well, at least the rumblings of who will run for president will probably start trickling in. already, we’ve heard that Al Gore won’t run in 2004, and with all this business surrounding Trent Lott there has been a bit of a shake-up in the Republican end of things as well. So who will be the candidates? I certainly hope John McCain is among them.

I watched a bit of the shout-fest that is “Hardball“, and attempted to choke back tears of laughter at the thought of Darrell Hammond as Chris Matthews while Senator John McCain was talking about this dividend tax absolution and foreign policy. McCain, even while being assailed with assinine questions from Matthews (i.e. after McCain repeatedly said that he would not state a position on a hypothetical bill – “If there was a compromise from Pres. Bush today that included a dissolution of the dividend tax, WOULD YOU SUPPORT IT?”), was cool under the verbal assault. I think his foreign policy is one that understands that we should act primarily as part of the concensus, and not always lead the way. His solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis, which he states is far graver a crisis than Iraq, is that North Korea’s neighbors (those within striking distance, i.e. Japan, China, S. Korea) should take a greater responsibility in the matter primarily, else the UN should be involved, and the US should act as part of the UN.

Yeah, he’s part of the political establishment, but he is less of a party-line-toter than most folks in Washington. Look at McCain-Feingold, for instance. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) hated that bill (note well his connection with ‘gays helped 9/11‘ Jerry Fallwell) to the point of taking it to the Supreme Court. And any man who stands in opposition to McConnell is OK by me ;)

All I ask is someone who seems to think for himself, respects his constituency, and can pronouce “nuclear” as “new-clear”, not “new-cue-lahr”.