Since the 2004 election, lots of things have changed:

• Grassroots Republicans are pissed off at the party.
• We lost majorities in the House and Senate.
• The economy is anemic.
• President Bush’s approval rating is at record lows.
• President Bush hardly enages with the media or the American people.
• 55 members of the House are retiring.
• While the surge is working in Iraq, one must wonder how long it can be sustained and what will happen after we leave.
• I consider myself a Crunchy Conservative rather than a Republican.
• Republican and conservative no longer mean the same thing.
• Hell froze over and John McCain became the GOP nominee.

However, we can always count on the stability of Democrats:

Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary,” Kerry said “If it was not for Republicans taking Democratic ballots, he would have won,” he said of Obama.

It’s nice that this little graphic is still relevant. John Kerry, bless you. In these uncertain political times, if the misguided voters of Massachusetts have to keep re-electing you at lease I can count on you to keep whining. Thank you for keeping some things the same.

Rush and Project Chaos tampered with the primary! Wahhhhhhh!

As part of my job, I write a lot of email alerts. This causes me to critique other email alerts that somehow make their way to my inbox. The RNC is a frequent offender.

Sometimes, I wonder if the RNC is stuck in a January 2004 time-warp. The emails offering exclusive offers to buy calendars of President Bush, chat with the First Lady or holiday-themed games seem so irrelevant in Election 2008.

Today, they offered me a grotesque green elephant in celebration of St. Patrick’s Day.

Yes, for only $35 that bizarre-looking pachyderm is mine.

I also sometimes wonder at their data matching abilities.

As a top supporter of the RNC, I am offering you a special opportunity to help elect GOP candidates and give a gift to your favorite Republican this St. Patrick’s Day.

I guess it’s safe to say that I’m a “supporter” of Republicans, but of the RNC? Typically, I go out of my way to not contribute to the RNC. I merely attribute all those pictures of President Bush that they keep mailing me as an acknowledgment that I’m still in the database. “Yippee!” I generally think. “I haven’t been purged yet.”

Or give Paddy to the “Green” Republican in your life who is dedicated to improving the environment.

Is it just me or the quotation marks around “Green” suggest that Republicans taking stronger stands on environmental issues are not really Republicans. It also strikes me as odd that just because something is green, it supports the environment. Do all pink things support breast cancer? Is every red object made in support of the (RED) campaign or Go Red for Women? I also highly doubt that the stuffed animal is environmentally-friendly.

I’d really like to grab the RNC by the shoulders and yell, “The majority of Republicans are furious at you, yet you keep sending us $!#@ like this. When will you wake up and realize that the party has absolutely no idea how the average Republican feels? Have you seen all the resignations in the House? Downticket votes are going to set us back decades in November! Do some bloody focus groups and opinion polls instead of asking for freaking donations all the time!”

I have a feeling that would get me kicked off the list.

Must give props to Newsweek. They did it again. Yesterday when I checked the mail, the cover of this week’s edition made me pause. Not only is it funny, but it’s also extremely true.

The likely McCain nomination captures the state of the GOP. What does it mean to be a Republican anymore? We have social liberals/fiscal conservatives, we have Crunchy Cons (socially conservative/fiscally liberal), libertarian leaning Republicans (fiscal conservatives/”I don’t give a damn about anything else”) and the enigmatic Evangelicals who support anyone waving a Bible around and claim to be pro-life.

McCain represents a party that doesn’t know its soul anymore. The conservative elite and pundits dislike McCain because he’s never courted them. Those loyal to the GOP are begrudgingly supporting him in the face of a Hillary regime or an Obama socialist utopia. What other options do we have? Where are McCain’s excited core supporters? I’d like to meet one.

I’m not thrilled with McCain, but I’ll support him and vote for him next November. The pragmatic part of me, the part that has worked in DC and seen the messy side of policymaking, understands that he may be able to pull off a win and get things accomplished inside the Beltway. Where Bush polarized, McCain can partner.

Then there’s the small voice of a conservative ideologue gasping for air in my political views. McCain sold out to moderates and Democrats too many times to count. He’s pro-life, but the conservative spectrum has so many other issues in it now. His policies on immigration and campaign finance reform bother me. This voice almost wants a Democrat to win, so we can purge the party and re-discover our ideology.

However, with issues like universal health care and the war on terror to be decided in the next administration, I’m terrified at the prospect of a Democrat in power. Face it, the next four years will be filled with so many political landmines that no leader can emerge unscathed. Unless something amazing happens, 2012 is likely to be as messy as this election. I don’t know how any party can tackle the war and a sagging economy and come out winning. It almost looks like the winner of this election is doomed in the next.

Primary day in Maryland, Virginia and DC. Since I’m not a registered voter in Maryland, I get to sit back and laugh at the Dems today. I always relish those moments.

In the few hours of TV that I watched over the weekend, I kept seeing one Hillary ad in particular and was surprised. It wasn’t my normal disgust towards the junior senator from New York, but shock at how bad her ad was. This was from the campaign that gave us the Soprano’s spoof a few months ago.

35 years of experience? Really? The last time I checked you were elected in 2000. Does this mean that Maven Mom qualifies to be a veterinarian since she’s been married to one for 27 years? Aside from misinformation, the ad is just tired. It’s the formulaic political ad that has run in every election since TV started dominating the political process with JFK. I’m surprised that her campaign wasn’t more creative with the Potomac Primary since it covers the DC area, and politics are shoved down our throats on an hourly basis. Is she just trying to turn out the over 65s? It’s bo-oring. Watching floor votes on CSPAN is more exciting.

Last night, I caught my first Obama ad, which contrasted nicely. It also aired during the Superbowl.

Both ads carry the same message: Bush screwed up the country, and I can fix it. Whereas, Obama is hopeful and motivating, Hillary is “me, me, me.” Obama is inspires. Hillary pontificates. She focuses on the economy, while Obama captures the war and environment. That split probably reflects the difference in demographics since Hillary attracts an older crowd and “It’s the economy, stupid.” saved her husband’s butt in ‘92.

Also look at both candidate’s YouTube channels. Hillary has 253 videos with the last one posted 3 days ago. She has 9,882 subscribers and 1,308,485 views.

Obama has 635 videos with the last one posted 10 hours ago. He has 26,394 subscribers and 11,863,552 views.

Do subscribers and Facebook friends translate into votes? It’s sort of looking that way for Obama. Hillary is turning out the typical votes, while Obama is recruiting new voters. Youth voting numbers are up and overall turnout is higher for Democrats. I’m curious to see if Obama is inspiring people to vote or just to vote for him? If Hillary ends up winning, will the young voters carrying the water for Obama show up next November? Or will Hillary attempt to recruit them with other lame attempts to be cool like this.

As much as I want Hillary to win the nomination for the Ds (in order to help the GOP), Obama’s campaign is amazing to watch. It reflects the change in political campaigning. Hillary=old school broadcast/boring. Obama=young, innovative and tech friendly.

Suddenly, the delete function doesn’t work. Grrr….

Do you really want this man running our country?

Is there a split in the religious right? Are the hard-core homeschoolers splitting from the informed conservatives? Who’s supporting this man? Am I missing something here? Experience tells us that there’s a segment of the religious right with tunnel vision regarding gay marriage and abortion. While these are crucial topics to the moral fiber of our country, there are lot more issues to worry about. Gay marriage isn’t really that important if a terrorist drops a bomb on this country and kills a significant numbers of Americans.

For the first time in my life, I have no idea what my fellow conservative Republicans are thinking. I’ve yet to meet a Huckabee supporter. Where are they? This seems to be a split between the fundamentalists who stay within the Christian bubble and those of us interact with the rest of the world.

The talk radio/web-centric arm of the conservatives look much more informed here. Perhaps that’s the difference. If publications like Charisma endorse Huckabee, but you never listen to the pundits or read a blog, Huckabee would probably appeal to you. How can you not like a Baptist preacher when you’re a busy/secluded Christian voter who looks for the most Christian or pro-life candidate?

The ONE Campaign is an example of what happens when you have limitless funds, an army of celebrities, the pop culture god known as Bono, a slough of politicians, youthful exuberance and a savvy social media campaign.

Tonight, I saw this ad on Fox and was impressed by it. Staying nonpartisan is hard to do, especially with poverty, the darling issue of the Democratic party.

I really like the campaign buttons although the singing reminds me of this ad:

Is Coke a sponsor of ONE?

My roommate has had a crush on John Edwards for a while. She even owns a “John Edwards is hot” t-shirt. I admit that he’s better looking than Rudy or McCain, but I’ve never been into the Metro/middle-aged Frat boy look.

Tonight, I walked into my apartment and saw the current Newsweek on the table in the entry. I stopped dead in my tracks.

Thought #1: Daniel Craig looks hot on the cover of Newsweek!
Thought #2: Wait. Why is Daniel Craig on the cover of Newsweek?
Thought #3: OMG! That’s John Edwards.
Thought #4: GFTS, you just thought that a liberal looked like a major hottie. Is this allowed? Do I have to surrender my Fred 08 membership card?
Thought #5: Ewww…

When did John Edwards become Daniel Craig?!?

Maybe he paid an extra $500 for the hair cut this week. Perhaps he loosened the Savile Row suit? Whatever he did, it looks good.

Thinking that I was going crazy for admiring the looks of a liberal/socialist, I asked my roommate if she had seen it.

GFTS: Umm…have you seen the cover of Newsweek?
DC Roomie: Oh yeah.
GFTS: John Edwards looks seriously good.
DC Roomie: When I saw it, I stopped and stared.
GFTS: He has a gritty Daniel Craig thing going on.
DC Roomie: (grinning cause she also likes Daniel Craig) Yep. I was just on the phone talking about how hot he looked.
GFTS: Is it the black and white photo? The suit? What is it?
DC Roomie: I’ve been telling you for a while that John Edwards is hot.
GFTS: Clive is still better looking, but I have to admit that he doesn’t look bad on the cover.

While sorting through the shock of finding a liberal attractive, I thought about the goals of this cover.

Pro: Takes the focus off Elizabeth. Makes you remember that he’s actually running for office. Not the other way around. (Actually, I would enjoy a Fox news show that paired Ann Coulter with Elizabeth Edwards. That would be entertaining.)

Con: Rather than take the time to read the article, I suddenly feel like watching Casino Royal or Layer Cake.

Cover stories are great, but unless there’s a Huckabee-like media blitz, they really don’t change opinions. The article doesn’t mention anything new. He’s repeating the same themes that his campaign developed in 2004. He lost then, and now he’s coming in third in Iowa. His stump speeches cover the same points as this article. There aren’t any provocative details or reason for Democrats to take a second look at Edwards. Perhaps that’s why Elizabeth is the dynamic figure in his campaign. She’s crazy and obnoxious (in my opinion), but she’s saying original thoughts that don’t reflect focus group approval. Themes work when you’re winning, but if you’re consistently pulling in low poll numbers, maybe you should try something new. Newsweek sums it up nicely:

At times, irritation shows through his usually sunny exterior. A powerful, engaging speaker before large crowds, he can become prickly and defensive in private when the conversation strays from his campaign themes.

Incidentally, the only reason I read the article was to see if there were any other good pictures of Edwards in the spread. Only stock photos from the campaign trail. For the record, no heterosexual male politician should ever assume the stance on page 30-31. It reminds me of that Peter Pan guy.

This week, Huckabee keeps popping up in conversations. As a conservative in liberal land, people keep asking my opinion on the former governor. (I’m possibly the only Republican that a lot of my co-workers know.)

I’d find it amusing, but for some reason Huckabee really bothers me. This time last year, my old roommate and I decided he was the candidate to watch. I can’t help but wonder if the Thompson campaign supernova actually helped Huck.

Several people, far better than me at political commentary, have analyzed the Huckster this week:

Defusing the Huckabomb. Patrick Ruffini
Huck-a-boom. Expat Teacher
Their Lack of Faith is Disturbing. EM Zanotti

Why don’t I like Huckabee? He is a more radical version of the campaigning Bush. Given what President Bush turned out to be, how can we not fear candidates in the same mold? Ok, that’s a stupid question given America’s love affair with populist candidates like Bill Clinton and Obama.

I may be pro-life, but states should decide things like marriage and abortion. I’m also an Evangelical Christian, but we have freedom of religion in this country. Huckabee’s recent comments on Mormonism remind me too much of Bob Jones’ legalism. I dislike Romney, but it’s because of his expansion of health care in Massachusetts, not his religion.

Given the conversations that I’ve had with a few conservatives, I know that I’m not the only one out there puzzled over who to support. I don’t think I’ve ever dreaded a primary so much. My roommate’s philosophy is to vote for the hottest candidate regardless of the party. That doesn’t work so well within GOP circles. When all else fails, I usually vote for the guy with the coolest name. That brings me back to Huckabee.

If we’re going to revisit the many sins of Hillary, why are we starting with Socks the cat?

Why is anyone shocked that Hillary only kept Socks around as long as he was useful? While we’re investigating Hillary’s pet ownership, why not start with Buddy, the chocolate lab?

Remember Buddy? He was brought on the scene during the Monica scandal when Clinton could have been hunting Osama Bin Laden. There were some cute pictures of the two frolicking on the lawn of the White House, reminiscent of the G.H. Bush years when Millie had the puppies, and Barbara wrote a book about it.

After Clinton left office, Buddy retired to Chappaqua. He was hit by a car in 2002 and killed:

Secret Service agents indicated that Buddy ran off “playfully chasing a contractor” who had just left the property in a van. Agents rushed after the dog and arrived at the accident scene moments after he had been struck, police reported. Buddy was taken to the Chappaqua Animal Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

A spokesperson for the Clinton family issued a statement that the former president and his wife are currently vacationing in Acapulco, but they are “deeply saddened by Buddy’s death.”

At least with Socks, the Clintons realized that they didn’t want a cat and found a responsible owner. Leaving your dog to run around loose and chase cars is negligent pet ownership. Where are those people that went after Ellen? Why weren’t they upset with Clinton?