It’s not the primary season yet, but there are no fewer than 18 candidates (19, if you count Fred Thompson, and let’s face it, we should count him), so I can’t help but think of this as “primary season.” And I have a few random thoughts on primary season.

One thought is, I’m dead sick and tired of all the talk about electing men folks would be “comfortable having a beer with.” We can see where that’s gotten us in the last six and a half years–in a world of trouble. I don’t want to elect an “ordinary guy” who I can have a beer with; I want to elect an extraordinary guy (or woman) who I feel comfortable seeing the Queen of England having a white-tie dinner with. When we think back on Presidential greatness, we’re not thinking of the “ordinary guys,” we’re thinking of Lincoln and Washington and Roosevelt, who were extraordinary.

So all you people who are voting for someone because he seems “likable?” You’re idiots, and you helped get us into this mess. Next time, vote for someone you think will do a good job. You’re not electing your next housemate here, you’re electing the leader of the free world. Get a grip.

As the primaries are lurching into view, we’re seeing the usual round of stories about how unfair it is that the big states like California are trying to move their primary up so that it actually, heaven forfend, counts for something. Lots of stories about the evils of the “national primary,” and so on.

The logic here seems to be that everyone should get a chance to meet the candidates, that a long primary season gives people a chance to weed out the obvious losers, and that the problem with a “national primary” is that there won’t be a chance for everyone to have a chance to make their choice among a bunch of different candidates.

Punditocracy, let me clue you: I lived in California for 25 years, and by the time the primaries rolled around to us–the most populous, diverse state in the Union, mind you–there were no choices. The primaries were done. Do you really think that if California had the first primary in the nation rather than New Hampshire, Mondale would have been nominated in 1984? Or Dukakis–Dukakis!–in 1988? Please.

If you pundits want to blame someone, stop harshing on the people of California, and lay your blame where it belongs, on those stubborn Yankees in New Hampshire. Why on Earth does it make sense for a state with a population of just over 1 million, with a median income of over 57 grand a year–highest in the nation!–and a population that is overwhelming white–over 97%–to have so much influence on who is President for a diverse country of 300 million people? More influence than California? Or New York? Or Florida? That’s idiotic. It’s time for the pundits to stop blaming the residents of the other states for trying to gain some influence, and start turning their collective gimlet eye on New Hampshire and ask the obvious question: what the heck makes them so special?

And don’t even get me started on Iowa.

I don’t have anything personal against Iowa or New Hampshire. Honest. I have relatives in New Hampshire, and my Mom was born there. I just think it’s insane that politicians spend more time there than, say, Texas (population 21 million).

David Broder, the “dean” of the White House press corps, has been demonstrating his out-of-touchness for quite some time (his famed “Bush Bounce” column being an all-time low, of course), so I don’t know why he continues to surprise me, or indeed why I continue to pay attention. Perhaps I’m just a masochist. But I do pay attention. And yup, he’s done it again.

There are many things that I don’t understand about the Democrats and the current “debate” about the Iraq war and the funding thereof. The first thing I don’t understand is, why is the debate even going on? The argument seems, to me, absurdly simple. We won the war. Saddam is dead. There are no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis have elected their own government. The Iraqis want us out of there. The majority of Americans want us out of there. Why is there even a debate at all? Why is this complicated?

(To those who say, “But the situation could get worse if we leave!” I respond, yes, indeed, and the situation could also get worse if we stay. We’ve stayed longer, now, than it took us to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan combined, and the situation hasn’t gotten better. Hell, we haven’t even secured Baghdad after all this time. Why shouldn’t we leave and see if it doesn’t get better?)

But another thing that confuses me is why everyone continues to acquiesce in the dishonest and disingenuous debating tactic that the White House engaged in, which Broder is putting forth. Their argument goes like this: cut off the funding, and the troops won’t get food, or bullets, or gas for their HumVees, and it will be your fault, you evil, evil Democrats! They will run out ammo in the middle of a firefight!

What rubbish. And Broder, of course, is buying right into it. Equating cutting the funding and finally denying Bush his blank check with “deny[ing] arms and protective equipment for the troops” is of course utterly absurd. Would a general go into battle without arms and protective equipment? Would a lack of funds not create push-back on the Administration to actually consider a different plan other than their insane holding pattern (which they clearly intend to keep hanging on to until January, 2009)? It’s laughable. But Broder, most other pundits, and most politicians have bought into this insanity.

The second thing is Broder’s assertion about a “precipitous withdrawal,” an alarmist phrase guaranteed to make readers think that, hey, presto, the troops would magically disappear off the battlefield and reappear in their own living rooms. Broder’s lack of knowledge of military logistics is apparent in phrases like this (or he is being deliberately misleading); if Bush were to order a U.S. drawdown today, it would take several months, if not a full year, to remove all our forces and equipment from Iraq. I doubt sincerely that anyone would consider that “precipitous.”

Hopefully, the Democrats will look at the polls, both their own since they caved on the Iraq funding bill, and Bush’s (how much more lower does he have to go before they get some courage?), and they’ll show some ‘nads in September. But frankly, I’m expecting September to be the beginning of yet another Friedman unit.

I gave up.

It’s not that I’m not opinionated enough to have a blog; I have opinions up the wazoo. But I have, previously, confined my opinions to letters to the editors, letters to other blog writers (which they have occasionally posted), articles on various forums and web sites, and the like.

But now, I’ve given up.

I don’t know if I have the patience, staying power, or wherewithal to maintain a blog. We’ll just have to see. But I do know that I simply have too damn many opinions to allow them to be filtered through Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan, Salon.com, Time magazine’s editors, or whoever. So here we go.