campaign, when it was well documented that he would only appear before Republican audiences. People who attended the event had to sign "loyalty pledges," saying that they were a registered Republican and would not demonstrate or cause any disruptions. I don't remember what else the pledge contained, but I believe it said something about how you wouldn't ask inappropriate questions, or something like that. In other words, "You won't ask the president any awkward questions that might not look good on TV."

What a load of crap. I will criticize any candidate, of any party, who employs similar tactics this year. This isn't Soviet Russia - this is the United States of America. And, we are supposedly electing someone who will look out for us and the issues we believe in. Before a candidate is elected president, he or she should want to answer the tough questions. I'd think that would be a noble quality in a candidate that all of the contenders would want to demonstrate. But, at least as far as the Republicans are concerned, they're too afraid that a question might not play well on TV. What a joke.

Today's GOP non-issue issue

Earlier today I mentioned Fox News and Mitt Romney lamely attempting to smear Barack Obama for suggesting age-appropriate sex education for kindergarten-age children. Here's an interesting exchange between advisers to the Obama and Romney campaigns. Well really, it's mostly just Romney's advisor talking to herself.

From a sexually repressed conservative standpoint, this is mighty impressive indeed. Romney's advisor touched pretty much all of the Republican bases (talking points) about premarital sex and sex education:

So-called "partial-birth abortion" (which is not a medical term, just a GOP PR one)
Planned Parenthood
Condoms
Abstinence

...You get the idea. Never mind the fact that this administration's abstinence-only sex education program, to the tune of over $1 billion, has been an unqualified failure. However, Barack Obama isn't going to say that, because he'll be painted as a sex maniac or worse by Romney, and of course Fox News.

But really, the crown jewel of this piece is how Romney is busted for his position change on the 39th issue. John Kerry, meet Mitt Romney.

More insipid campaign reporting

Stories like this one in The Boston Herald signify precisely what's wrong with our presidential campaign "reporting."

Yesterday, the Herald ran a story that blabbered on and on about how the Romney campaign paid $300 for a pre-debate "primpfest" to get candidate Romney looking his best.

You know what? Big deal. I mean, really, who gives a damn? Of all the things that are going on in this country today and all of the important things that should be covered on the campaign trail, this is the type of media coverage we get. It's simply appalling.

I was angry when the now famous "John Edwards $400 haircut" got so much play, and I'm angry now at this story.

Every campaign is required to publicly disclose how they spend every nickel, and that's not a bad thing, but reporting stories like this is. What redeeming value does a story like this have?

I've contributed a few dollars to campaigns over the years, and frankly, however they spent it, they spent it. I have no control over what they spend. Does anyone honestly think that Romney, Giuliani (heaven forbid), Obama, Hillary Clinton and all the rest are staying in Motel 6s? Yea, me neither.

I have to confess, though, that I did get a laugh from a quote in the Herald's piece, though:

"For $300, I hope he got a manicure and pedicure, too," Democratic political consultant Michael Goldman said. "If Mitt needs to spend $300 to look halfway decent, I can only imagine what Rudy Giuliani is paying."

A-men, Goldman. I'm already tired of looking at Rudy's grill - when he smiles, it looks like a row of urinals at Yankee Stadium. Thank God the campaign is not a beauty contest, because if it was, McCain and Giuliani, the two candidates whom I despise most, would never have declared their candidacies in the first place.

It's alright, though - the way things are shaking out, McCain will be gone by the end of September, and the more people get to know Rudy, the less they like, especially conservatives.

Strange Mitt Romney ad

This is one odd political ad - one of the strangest I've seen so far in this young presidential campaign. As PoliticsTV sagely points out, is this Mitt Romney ad "an ad for a candidate, the environment, or E.D. treatment?"

I can't add anything pithier than that. The Peggy Noonan reference is rather odd, too. Like all of the GOP candidates running for president, Romney has a fetish for President Reagan. Noonan was a favorite speechwriter of Reagan's, and Romney's quoting her passage in this ad is just weird:

Following the Columbine shootings, Peggy Noonan described the world as 'the ocean in which our children now swim.' She described a cesspool of violence and sex and indolence and perversions. She said the boys who had done the shootings had 'inhaled too deeply in the oceans in which they swam.'

The only people who did any inhaling were the people who thought those lines should be included in this ad, and maybe even Noonan herself. I love analogies and use them on a daily basis to get my points across, but Noonan was trying waaay too hard with that one. She's done better. And for Romney's sake, I hope his political people do better than this. It's just plain funny.

Sunday Cartoons

The more active and controversial the week in politics, the better the political cartoons, and this was a good week for cartoons. I'm slowly getting back on track after being away for a few days, but in the meantime, here are some of the week's best...

I've probably already written this too often this year, but the above cartoon is the most sage I've seen so far about the '08 campaign. Most people in NASCAR Nation have the attention span (and memory) of about three months, so many people, conveniently forget the '04 election, when Kerry was crucified for his "evolving opinions" on issues. But, Mitt Romney, America's Mayor and John McCain have taken virtually no heat for their well-documented reversals on a host of issues. Only time will tell if they pay any sort of discernible political price.

Judas John McCain's campaign continues to sink like a stone, and no one is more thrilled than me. He's getting exactly what he deserves, especially after abandoning political moderates and his Straight Talk Express MO in order to mollify far-right critics to secure the GOP nomination. This past week, he laid off 50 campaign workers and severely curtailed campaign activities, because he's short on money. Now, all I have to wait for is Captain 9-11's campaign to implode; once Rudy is out of the race (or out of contention), I'll be at least mediocre on the remaining field (unless Newt Gingrich and/or Fred Thompson enter the fray).

I wrote it earlier in the week and I'll write it again - it was no accident that Bush announced the Libby pardon when he did - while Russian President Vladimir Putin was visiting the Bush bunker in Kennebunkport. Putin must have been laughing to himself, thinking that Bush stole a play from his playbook. After all, ignoring the legal system and acting like a dictator is normally something we would associate with the world of Russian politics, not our own. But, Bush has managed to change that.

The truth about Rudy continues to seep out.

Bonds needs four dingers to catch Hank Aaron, and five to "achieve" the all-time home run record. However many career HRs Bonds ends up with, he will always have an * next to his number in the eyes of many, including mine.

Bill Maher on Ron Paul & Jerry Falwell

On Friday night, Bill Maher had plenty to say about Rep. Ron Paul's remarks during Tuesday's GOP "debate."

Maher and his guests were right on the money - lots of interesting points from this discussion.

Paul discusses what other GOP candidates (or DemocratIC ones, for that matter) won't, and that's the root causes of 9-11. As Maher so adeptly points out, Paul is the only current Republican Presidential Candidate who doesn't readily accept the prepackaged pap the the Bush administration has been poisoning our political discourse with since 9-11.

To hear Republicans tell it, and Giuliani was the first to pounce (since he thinks he owns the 9-11 "franchise"), you'd think that Paul lit an American flag on fire while shouting "Hail Osama!"

The fact is, no one has really taken the time to evaluate in any meaningful way why 9-11 happened in the first place. (If any of our politicians have, they haven't discussed it publicly that I've heard.) It's simply easier to say, "They hate us for our freedoms and our way of life. We're good, they're evil."

Giuliani did it first, and now others are trying to spin what Paul said by implying that he meant we invited 9-11 (Giuliani did this right after Paul's remarks during the debate). That's NOT AT ALL what Paul said. What Paul meant by his remarks is that by sticking our noses arrogantly into so many other country's business, we have made ourselves a prime target. Paul was not being unpatriotic. Republicans are now trying to Al Gore Paul with another "I invented the Internet" moment.

What's most outrageous of all is the Republican movement to exclude Paul from future debates. How... American!

The fear and war mongering from this debate is about what I'd expect from a group of Republican Presidential Candidates, but Tuesday's debate took it to a whole new level. Mitt Romney's suggestion that we need to "double the size of Guantanamo [the detention center at our Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where we are holding enemy combatants and prisoners of war]" is the most asinine thing I've heard so far in this young 2008 campaign.

I'm already sick of the line "they'll follow us here," which is being used ad nauseam by this administration to scare the living shit out of people. Bush's cabal has been doing it since 9-11, and to often dramatic success. Actually, this is a toned-down version of what Cheney was saying over and over and over again while campaigning around the country prior to the '04 election - "We are the only party that can keep you safe," or a close variant of that.

If there's any hope for this country at all, then that type of absurd political lying is over. At the very least, I'd like to think that this country is sick and tired of Karl Rove's brand of politics. We'll know soon enough.

Maher also points out one other interesting aspect of Tuesday's debate - health care, education and environment questions were all not surprisingly absent from the debate - not ONE question from any of those categories. Yet, those are three of the most important topics that we must address in aggressive ways in the next administration.

Of course, the WSJ's John Fund points out, "that's [due to] the moderator," and Maher quickly shot back "like a presidential candidate can never answer a question that isn't asked." True enough.

And if you want to stick with Fund's moderator argument, the debate was hosted by Fersatz News, so of course the questions were going to play terrorism and homeland security to the hilt.

One other quick clip from Maher's show - his tribute to Jerry Falwell...

Line of the night (by Maher): Jerry Falwell found out that you could launder your hate through the cover of God's will.

A-men.

GOP voters: can we see the dessert menu?

I read a very interesting AP story this morning on HuffPo, and in so many words, it sums up what seems to be the prevailing mood among GOP voters: we aren't happy with what's on the menu.

The three alleged front runners (at one time or another) - Rudy Giuliani, varMint Romney and Judas John McCain, are all tanking, or under-performing, to say the least.

Is McCain guy dead in the water right now or what? He's had an embarrassing two weeks, to be kind. His comments before his trip to Baghdad (which in my mind brought about his trip to Iraq in the first place - click here for the embarrassing CNN exchange); his disastrous stroll through a Baghdad market with more security than President Bush; and his lackluster first quarter of fundraising - at $12.5 million.

One under reported aspect of his trip were the boot-licking sycophants that McCain had in tow. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters "I bought five rugs for five bucks!" and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, likened the scene in the Baghdad market to "a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime." Nice job, guys.

Of course, McCain is trying to put the best spin possible on his Iraqi trip. The beleaguered candidate will appear on 60 Minutes tonight, and according to excerpts released by CBS, McCain is a bit contrite, sort of.

"Of course I am going to misspeak, and I've done it on numerous occasions, and I probably will do it in the future," according to excerpts released by the network.

But McCain also says, according to excerpts, "I believe we can succeed." And he urges viewers to "support this new strategy, let's support this new general and let's give it everything we can to have it succeed."

I'm not buying it, and I really don't believe the American people will either, Senator. How can he still cling to this delusion that we can win in Iraq? It's ridiculous. Polls show that Americans want out now, but that doesn't seem to stop McCain. Unfortunately, the killing in Iraq doesn't stop, either, and it doesn't even seem to be slowing down across the country. Yes, Baghdad may be a little more safe now, but if you look at news reports coming in from around the country, things are worse, not better.

On Friday, a suicide bomber drove a truck loaded with TNT and toxic chlorine gas into a police checkpoint in western Ramadi, killing at least 27 people and wounding dozens, police in the Anbar provincial capital said.

In the southernmost part of the country, the Basra police commander said the type of IED used to kill four British soldiers on Thursday had not been seen in the region previously.

The more things stay the same in Iraq, the more McCain's poll numbers will sink. He has no one to blame but himself - he's tied his candidacy to success in Iraq, and he's been unapologetic about it all along the way.

"My credibility gap is THIS BIG!" It seems that Romney is the latest version of the flip-flopping candidate, who is trying to be all things to all people, which can be a big turn-off to voters. His latest gaffe, answering questions about hunting as it related to gun control, was pretty entertaining. Every candidate will make errors and commit gaffes, on both sides of the political divide during this campaign, but historically he has shown a penchant for switching sides on issues when it's politically convenient. Roll the tape...



Like Rudy, the abortion issue will really hurt him with conservative voters.

"I'm fighting the next reporter who brings up Bernie Kerik!"

Rudy also faces an uphill fight on a number of issues in his battle to woo conservative voters, most notably his stance on gay rights and abortion (both of which I really like about him).

I just can't see conservatives voting for a guy who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I love Rudy's positions on these matters, but he has plenty of other problems that would prevent me from voting for him.

For instance, drop 9-11 and what has he done? I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying the whole "September 11" campaign. What's more, once you pick the scab of the feel-good 9-11 pics, you uncover a lot of puss. More on that in a separate post. Actually, I'll be writing about this a lot going forward.

At the top of my book stack is a book on Rudy, specifically about 9-11, that I'm going to read next. Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 should be a good read. I want to know if it's just another Swiftboating hit-job, or if the allegations of incompetence before, during and after 9-11 have merit. I'll be writing plenty more about this book in the weeks ahead.

When looking at the GOP's "Big 3," at first blush, there's a lot to like, considering their stances on some of the issues. Okay, scratch McCain - there's little to like about him. But, Rudy and Mitt do have their pluses; but not enough for me to vote for them - both have big credibility problems, in my book.

However, I'd much rather see Mitt or Rudy be the nominee over the likes of McCain, or heaven forbid, Newt Gingrich.

It makes no difference, though - '08 is a Democratic year.

Top Photo: AP/AFP via HuffPo; Second Photo: WSJ

Romney "Didn't Inhale"

I don't really believe this is the big story the media is making it out to be, other than revealing that maybe Mitt Romney is trying to be all things to all people to improve his poll numbers.

When I look at this footage of Romney, I'm reminded of then-candidate Bill Clinton's infamous I didn't inhale answer in 1992 when asked about his marijuana use in college. Ultimately, it didn't kill his chances of becoming president, but it sure did hurt his credibility.

Anyone else believe Romney has the charisma and political savvy of Bill Clinton? Yea, me neither.

Mitt's Rocky problem

I found this on the Internets today - it's video of Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney endorsing Rocky Anderson when he was running for reelection in 2004 as mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah.

Romney was SLOC's CEO and organizer.

Why does this mean anything? Anderson very publicly is calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

This is just one more opportunity for Mitt to display his well-earned reputation as the biggest flip-flopper in this very young presidential campaign. But, he's got lots of company on the Republican side - most notably Judas John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. I hate the term flip-flopper, but I can think of no other way to describe Romney's rapidly shifting positions on just about anything.

Poll: GOP unhappy w/prez candidates

A recent poll by the New York Times finds that Republican voters are not happy with the current choice of Republicans for the 2008 presidential race, and a surprising number believe a Democrat will capture the White House next year.

So, the men above (clockwise from top left: Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Mitt Romney and John McCain) might not fit the bill with voters.

Some of the results from the poll:

• 40% of Republicans said they expect a Democrat to win the White House in '08

• Conversely, just 46% of Republicans said they believe a Republican could win

• Only 12% of Democrats said they think a Republican will win the White House

The Times/CBS News Poll was designed to survey more Republicans than usual to provide a better snapshot of the mood of the party.

The story contained some telling quotes from a few Republican voters, too:

"'There is going to be so much antiwar in the news media that there is no way the Republicans are going to win,' Randy Miller, 54, a Republican from Kansas, said in a follow-up interview after participating in the poll. 'The Democrats will win because of the war. I think the Republicans just won’t vote.'"

And another...

"'I think the Republican candidate has not appeared yet,' said Richard Gerrish, 69, a Republican from Greenacres, Fla. 'The ones we have now will run out of steam. Someone will come along later that will do better.'"

The poll also found:

• Nearly 6 in 10 Democrats in the poll said they are satisfied with the Democratic candidates now in the race; Nearly 6 in 10 Republicans said they wanted more choices

• Amazingly, the poll also found that 75% of GOPers APPROVE of the job that President Bush is doing, and 34% of Americans approve of Bush's job performance, up from 29% a month ago.

• Just 34% of respondents have a favorable view of the Republican Party; The worst it has been since December 1998. Conversely, 47% said they have a positive view of the Democratic Party.

And by a 20-point margin, respondents said that if the election were held today they would vote for an unnamed Democrat for president rather than a Republican. That was perhaps the most surprising statistic to me at this very early point in the race.

However, as the story states, Republican strategists aren't surprised at this early stage:

"'People should be concerned — we've had a tough last year and a half or so,' said Glenn Bolger, a Republican strategist. 'But if you go back in time to 1991, the Democrats had a lot of the same concerns, both about the candidates running and their possibility of winning. And it turned out pretty well for them.'"

These next stats are nothing short of amazing, considering how the War in Iraq is going.

• The poll found an increase in approval of Bush's management of the War in Iraq and how he is handling foreign policy - that number rose to 28% from 23%.

• However, in the wake of the Washington Post report on Walter Reed, 76% including 57% of Republicans, said the White House has not done all it can to deal with the needs and problems facing returning military troops from Iraq.

So, there's evidence that the hackneyed "Support the Troops" slogan, pimped by Republicans at every opportunity, is losing its luster.

I wonder which Republican could emerge as a darkhorse candidate in 2008? Here's my guess...

I have this much of a chance to be president!

The man who practically invented partisan warfare - Newt Gingrich. I pray he enters the race, because there are very few Republicans I dislike as much as this world-class hypocrite. He's deserving of an entirely different post altogether, which I'll probably type on the plane tomorrow.

I basically just brought you this poll because I thought it was interesting, not because I feel it's indicative of how the 2008 election will go. It's ridiculously early to be putting hardly any stock in any sort of presidential poll - really the only value they have is fundraising at this stage of the game.

The national telephone poll was conducted Wednesday through Sunday with 1,362 adults, including 698 Republicans. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus 3 percentage points and 4 percentage points for Republicans.

Top 5 photos from AP

A laugh timeout

I laughed for about five minutes tonight when I found this on one of my favorite satire blogs, Jesus' General. It's probably Photoshopped, but who cares? It's still funny. And Coulter deserves it after her John Edwards "faggot" comment. And this is small potatoes compared to the sewage that Coulter spreads.

Exta! Extra! Story about Mitt's ancestors (Yes, really)

It looks like Barack Obama isn't the only one being victimized by stupid reporting about his religion and background. This morning, I read something on AP that had me laughing. Here's part of a story about Mitt Romney's ancestors:

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Romney's great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she "used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow" over her own husband's multiple marriages.

Romney's great-great grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt's brother and fellow apostle, Orson Pratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God.

Romney's father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape religious persecution and U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued "The Manifesto" banning polygamy.

"When you read the family's history, you realize how important polygamy was to them," said Todd Compton, a Mormon and independent historian who wrote a book about the polygamous life of the church's founder, Joseph Smith. "They left America and started again as pioneers, after they had done it over and over again previously."

B. Carmon Hardy, a polygamy expert and retired history professor at California State University-Fullerton, said polygamy was "a very important part of Miles Park Romney's family."

Hardy added: "Now, very gradually, as you moved farther away from it, it became less a part of it. But during the time of Miles Park Romney, it was an essential principle of the Romney family life."

And exactly how is this relevant to Mitt's life now, or his candidacy for president? It should come as no surprise that I feel this is total, steaming b.s.; I don't think candidates should be harshly judged on what they did in their childhoods, much less what their ancestors did 100-150 years ago.

This is such a freakin' non-story. I wouldn't vote for Romney for many other reasons (his McCain-like penchant for switching sides on issues for political benefit chief among them), but what the heck his ancestors did or believed in surly is no reason to not vote for someone.

For instance, it's quite possible that a few of my ancestors participated in slavery in some way. I don't know, and I don't care, but if some enterprising reporter decided to dig into it, it's certainly possible that proof could be found. So, if I'm a candidate for dog catcher and that story breaks, does that mean I support(ed) slavery? C'mon - this is so stupid.

Romney is probably shaking his head this morning, just like I am and probably millions of other people.

I wonder when these idiotic and moronic news channels are going to get around to real reporting?

I'm not holding my breath.