Sen. Bill Frist is a loyal party man (or maybe he just doesn't want to waste his time)

Good news for the GOP today - Sen. Frist has done the right thing and announced he will not seek the presidency. Frist had no chance (he had the lowest rating of any Republican I'm tracking), and his prescence in the race would only have muddied the waters for candidates like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, who might actually have a shot in 2008.

If six or seven more potential GOPers dropped out, I might start thinking they actually have a chance in 2008. Then again, maybe Frist, if nothing else a huge political insider, might have just realized the GOP's 2008 position is hopeless.

I think it's likely that the next few weeks will see a real narrowing of the GOP field. If wisdom and strategic thinking ruled the party, I'd say Sam Brownback or Chuck Hagel would bow out next, basically because any current GOP senator is damaged goods right now. GOPer's shouldn't kid themselves - every sitting GOP congressman had a hand in the November blowout, either through their poor political decisions or their lack of leadership. This includes John McCain, whether he knows it or not. But McCain's star power insulates him from some criticism - Hagel and Brownback don't have this luxury.

Now Hagel could play it as a sort of maverick-lite, but again he just doesn't have McCain's zing, name recognition and media-love. Brownback is just out there dangling in the wind, I don't have a clue why this loser thinks he should run for president. Given the way the political winds are blowing in Kansas, he should worry about reelection, not the White House.

However, both Hagel and Brownback have made "I'm running" noises in the last two weeks, so I bet it's at least six months to a year before either makes the decision not to run, unless they just charge ahead to the bitter end.

Given that, my guess is you soon will see Tom Coburn and Mike Huckabee pooh-pooh the loose presidential talk that's been surrounding them for the last two years or so.

I think there's a chance the Democratic field will also narrow soon, probably by the end of the year. I can in fact narrow it by one right now - apparently Russ Feingold recently confirmed he will not run for president. Probably a good call - I don't think he could have pulled it off. It's too bad in a way because I sort of liked Feingold although I disagreed with him on a number of issues. He seemed like a straight shooter. Too bad Obama-Feingold wouldn't really have any regional balance, it would be a real power ticket for the Dems.

I'm removing Frist and Feingold from the index but not making any other changes to the rankings. Look for a new ranking right before the start of the new year, but there's a good chance I will make some posts about potential candidates before then.

DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 100
Wes Clark (AR) 89
Hillary Clinton (NY) 55
John Edwards (NC) 54
Bill Richardson (NM) 47
Tom Vilsack (IA) 44
John Murtha (PA) 33
Al Gore (TN) 24
Tom Daschle (SD) 20
Joe Biden (DE) 16
Evan Bayh (IN) 15
John Kerry (MA) 14
Mike Gravel (AK) 10


GOP

Condoleeza Rice (CA) 79
Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 74
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 70
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 32
John McCain (AZ) 26
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 20
Mike Huckabee (AR) 19
Duncan Hunter (CA) 19
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Tom Coburn (OK) 16
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10

The GOP's roadmap to 2008 victory

Well, it's not an easy road or a particularly likely road. But for what it's worth here's how the GOP can hang on to the White House in 2008.

First - get all the presidential vanity cases to drop out of the race. This means you Tommy Thompson. And you Sam Brownback. And Mike Huckabee (who I don't think will run after Register-gate). And Bill Frist and Duncan Hunter and Newt Gingrich. It's time for all you guys to take a deep breath and look in the mirror and repeat, again and again "I will never be president of the United States of America."

There's also a group that have never exactly come out and said they would run, but they don't dissuade speculation either. This includes Fred Thompson (who, in his defense, has fallen into a black hole or something), Tom Tancredo, Chuck Hagel and Tom Coburn. I love Tom Coburn, and I think he'd make a great president but all these guys should unequivocably state that they will not run, because none of them would be strong candidates. As a consolation any of them, with the possible exception of Tancredo, would make a strong VP.

What would that leave us with? Well, a nice strong pool of potential A-list candidates: Mitt Romney. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani. Condoleeza Rice. And Tim Pawlenty, who I do think will run because he's one of the biggest GOP success stories of 2008 and the convention is in Minnesota. Now, I believe Rice when she says she isn't going to run and will probably take her off the list if I don't hear something solid from my White House source by the end of the year. I haven't heard another peep out of Haley Barbour since a fellow speechwriter connected to him told me a year or so ago that Barbour was planning to run. Pawlenty is a long shot, but is another example of someone who's a more than ideal vice president.

So then we have a core group of candidates - Mitt Romney, John McCain, America's mayor and maybe Barbour and/or Pawlenty to stir things up again.

What these guys need to do is admit that the party is doomed unless they all work together. The Big Three candidates should raise as much money as they can over 2007, but by the end of that year at least two of them should drop out and endorse the strongest candidate. Barring a run by Haley Barbour, this candidate would be Mitt Romney.

Now, I don't think Mitt Romney would make the best president but I think he would make a good candidate. I don't have a dog in the Romney hunt. But the fact is, he's handsome, vaguely charismatic and while a bit too conservative for my taste, he's nd a mainstream conservative without being a frother like Brownback. Most importantly, unlike John McCain, he has a fairly short, successful career in politics, no embarassing votes or policies floating around in the background of a decades long career. The Mormon thing will turn people off, but Giuliani's two divorces, cross-dressing and cohabitation with gays will turn off more people.

Another good strategy would be to create an early running power ticket of McCain-Giuliani. I think the two of them would create a bigger political synergy together than they would on their own - the independent conservative and the moderate conservative, putting their differences behind them for the greater good of country and party. But face it - Rudy's not a second fiddle. If it could happen, great, but I think it's probably a fantasy-land. Then again, McCain on in years and might only want to serve one term. Rudy could bide his time for four years and then carry the party's standard in 2012. Anyway, all this is pretty hypothetical.

The smart play is for the party to get behind Romney early, raise a lot of money and use that money to use against the Democrat, not their fellow Republicans in the primary. Ideally, roar into the true presidential race in Spring 2008 with a unified party and a big sack of loot.

And then it's an easy skate to victory, right?

Unfortunately no. Even in the unlikely event the party unifies early, they still have to get over the horrible hump the Bush administration has gotten them in to.

President Bush really needs to go above and beyond and really deliver some major foreign policy improvements and a major domestic policy reform. And as everyone knows, there's very little chance of this, because Bush has evolved into a real loser of a president.

Here's a short list of deliverables Bush could attempt to provide, any one of which would be a great boost to the 2008 candidate:

• Stabilization of Iraq with lots of troops coming home but without hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying.
  
• Osama bin Laden in chains or his head on a stake.
  
• Regime change in Iran or the nuclear program in charred ruins.
  
• Regime change in North Korea or the nuclear program in charred ruins.
  
• Permanent and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors.
  

On the domestic policy side, something along the lines of:

• Social Security reform
  
• Medicare reform
  
• Immigration reform
  
• Affirmative Action reform
  

Oh, and top of that the economy will need to be in stellar shape too.

Are you getting an idea of the scale of what the Republicans need to overcome to win in 2008? It's really a long shot, and I am advising GOPers I know to not get their hopes up. Probably we will lose the White House in 2008.

The Democrats have a much easier road ahead of them. I feel it's very important that they nominate Barack Obama or Wesley Clark, but in a pinch Hillary Clinton could probably pull it off, especially absent major policy improvements from the Bush administration.

In a nutshell - it's an understatement to say that momentum favors the Democrats. They are a virtual lock for taking back the White House, although it's less certain they can hold their marginal control of Congress. You are going to start hearing a lot of media hype about how this election is the most wide open in decades, and it may be, but pay close attention to what happens on the Democrat side of things because the frontrunner and nominee will almost certainly be the next president of the United States.

As far as the board goes, Obama is still the strongest candidate by a mile, and I think he knows it. Hillary got a boost from the big Democrat win early this month but they all did. She has little momentum or energy, and apparently not a lot of money either. I'm putting Biden, Bayh and Gravel up but none of these losers has a chance, and I have heard a rumor that Gravel is basically running to raise some money and pay off some hefty medical bills.

Romney, Pawlenty and McCain were the big GOP winners from the November elections - Romney stepped down while he was ahead, Pawlenty won outright and McCain looks more reasonable and statesmanlike every day. All the Congressional GOPers are licking their wounds - don't doubt for a minute that each of them bears some responsibility for the November debacle. Mike Huckabee has made a royal ass of himself - again. Finally, I'm putting Gingrich and Thompson on the board, but like the new entries on the Democrat side, neither has a chance.

More posts soon.


DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 100
Wes Clark (AR) 89 (-1)
Hillary Clinton (NY) 55
John Edwards (NC) 54
Bill Richardson (NM) 47
Tom Vilsack (IA) 44
John Murtha (PA) 33
Russ Feingold (WI) 33 (+1)
Al Gore (TN) 24
Tom Daschle (SD) 20
Joe Biden (DE) 16 (enters board)
Evan Bayh (IN) 15 (enters board)
John Kerry (MA) 14 (+1)
Mike Gravel (AK) 10 (enters board)


GOP

Condoleeza Rice (CA) 79 (-1)
Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 74 (+1)
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 70 (+1)
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46 (-1)
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 32 (+1)
John McCain (AZ) 26 (+1)
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 20 (-1)
Mike Huckabee (AR) 19 (-1)
Duncan Hunter (CA) 19 (-1)
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Tom Coburn (OK) 16 (-1)
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11 (enters board)
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10 (enters board)
Bill Frist (TN) 9 (-1)

Democrats in good shape for 2008

I'm exhausted from a long day of work and a long night celebrating with fellow Texas GOPers, who, I assure you, are not feeling all that bad about the day's results. I'll be fine tuning the board tomorrow.

DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 100 (+10)
Wes Clark (AR) 90 (+10)
Hillary Clinton (NY) 55 (+10)
John Edwards (NC) 54 (+10)
Bill Richardson (NM) 47 (+10)
Tom Vilsack (IA) 44 (+10)
John Murtha (PA) 33 (+10)
Russ Feingold (WI) 32 (+10)
Al Gore (TN) 24 (+10)
Tom Daschle (SD) 20 (+10)
John Kerry (MA) 13 (+10)


GOP

Condoleeza Rice (CA) 80
Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 73
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 69
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 31
John McCain (AZ) 25
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 21
Mike Huckabee (AR) 20
Duncan Hunter (CA) 20
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Tom Coburn (OK) 17
Bill Frist (TN) 10

"What happened to the GOP?" or "What is about to happen to the GOP."

About one month ago, I wrote an analysis of the 2006 race that I feel was accurate at the time.

Unfortunately, I posted the analysis a night or two before the Mark Foley scandal broke. And two weeks before the North Korean nuclear test.

It's amazing how quickly the game can change in politics. Despite the bad press and last year's Katrina debacle (which I believe still affects voters' view of the GOP and the Bush admin), the strong economy would have propelled the GOP to, at worst, minor losses in the House and possibly a pickup in the Senate. Had only Foley or North Korea broke, the GOP would have taken only a few losses but still maintained control of both houses.

But a total of four negative factors (Katrina, Iraq, North Korea and Foleygate) suggests to most voters that the country is out of control domestically, politically and internationally. The average voter looks at the landscape and sees a administration and Washington power structure that is more interested in buggering little boys than delivering relief services to Hurricane victims or protecting the nation from insane dictators armed with nuclear weapons.

The soaring Dow, low unemployment and record rate of home ownership is lost among these factors.

Please note - I think the Katrina relief probably went better than expected, and the major handicap was state and local corruption over decades - the federal government did what it could in the face of such a disaster. I think Mark Foley was an ethics challenged dirty old man and the GOP power structure was completely unaware of his actions. I think North Korea bumbled their test and is probably nowhere nearer to an effective nuke than they were a year ago, or five years ago. But the mind of the American voter is simple and sees things in black and white. This year, voters feel threatened by Mother Nature, by homosexuals and by Asian despots and will mindlessly vote to return a party to control that favors unlimited license for gays, foreign policy cowardice and mindless fear of the nonexistent global warming booger man. The one valid point the average voter has is that Iraq is a mess. Of course, it's the voters' fault we are in Iraq in the first place because 60% of them (and an overwhelming number of GOP voters, many of whom are now "tired" of the war) were all clamoring for action against Hussein in 2003.

But let's face it - the GOP could have mitigated these losses by showing leadership on a few key issues. They could have embraced fiscal responsibility. They could have voted to make the tax cuts permanent and even expanded them. They could have offered serious, enforcement oriented immigration control. But instead they did nothing, or at least nothing constructive. They catered to special interests groups and corporate donors and not to the average American. They ensured that you couldn't gamble online and made sure Fed stormtroopers could kick in the doors of medicinal marijuana users in California. They protected the flag and the sanctity of marriage, neither of which are threatened in the slightest. Basically, they completely blew it and have themselves to blame for what's about to happen.

To my partisan GOP readers - expect body blows next Tuesday. You will lose control of congress. You will see the end of major GOP names' political careers. Expect to fight off efforts to prosecute the president and his cabinet. Gird yourself for a big battle in 2008 - focus on retaining seats in Congress, maybe getting back control of a house or two, because there's no way you guys are getting the White House (I will discuss why this is such a total long shot now in a future post).The only good news is that the Dems won't have overwhelming leads in either House and probably won't be able to affect major change, merely roadblocks to goofball GOP and Bush admin proposals. Oh, and the other good news - Santorum will be voted out of office and if he party is lucky, George Allen. I honestly can't think of two worst Republicans and their defeat Tuesday - and an eventual, hoped-for purge of right wing moral majority types of their ilk - would ultimately strengthen the party.

To my partisan Dem readers - enjoy the fun while it lasts. Try not to wreck the economy that the Bush admin has done such an admirable job in restoring after the Clinton bubble burst and the terror attacks. You might try to embrace the tried and true supply side/capitalist economic policies that have resulted in consistent GOP success over the year and reject the socialist nonsense that you all usually espouse. Also try to remember that countries like Iran and North Korea are our enemies, no matter if they start telling you what you want to hear. Finally, if you want a blowout election in 2008, nominate Barack Obama for a Reagan-style landslide.

On to 2008 . . .

I don't think there's much to say about the GOP except "They are not going to win." Oh, and "Duncan Hunter will never be president."

Barack Obama is unstoppable - the only thing that blocks his run to the White House is himself. The only reason to drop out is if he doesn't really want to be president. I suspect that's what happened with Mark Warner, who would have been an excellent national candidate. I continue to be skeptical about Hillary's chances but after Tuesday all the Democrat candidates will be stronger.

A candidate as potent as Mark Warner dropping out is very good news for the Dems. It narrows the field of strong candidates, and the liklihood of a mob of Democrats splitting up votes and funding becomes a little less likely.

John Edwards is a middling candidate for the Dems in 2008, but you can tell his wife and he both lack political skills.

Al Gore is emerging as some sort of moral conscience for the far left wing of the Democrats, and I suspect he thinks he could be elected president. He won't be.

And what can be said about John Kerry? He's a fool and boor, and the reason there was such non-stop coverage of his gaffe last week was because not only is he hated by the GOP, the Democrats despise him too. Of course, these resentments are dwarfed by those of the media that has to cover him.


DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 90 (+1)
Wes Clark (AR) 80
Hillary Clinton (NY) 45
John Edwards (NC) 44 (-1)
Bill Richardson (NM) 37
Tom Vilsack (IA) 34
Russ Feingold (WI) 22
John Murtha (PA) 23
Al Gore (TN) 14 (+1)
Tom Daschle (SD) 10
John Kerry (MA) 3 (-1)


GOP

Condoleeza Rice (CA) 80 (-1)
Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 73
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 69
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 31
John McCain (AZ) 25 (+1)
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 21
Mike Huckabee (AR) 20
Duncan Hunter (CA) 20 (enters board)
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Tom Coburn (OK) 17
Bill Frist (TN) 10