I wanted to break from all the presidential discussions and talk about Hawaii. Hawaii is a state that really seems to get passed over when talking about U.S. politics. I guess not a whole lot really happens over there in the world of politics to interest everyone, but despite its extreme Democrat tilt among the residents the state does have a Republican governor.

Linda Lingle won her second term in 2006 with the largest margin in state history, 63% to 35%. Shortly after her reelection her approval rating stood at 71%. She has been a popular political figure in the state. The two U.S. Senators in Hawaii are both 83 years old and Daniel Inouye is up for reelection in 2010. He will be 86 by that time and will have served in the Senate for 47 years. I have a strong suspicion that he will retire. He is no Robert Byrd.

The GOP has only ever had one Republican Senator from Hawaii and that was Hiram Fong who served from statehood until 1977. Lingle would be the best shot we have ever had since at getting a Senate pick up in Hawaii and her gubernatorial term ends in 2010, coinciding nicely. I think her odds of victory would be very good.

Lingle is a moderate, no doubt about it and that is not at all surprising being that we are talking about Hawaii, but it would be nice to steal a blue Senate seat away from the Democrats considering they have so many of ours.

One thing we haven’t really done yet is speculate who the VP running mate might be for each of the candidates. I thought I would strike up that subject and start with my thoughts.

I’ll start with McCain since he has recently become the front runner. I think a very likely choice for John McCain would be Mark Sanford. Sanford is probably the most fiscally restraint governor of all 50 and a McCain/Sanford ticket would send a message that Republicans are serious about fixing the run away spending problems in Washington. They are good friends and Sanford endorsed McCain in 2000. It also doesn’t hurt that Sanford is a southern governor ( proudly my governor!) and his running with McCain might help quell some of the disdain conservatives have with some of McCain’s past shenanigans in the party.

With Romney I used to think that Huckabee might be a probable choice for him being a southern governor, but at this point I don’t think there would be a salvageable relationship between the two of them. I have always viewed Mitt to be the establishment candidate, or the Bush neo-con backed candidate, so based on that I turn to Condi Rice, perhaps?

I could see Giuliani aligning with Huckabee to woo the social conservatives who are aghast at his social liberalism. A Giuliani candidacy is looking less likely at this point though. He is no longer leading in Florida and only leading in New York by three points now over McCain. I don’t think Super Tuesday is going to save him.

Fred Thompson is a hard one. He can’t pick a southerner so he has to go either west or to the north/northeast. Duncan Hunter might be a good fit for him. I had actually suggested a few months ago to a friend of mine who is affiliated with the Thompson campaign that he should consider Spencer Abraham. The Michigan economy is in a shambles. Years of left wing economics have shriveled it away to practically nothing. Combine that with Howard Dean’s boneheaded decision to strip them of their delegates I think that if the GOP worked hard in that state they could deliver it. Having a Michigan running mate wouldn’t hurt the effort.

Then, of course, there is Huckabee and on that one I have no earthly idea.

Yes, you read that headline right, it’s true:

The news broke late last night that the Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief in the DC Gun Ban case, asking that the Supreme Court overturn the Court of Appeals decision striking down the DC Gun Ban. This is a move of breathtaking idiocy that may have already cost us the election.

Bill Quick responds in his typical take-no-prisoners approach:

We have the first chance in almost eight decades to see the Second finally, legally established an an individual right (and all that potentially entails for liberty) and the farking George W. Bush compassionate conservative administration steps in and stabs us in the back!!!.

This is the same GWB who some time ago announced he would sign a renewal of the assault weapons ban if such landed on his desk.

I’ve had it. We simply can’t trust these bastards. Bush is, of course, a long-established disgrace to the conservative wing of the GOP, and is, in fact, no conservative at all. He is, in fact, of the same ilk as John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani, so if any of these men are elected and later damage the cause of conservatism in the US, conservative voters have only themselves to blame, as I blame myself for voting for GWB, even when it was obvious what he was (no conservative) to those who cared to actually look at his record and his own statements.

I think Mr. Quick sized up the situation well. The Washington, D.C. handgun ban was struck down by an appeals court last March, in a striking victory for citizens. The Supreme Court has chosen to hear the case, meaning either the justices are thinking of either overturning the appeals court or, more likely, setting a firm pro-gun rights precedent by upholding it. It will come down to what side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy wakes up on that morning.

This is another sad departure from conservatism from the Bush Administration, and is sure to tick plenty of people off. Conservative voters need to be mindful of this when choosing their Presidential nominee. You know where I stand, and here’s what Fred has to say on the 2nd Amendment:

I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to:

• Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.
• Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.

By the way, even the New York Times is starting to note what blogs have been saying for days, that Thompson’s debate in the most recent debate was electric and having real effects on South Carolina voters, most of whom were undecided before the debate.