I've finally come up with a tentative endorsement for the next president of the United States.  If you would have asked me a year ago if I thought I would still be undecided just days away from the Iowa Caucus I would have probably laughed.  We had good candidates testing the waters and other good candidates waiting in the back drop.  But here we are.

If there is time to 'vote your conscience' then obviously it's during a primary match-up.  It requires a combination of selecting a candidate who can change the Party in the direction you want it to go and win in the general election.

And there is a third facet which so many adhere to above all others:  selecting the person who you personally like the most, who shares most of your views or who makes you feel good, with no regard to the Party, the election, the office or the potential of the candidate.

One of my trademark sayings is "idealism is fine until it butts heads with reality".  If you aren't prepared to deal with reality when conducting this sacred exercise than what are you really expecting to accomplish?

There were over 120 million votes cast in the 2004 presidential election.  You are not casting a vote for your own little island, even if somewhere in your childhood you were convinced that this were so.  Supporting a candidate is of course done with some element of the personal involved; however, it shouldn't be all personal.  There is a difference between voting with your heart and voting with your head.

One of the more tiring buzz-terms that gets recycled every election year is the adage of voting for the lesser of two evils.  It's an ignorant claim made by hyper-cynical people who think the path to enlightenment requires an outsider mentality.  That argument could be made when there are no good choices or contrasting choices but the reality is that both sides (and especially the Republicans) aren't suffering from not enough good choices but rather from too many good choices.   That doesn't relegate me to making a painful choice between two evils.  And when the Republican takes on the Democrat in November, I will have a clear choice between a candidate who will move the country in the direction I want it to go and a candidate who will move the country in the opposite direction.  

It's not about choosing the lesser of two evils; it's about making the best choice. 

And here is my rundown, my countdown if you will:

8. Alan Keyes:  out of the question.  I don't have much more to say.  The guy is certifiable and an embarrassment to the Party.

7. Ron Paul:  out of the question.  A likable guy?  Yes.  Do I share some of his political philosophy? Yes.  But nutty as a fruitcake and supported by many of the worst elements in society.  He has been an ineffective political leader and has no chance of winning the primary or the general election.  If he miraculously accomplished both, he would face obstruction from both parties.  He is a disaster in every sense of the word.  I most likely would not support Ron Paul in the general election.

6. Duncan Hunter:  I like Duncan Hunter.  A lot.  But he was never a real candidate and I'm not going to give my support to someone who is not in to win.

5. Mike Huckabee:  doesn't excite me.  I have problems with some of his platform but in the general election, I would see him as the candidate that keeps the country on track.  I wouldn't support him in the primary however because I don't think he could win in November.

4. Mitt Romney:  I was very interested in Romney in the beginning.  He never really connected with me and his campaign has unfortunately been held hostage under the shadow of his religion.   I do like him however and think that he has a knack for getting things done.  I would be happy to support him in November.  But again, I think winning in November would be a steep uphill climb for him.

3. Fred Thompson:  I like Fred, I think he would make a good president.  I'm sorry that his campaign didn't catch fire like some of us thought it might when he joined in the race.  He is great when he is on target and when he exercised that charming and sharp, no-nonsense Southern wit of his.   He is a solid conservative.  But he has to campaign like he wants it and I don't think he's convinced enough voters that he does.  I would enthusiastically support him in the general, but his campaign would have to light a fire under him if he would expect to beat any of the Big Three Democrats.

And finally, the problem I face:  who am I going to back for the Republican nomination in the weeks to come?  I'm split almost 50-50 between these two guys and I'm truly torn.

Both of them have solid and patriotic political backgrounds.   Both have records they can boast.  Both are icons in the post-911 conflict.  Both support winning.  Both have the right economic vision.  Both have run good campaigns.  And either of them could very realistically win in November.  

2. Rudy Giuliani:  I've always liked Giuliani.  I think he deserves the Republican nomination.  As recently as last week I have been telling people that he would be my guy.  He's an effective politician and I have yet to see any real counter against the miraculous turn around of New York City, the nation's largest and at the time, more troubling cities.  He left an undeniable positive impact on the city.  He boasts his accomplishments as he should.  While a Hillary Clinton slogan is that she has always cared about children, Giuliani's slogan is that abortions decreased and adoptions increased under his leadership.  He, unlike some his Republican rivals and virtually all of his Democratic rivals, has real and undeniable results he can point to.  And yes, despite opponents to Giuliani's insistence that it's limited or inconsequential, his leadership on 9/11 is a valuable asset to his campaign.  How a leader acts in the face of the unfathomable should have an immeasurable weight on how we assess that candidate.

1. And finally, my support for the next president goes to John McCain.  A year ago McCain would have been near my 'out of the question' level because the man has done some things to infuriate me.  But in hindsight I have to give him credit:  some of the things I thought he was wrong on...he proved himself right.  He was wrong on opposing the Bush tax cuts but he was right on opposing them on the grounds that they didn't include spending cuts.  That should be reassuring to conservatives.

I was angry over the 'Gang of 14' stunt - but in the end, he was proven right.  He got the Democrats to back off while preserving the filibuster.

I thought he was wrong on his insistence that greater force was the answer in Iraq.  This summer's troop surge in the war that Harry Reid dubbed "lost" nine months ago proves McCain right.

Despite the rhetoric surrounding Ron Paul, John McCain is the true fiscal conservative.  He has been a fighter against government waste, rejects earmarks and opposes agricultural subsidies.

McCain was obviously wrong on campaign finance reform and I believe him when he acknowledges it as a mistake. 

The biggest problem I have with McCain is his position on interrogations.  I'm not going to even try to question or challenge his perspective on torture (and very of us should) - though I don't agree with his view on waterboarding.   But I don't think any leader in Washington at a time like this should be advertising our intelligence gathering techniques or limitations.   

To put the icing on the cake, McCain is the only Republican candidate who polls with the best chance of defeating each of the Democratic candidates.  RealClearPolitics national poll averages shows that he is the only candidate who beats Hillary.  He ties Obama and he is within a few points of Edwards.  He would be a more legitimate Commander-in-Chief in that he has served (and then some) and has two sons currently serving overseas.  I say legitimate in that it would end the 'chickenhawk' rants once and for all.  He has name recognition and has run the cleanest and most stately campaigns of all of the candidates - he is often the straightest talker on divisive issues and has been a gentleman throughout the campaign.

John McCain walks softly and carries a big stick.

So there you have it.  It's not to say that I may be swept with an urge to pull for Giuliani as I'm approaching the polling booth, but as of now, my support and my money are with John McCain, the next president of the United States.

Happy New Year.  We're not only ringing in a new year but we are also heading into the final year of the historic two term presidency of George W. Bush.  Love him or hate him, it's practically impossible to deny that this has been a fascinating and impacting decade in US politics and world affairs.

TIME Magazine named President Bush 2004's Person of the Year with the caption "American Revolutionary".  This was on the heels of a decisive and energetic victory over his opponent in the 2004 election.  His opponent in name was John F. Kerry but in reality his opponent was a composite of opposition from much of the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, the higher education establishment, political organizations and 527's sharpening their teeth for the first time (and propelled by big money machines like George Soros) and vocal activists like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. 

It was said that Bush couldn't win with approval numbers under 50%.  It was said that Bush couldn't win in the face of propaganda like Fahrenheit 9/11.  It was said that Bush couldn't win against a war hero.  It was said that Bush couldn't win with an increasingly unpopular war hanging over his head.

The election drew record numbers of voters and George Bush, who had previously fooled a couple dozen Democrats into voting to support a war that they didn't really support, fooled them all again by being the first candidate to win the presidency with a majority of votes since his father did in 1988 and by securing the most votes ever received by a presidential candidate in American history.  As an added bonus, he defeated a candidate who received the second most votes ever recorded.

What is so great about George W. Bush?  Rather than focusing on policy and political successes and failures, I would like to take this time to give him credit in areas that he doesn't get much (if any) recognition for:  his legacy as leader who defied odds and defied the new status quo in public opinion and did it with political diplomacy and unyielding optimism.

George Bush ran in 2000 on the promise to bring "honor and dignity to the White House" and to "clean up the toxic environment in Washington, D.C."   While Bush's critics will never allow this to be accepted, George Bush has done just that.  At least on his end.  I have stated in the past that these days it seems that having a Democratic president is like having your brother in the White House; having a Republican in office is like having your father in the White House.  

Former FBI agent (assigned to the White House) Gary Aldrich's 1998 book "Unlimited Access" details the atmosphere in the Bill Clinton White House and the sharp contrast in how the White House was managed between his former boss, George H. W. Bush and the Clintons.  Out went the suits and in came the cut-offs and t-shirts.  The Clinton White House was a virtual hillbilly circus, stacked with relatives and 'friends of Bill' whose only qualifications for the job were that they were acquaintances of the Clintons, donated or were low level campaign volunteers. And the next eight years proved to be the most scandal-ridden administration in history.

Then the suits returned. 

It seems that George Bush kept his word.  Taking office on the heels of the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, impeachment and the fateful 2000 election circus, President Bush has largely kept himself above the fray.  For such a controversial administration, there has been very little in the name of scandals that have stuck.  The current Congress has launched hundreds upon hundreds of investigations and charges against the administration amid a constant drumbeat of cries for impeachment.  At least it should be noted that Bush's alleged scandals were usually policy related and his predecessors scandals were more often than not about anything but policy.

While previous administrations like Clinton and Reagan saw their share of polarization and bitterness, nothing compares to what the current president has had to endure.  If we were to add up every accusation and offensive comment lobbed at the president in the last seven years, Bush would appear to be Adolf Hitler, Benedit Arnold, Genghis Kahn, Darth Vader, Dr. Evil and Howdy Doody all rolled into one.  Perhaps it should be worth noting that as far as corruption and ill motivations go, his critics have never bothered to compare him to Bill Clinton.  Which would, of course, be crossing the line.

But it would not be crossing any lines by drawing some parallels between George W. Bush and the late, great President Ronald Reagan.  No, this isn't to make a comparison of the two men but to show that there are parallels in how each one was portrayed at the time.

Ronald Reagan's two terms averaged about a 57% approval rating.  Averaging one recurring near bi-weekly poll going back to January of 2001, Bush thus far averages about 53% (though his disapproval numbers are noticeably higher than Reagan's). 

Like Reagan, Bush has been called a simpleton (through a multitude of colorful adjectives) and a reckless cowboy.  Reagan called our enemy at the time an "evil empire"; Bush labeled three terrorist supporting nations as an "axis of evil".  Reagan joked about bombing Russia; Bush joked about being a dictator and both were skewered for it.   Bush wants to kill all Muslims; Reagan wanted to start a nuclear war.  God tells Bush what to do; Reagan was trying to fulfill Biblical prophesy and bring the world to Armageddon (the Left viewed Reagan as an eager nuclear threat the way Conservatives today view Ahmadinejad).    Reagan long believed in an aggressive foreign policy that dealt with our threats head on, against the status quo-commanded fear in the Beltway; ditto for Bush.  Bush wanted black people to die in a hurricane/flood; Reagan wanted homosexuals to die from AIDS.

There were international protests against both men, though Reagan wins in the area of numbers of protesters who rallied for a nuclear freeze.   Both presidents have been compared to Hitler (there are still websites making this comparison to Reagan today) and both were making enemies and losing allies.  

Both presidents handled the rabid hatred of them with class, indifference and humor.  It's unheard of to hear George Bush lash out at his critics or respond to the vitriolic and hyperbolic insults, lies and accusations with his own.  People have tried to paint Bush as a monster since day one and he lets it roll off his back.  Esteemed political opponents have called him a liar and have accused him of sending troops off to die for dubious reasons.  Bush has remained cool under the avalanche of silliness and hostility leveled at him.  To the point that he becomes his own flaw.

Most complaints about the lack of unity and the level of partisanship in national politics comes from the idealist Left or people of 'outsider' politics.  And they of course see President Bush as the great divider, the one responsible for the bitter atmosphere in Washington, a president beholden to corporate masters and Zionist conspirators.  And of course, they are wrong as they are often the same people who echo the vitriol and celebrate when a Democratic politician insults or impugns Bush, or calls for impeachment, or makes horrible accusations.  Psst...you can't have bipartisanship and a 'get along' atmosphere when you're supporting or perpetuating a third grade mentality that functions little more than to increase the bitterness and cheapen public discourse.

And President Bush ignores almost all of it.  While Bush talks like a conservative, the truth is that if you remove the war, his judicial appointments and his adherence to tax cuts out of the equation, Bush has been a very moderate president, including on huge issues like education, foreign aid and immigration.

Yes, George Bush will leave office in a year with a tarnished image.  Much of that is his own fault in that he refused to acknowledge the campaign of destruction that has been relentlessly waged against him.  He failed to counter the propaganda with his own.  No one will ever accuse him of being a "great communicator".

I personally like George W. Bush.  I think he is a sincere person, a serious person, a good person and a real and down to earth guy who has the best intentions.  In contrast to the portrayal made by his opponents, he is not some simple-minded fool being led by dark forces in his administration nor is he some evil, calculating dictator bent on power and destruction.  He has reinstated America as a military might in the world and his policies have led to reforms of one kind or another in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and North Korea.  He led the country out of a bleak economic situation and a devastating terrorist attack into a strong, vibrant economic machine, no longer content with the status quo in how we handled our enemies.  

Like Ronald Reagan's legacy at the time, Bush's is now under siege by his Leftist critics.  But their grip only goes as far as the present.  Like Reagan, history will be the final judge of the Bush presidency.   Bush has been accused of destroying the country and the economy and ruining our image in the world, that he is void of accomplishments, that he is a failed president.  The same mindset behind that also said the same things about President Reagan. 

Extra care has been given to destroying Bush because of the bitterness over the 2000 election.  Gore supporters hated Bush so much for not allowing Gore to steal the election that it would have roots in every attack on Bush made since.  That hatred has led what I'm sure are otherwise rational, well-adjusted and reasonable Americans (ahem!) into seeing President Bush as someone who stages terrorist attacks against his own country just so he can launch a war for financial gain.

While the question of 'who comes up with stuff?' begs to be asked, Bush deserves some credit for not legitimizing these sorry views by entertaining them or responding.

Because he does care about the dignity of the office, I can guarantee one thing that Bush will not do ala Jimmy "worst administration in history" Carter and Bill Clinton:  when his term expires next January, we will not hear George W. Bush running around trashing the next president.

What's so great about George W. Bush?  His patriotism, his resolve, his principles, his steadfastness, his belief in America, his optimism, his refusal to get in the gutter...

Character is king.  Again.