(A brief note: I’m putting up a post next week that will literally make you thousands of dollars for basically no work by updating my credit card scheme post from last year. It’s incredible. I have a better idea of where I’ll end up, and in the last two years, I’ll have gotten over $4000 in airfare, about $300 in hotels, and over $500 in cash, all after tax, for free. Knowing the tricks I know now, I feel pretty confident that I could have made at least $2000 more. $6800 post-tax is closer to $10000 pre-tax, so this is essentially the same as a $5000/year raise. All told, I’ve maybe spent 20 hours. As long as you have a job and decent credit, you could do the same thing, so you might want to check that post out…)

I never like thinking about elections before we even reach an election year, but now that 2008 has arrived, it’s time to get serious. It’s no secret that, politically, I’m a libertarian-leading moderate. I think that the Constitution and personal responsibility should be the bedrock of politics. Beyond that, I also think there are some ways the government can help the less-fortunate and the unlucky, I think that decisions should be made locally if possible (the principle of subsidiarity), and I think that America’s foreign policy should be guided by “the city on a hill”, where we hold our actions and leadership to a higher standard than other countries. Anything else is just details.

That said, as noted in my last post, I don’t see how anyone with political beliefs similar to mine can consider anything other than the war in Iraq to be the most important issue in this election. The money spent, $1 trillion, dwarfs any other governmental spending that is on the table right now. The damage to American lives, Iraqi lives, and the reputation of this country has been enormous. And the people fighting this war are overwhelmingly men my age. They’re the ones who, like a friend of mine from college, signed up for the military after 9/11 because they wanted to capture bin Laden, and ended up being sent to a country which was maybe the #30 most important place for Islamist terrorism, a country which essentially proved of no danger to the United States. They’re the ones who, like the same friend, left a promising college student and returned with serious depression. They’re the ones who tell me we’re wasting our time.

In 2004, I felt that General Clark was the best choice - he had good advisers, was going to end the war, and had the substantial foreign policy experience to restore America’s public image.

(Quick aside: Note the reason for the experience is to restore America’s image, not to keep America safe. I don’t know how al-Qaeda has somehow become considered a danger on the level of 1940s Fascism or the USSR. Al-Qaeda is a group of a couple thousand radicals, generally poorly equipped, with no major state support, who took advantage of a passive policy toward hijackers to kill a bit under 3000 people. Fascism controlled the state apparatus of a number of major countries, was a legitimate threat to conquer all of Europe, and led to the deaths of millions upon millions. The USSR was minutes away from firing a nuclear missile in October 1962, which would likely have triggered the greatest loss of life in the history of the world. Hell, even in the early 20th century, there were groups of anarchists in the United States that murdered a president, tried to kill another, and exploded a bomb on Wall Street. I’d say that aside from the 1920s and the 1990s, the current decade is the safest decade for America in the last hundred years, and if anything, we should be reducing the size of our military. I’d also say that the media (and many politicians) are incredibly ignorant of history.)

This year, the field is quite a bit better than in 2004. On the Republican side, since every candidate but Ron Paul (more on him in a second) is in favor of the Iraq status quo, I can’t really endorse any of them, but let’s go through them one by one. I do like McCain, and did even in 2000. He tends to get things done, believes in personal responsibility and the free market, and has taken pretty bold stands in favor of a humane response to illegal immigrant, and against the torture which an incredible number of Congressmen inexplicably support. But his plan for Iraq is to keep us there for another 50 to 100 years. So he’s out. Rudy Guiliani is getting my anti-endorsement. He has a long of record of disregard for rules on executive power, has a foreign policy team that is an order of magnitude more extreme than the Bush administration, and can only claim “being mayor on 9/11″ and “hiring William Bratton“, the sheriff who cleaned up New York and went on to clean up LA, as accomplishments. I also think he’s immoral considering how he’s treated his many wives, and I think “immorality” is a bad characteristic for a president. His election would be an absolute disaster for this country. I actually like Mike Huckabee, but I don’t think I can vote for a guy who doesn’t believe evolution is real. He’s definitely the least bad of the Republican field (big up when he mentioned that he’s a “10th Amendment kind of guy” during the New Hampshire debate tonight). Ron Paul has the right policy on the war and civil liberties, but otherwise he’s just a bit crazy. His ideas on monetary policy, which he mentions nonstop, are considered a bit ridiculous by basically every mainstream economist. His heart on the role of the government is in the right place, though, so I can’t hate too much. Fred Thompson is a joke. “What policy of Obama do you disagree with, Sen. Thompson?” “Well, he’s liberal.” “And?” “Well, he supports liberal policies.” A vote for Fred is a vote for more of the same, plus it’s clear from his lack of campaigning that he’s both too old to be President and doesn’t really want to be President anyway. Finally, Mitt Romney is a total hack. Give him credit for doing something about health care, though the Governator’s plan is a bit better, and also give him credit for actually seeming to have read policy papers unlike some of the others in this list. But he’s clearly willing to do whatever any special interest wants him to do, and his government would also be more of the same.

Ok, let’s turn to the Democrats. This is tough. All the Democrats are far too willing to increase the size of government and ignore individual liberty, but problematically, the Republicans are too (Bush has damaged civil liberties and increased the size of government more than nearly any President in modern history). That said, of the four major candidates, the only one I would exclude right away is Edwards. I understand he’s passionate about his Dad and the mills, but his economic prescription is far too populist and ill-informed for my tastes, and I also don’t think he has anywhere near enough experience (one term in the Senate and many years as a trial lawyer?). So let’s move on to the other three.

First, Hillary. I think it’s safe to say that a Hillary presidency will be similar to Bill’s time at the White House. And to be honest, that’s a pretty good thing. I just fear that Hillary is too tight with a lot of special interests, and perhaps too divisive to get Congress to pass any major reform. She also has the worst record on Iraq. I also do think it is important to have a female president at some stage - not because I think females “deserve their turn”, but because I think females and minorities are just as capable as elderly white men and it’s a waste for voters to not consider capable people for the most important job in the land. That said, I think Hillary in probably third in the mind right now.

Next, Bill Richardson. I really, really like Bill Richardson. He’s unquestionably the most qualified (UN ambassador, governor, Secretary of Energy, major overseas negotiation experience, etc.). If you didn’t see the New Hampshire debate, watch the bits (when they make it to Youtube, as I’m sure they will tonight) where he talks about Iraq and where he gives his “What’s wrong with experience?” speech. He’s balanced budgets, respected the individual, and worked with many of the most important people in the world.  I don’t know that his economic policy would be great, and his plans for “national service” are quite worrying, but really the only problem I have with him is that he’s dead in the water, polling in the single digits.  I think it’s safe to say that he would be given the Sec. of State position if he wanted it, though.  Put him second, and if a miracle happens, I’d be glad to vote for him.

So I guess that leaves Obama.  You know, I didn’t particularly like Obama at first - he really is quite inexperienced.  But then he hired a top-notch economics team.  And pledged to leave Iraq (and opposed the war from the start).   And came across as more honest, sober and thoughtful than any of the other candidates.  I was particularly impressed that, when Richardson claimed that a cap-and-trade for carbon is paid by businesses while a carbon tax is paid by consumers, Obama interjected and noted that both would have the same effect on consumers.  Nothing like an understanding of tax incidence to make me happy, huh?   I do think that it is not trivial that Obama is a minority, has a Muslim father, and is the only presidential candidate to young to be a Boomer.   His policies are grounded while his rhetoric is not, and given this year’s field, I think Obama would make a fine president indeed.

What am I missing, guys?

I eagerly await Free Money Part Deux. I took a few of your suggestions in the past year, although I’ve not done quite so nicely as you have. I picked up the Chase Freedom for $250 to start; I still use that as my default credit card since its 1.25% cash rebate and no annual fee is the best deal so far. I tried the Citi AA Mastercard to get the 20,000 American miles; when that went off without a hitch, I cancelled it signed up for all three Citi AA cards (MC, Amex, and business MC). For the last I had to “start” a business, Vandelay Tutoring. Allison loves that I carry a credit card that says Vandelay on it. Once I’ve put $750 on all three (should take a few more weeks), I’ll have about 85,000 AA miles this year. I haven’t used them yet, but I’ll have about 110,000 American miles in the bank.

As far as the presidential race goes, I think I’m probably with you on Obama by default. I really can’t get excited about anyone on either side. I was flirting with Ron Paul until I actually saw him in the debate tonight. He confused health care cost inflation with general inflation and seemed to claim that the solution to the health care crisis is a gold standard. He’s just crazy.

I’m with you on Paul - he really doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about.

Seems like you’re doing pretty well on the card front. That Chase deal was great, though I think I have one that’s even better. I would say Citi and Starwood Amex are my go-to cards - I can think of 5 different Citis I want. Did you know the Citi AAs are churnable? Get one every 60 days. The only real binding limit is that you (and, of course, Vandelay Tutoring counts as a separate person for this rule) can only apply for one Citi every 30 days, and you need to spend enough to hit the limit. I get 3000 or so per semester reimbursed in cash for the tuition expenses, so I always put those on credit divvied up enough to get my bonuses.

My real work now is getting to 120k on AA, because that’s the 25000 mile, 16 stopover cost. How do you like the frequent flyer ticket that goes RIC-DFW-LAX-SYD-AYQ-CNS-SYD-TPE-NRT-HKG-SIN-RGN-SIN-BKK-BOM-CAI?

Now that’s a frequent flyer ticket. Since the two Singapores, Amman, the second Sydney, DFW and LAX aren’t stopovers, they don’t count for mileage, and we sneak in at 24905 miles.

Yes, I was aware the Citis are churnable… I’m on my second personal MC. However, the spending requirement gets me — I don’t have the tuition expense you do, so I’m limited to my personal expenditures — mostly books and bar tabs. I don’t know if it used to be lower, but the $750 to get the bonus takes me about a month. Do you have to cancel the old card first to get the bonus on the new one? Also, I assume if you cancel before your statement, you still get the bonus?

That’s quite the trip! Amazing that you can get that with just two rounds of Citi AA card churning.

It used to be 250 bucks and 20,000 miles, so I definitely like the new system better. There’s no need to cancel the old card - in fact, I would hesitate to cancel any card within six months, and instead of cancelling, I would roll the old credit limit onto my current card (closed accounts are bad for your credit score, as is a low available credit).