The Real Pat Blair

Everybody ready for the big McCain v Clinton in ‘08 advertising and media blitz? Because that’s my prediction. Write it down, check for accuracy in 6 months.
A done deal? Hardly. I read an article from a respected pundit who opined that a strong showing from Fred Thompson in South Carolina, combined by the complete lack of a GOP front-runner, might be enough to propel Mr. Fred into the position of a unifying conservative leader that didn’t scare more than 50% of his own the party. There have been 3 major primaries and 3 different clear winners for the GOP.
On the Dem side, Hillary Clinton has already been crowned, dethroned, re-crowned, and barely eked out a victory over “undecided,” and that’s only in the last 2 weeks! Heck, there are even people who think that John Edwards is still relevant to the race. This is true, inasmuch as he is drawing votes away from the two candidates that have a chance, but, hey, there are also “experts” who think we evolved from single-celled organisms, so choose your sources wisely.
This source, however, sees McCain and Clinton as the eventual victors, and is looking forward to voting in November, if, for no other reason, than this 2-year spin-cycle will finally be over.
For an interesting breakdown on what the each of the potential races might look like, check out Kimberley A. Strassel’s Barack or Hillary? It’s a post that I was going to write, only she beat me to it, and probably did a much better job.

I know I’ve practically beaten the political horse to death, but I feel this is too important for me to not share:

More on stupid, digital things that are happening to music next week.

I vote Republican, and will caucus Republican, because I am conservative. I believe the Bible, and I believe in the US Constitution and lower taxes.
I believe that, regardless of your feelings on the war in Iraq, we can, from this point on, do one of three things: leave immediately (also known as “losing” - see: political expediency, Vietnam), continue to whine about it and do nothing, or stop listening to the polls, do what the generals say, and win the damn thing, even if it means troops will be there on some level for another 5, 10, or 20 years. Everyone wants the war to end and the troops to come home. The troops want to come home. But they darn sure don’t want to come home without taking care of business first.
I believe that abortion is wrong. A short, tactless summary for a complicated discussion. If you can tell me when life begins, I’ll agree to abortion prior to that point. Right now, no one is sure exactly when a fetus gets a soul, and I’d rather err on the side of caution than be accidentally killing babies. I can revisit this later, with more depth and diplomacy, if anyone would like, but it’s a make-or-break issue for me.
I believe that the best thing the government can do is get out of the way and let people achieve. This can be done through lower taxes, less programs, less laws, and less “nanny-state,” aka baby-sitting the American people out of the belief that they can’t take care of themselves.
Based on these things, as well as my previously discussed qualifications, here is the Republican field, organized by an unexplainable, but very scientific formula, factoring likelihood of winning and who you should actually vote for.

The Good Guys
Alan Keyes - Keyes is on his 3rd straight run. I love and admire the guy, but the Des Moines Register isn’t even listing him on the “Candidates” page. Sorry Alan.

Duncan Hunter - From California, has served in the house since 1981. After 27 years, has decided to try for a promotion. Hunter, besides being the OTHER Evangelical Christian in the race, has tried to build a 14-mile fence along the border with Mexico. While I agree with him on about everything else, this is pretty dumb, and will also not get you elected.

Rudy Giuliani - Rudy has more executive experience than many Governors (see: Huckabee). He is also pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, which is a tough sell in the GOP, especially in Iowa. I’ll vote for him in November if he gets the nod; the long-term judicial and foreign-policy impacts are too important to ignore. But not unless I absolutely have to.

Ron Paul - Ron is a practicing ob-gyn who has served as Representative from Texas from 77-85, 97-present, and happens to be insane. I think we should organize debates between Ron and Dennis Kucinich, just for the entertainment value. He is a great speaker, and has an incredible grass-roots campaign. He also has principals, upon which he bases his decisions, and sticks to them. He is socially and fiscally conservative, and this is why his supporters love him - there is absolutely 0 chance that he would suddenly decide to raise taxes and create government programs if he gets elected. There is also 0 chance that he will get elected.
He supports dismantling the IRS and Federal Reserve, which is great, but hard to sell on a national level. He supports states’ rights to a fault. He also thinks we should pull out of Iraq immediately, and have a (not isolationist, but) non-interventionist foreign-policy. This is, as I mentioned yesterday, retarded, no offense to the differently-abled.

Mike Huckabee - Mike Huckabee seems like a very nice guy. The problem is, I know lots of nice guys. In fact, I know lots of nice, Christian guys with great values and character - pastors, even - and most of them have no business being President. Let’s call it the Jimmy Carter factor. That said, here is why I am NOT a fan of Huckabee, and, in fact, am somewhat horrified by his rise:
He’s a liberal. He’s against vouchers and school choice. He thinks we should do foreign-policy by influence (including full diplomatic relations with Iran). He thinks that we don’t have a health care problem, but a “health problem;” his idea is to get Americans to stop smoking and start exercising, admirable goals, to be sure, but not ones that will solve the rising costs of health care. Furthermore, these are not things that a conservative would suggest the government involve itself with.
Huckabee is in favor of a carbon cap-and-tax plan to help save us from global warming, even though all evidence indicates that it would save us only from economic prosperity. He claims to cut taxes, but spending increased by 65% during the 8 years that he was governor of Arkansas. Yes, 65%. And he supported all kinds of tax hikes: sales tax, cigarettes, gasoline, and Internet taxes, for starters. This is allegedly a conservative, remember?
He has foot-in-mouth disease: in 1992, he advocated isolation/quarantine of people with HIV/AIDS. In 1992, I had been learning in public schools for at least 3 years that you couldn’t get AIDS from hugging, yet Huck says this? And believe that there’s more on the way: in 2007, only 4 of the 273 attack ads from the Democratic National Committee have focused on Huckabee. He’s an easy target, and they know it.
Finally, Huckabee is an ethical train-wreck:

In Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was investigated by the state ethics committee at least 14 times. Most of the complaints centered on what appears to be a serial disregard for government rules about gifts and outside financial compensation. He reported $112,000 worth of gifts in one year alone, nearly double his $67,000 salary…
One of these admonishments involved a $23,500 payment to Mr. Huckabee from an opaque organization called Action America that he helped found in 1994 while lieutenant governor, and that was designed to coordinate his speeches and supplement his income.
Mr. Huckabee caused an uproar when he used a $60,000 account intended to maintain the governor’s mansion for personal expenses, including restaurant meals, dry cleaning and boat supplies. He also faced a lawsuit over his assertion that $70,000 worth of furniture donated to the mansion was his to keep. Sprinkled among all this are complaints about the misuse of state planes and campaign funds, mistakes on financial disclosure forms, and fights over documents related to ethics investigations…
Most recent have been stories about his pardons and commutations, as well as the news that R.J. Reynolds contributed to Action America. Mr. Huckabee–who now wants a national smoking ban in public places–responded that he never knew he accepted tobacco money, which has inspired a former adviser to claim Mr. Huckabee is being “less than truthful.” What’s next?

This is a disproportionate amount of text for Huckabee, I realize. But I am aware that many who read this blog have become his fans. Perhaps I have a bias against ethically-challenged Baptist Arkansas governors who are running for president. But I think that Huckabee’s success is largely due to the fact that, in addition to being a Christian, he is not Mitt Romney (Morman), and he’s not Rudy Giuliani (pro-abortion). He attacks those who question his record as trying to silence the voice of the evangelicals; maybe I’m self-hating, here, but I think he is not very conservative, I think he lacks the executive and foreign-policy experience and expertise to get the job done, and I think his record is very clear on that.

Mitt Romney - Republican governor of super-liberal Massachusetts from 03-07, successful businessman, who, by the way, happens to be Mormon. This, unfortunately, has become a bigger liability for Romney than his dubious conservative credentials (formerly pro-abortion). I am impressed with Romney’s leadership skills and executive experience, am less worried about his apparently nominal Mormon beliefs, but am concerned with his nominal conservatism. I think he’d make a successful president and would pick conservative judges, but I’m not sure he’s the right guy.

John McCain - Since 2000, I have sworn I would never vote for McCain. He took contrary, moderate positions, seemingly because he liked seeing his name in the headlines (to the point where I have since diagnosed Chuck Hagel with “McCain-itis”), and the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform is an affront to the Constitution and voters. The man is a social conservative though, and appears, at least for the campaign, to have re-embraced low-tax conservatism.
Here’s the thing with McCain - he will take an unpopular stand on things like Iraq because, gosh darnit, he’s right. There are few candidates who make me feel better about our future in Iraq because he believes that we are there until we win. The end. Polls disagree? Tough.
In spite of the last decade of complaining about him, I feel more comfortable about President John McCain than all the guys before him on the list, and nearly as comfortable with those after him.

Fred Thompson - an attorney, Thomson has held a slew of governmental positions, including serving in the Senate from 94-02, but is best known for his stint on Law & Order from 02-07. He ran a great pre-campaign, declaring late and staying above the fray, but has yet to really connect with voters. My concern: his trial-lawyer ties. Plus side: strong on national security, abortion, judges, and limited government. He seems reasonable on immigration and taxes. He is also a policy wonk, which may hurt his ability to be a good campaigner. I think his chances are slim, but I also think he’s the best man for the job. Except for…

Newt Gingrich - Newt is not running, so it’s tough to caucus for him. But, seriously, has there ever been a more principled defender of conservatism? The man was so villainized in the media that he became practically unelectable, but does anyone remember why? Because he was a force of nature in the House. In 94, he ran an entire campaign on the Contract with America (READ IT!!!), a conservative manifesto, won, and then, small wonder, did everything that he said he was going to. He is bright, articulate, and clear in his beliefs. His personal life is a bit of a train-wreck, but the man can build a coalition and lead. Small government, good courts, the most reasonable, detailed immigration proposal I have seen - get it done!
It will never happen, but tell me it wouldn’t be worth it, just to see the Gingrich-Hillary debates. The would have to rate them TV-M for the bloodshed. Seriously, who doesn’t want to see this?

That said, reasonable people can and do disagree, and there has never been a more prime example than the 2008 campaign. I hope you have a candidate, and I hope you go caucus. But first, read this, reread my blog, and then go be a good citizen. Keep in mind, the biggest long-term impact a president has are his/her judicial nominees, and so, even if you hate both eventual candidates, there is a good reason to be informed, be involved, and vote.
Go Cyclones. Go America!

It’s no secret that I’m fairly conservative, so this is really just a handicapping of the Democrat field, and maybe some food for thought for those who will be participating with the Dems this Thursday. For simplicity’s sake, I’ve split the candidates into tiers.

Hell’s Snowball is Laughing at Your Chances
Mike Gravel - A 77 year-old former Alaska senator, out of office since 1981, and 2nd runner up for Dem VP nomination in 1972. Also known as, “Who?”
Chris Dodd - From Connecticut, elected to the House in 1975 and the Senate in 1980, where he has been ever since. Probably a victim of “wrong place, wrong time,” since he would earn at least VP talk in other years, but in ‘08, there are too many Dem rockstars to contend with. 33 years of a liberal voting record could be a tough one to overcome in the General election, too. Incidentally, Dodd’s Iowa campaign office is right across the street from my office, and, based on the size, appearance, and complete lack of activity, let me just say: trust me, he’s not winning Iowa.

A Vote for Comedy’s Sake
Dennis Kucinich - Absolutely nuts. Leave Iraq immediately, universal health care, hug the trees, etc. From the Des Moines register: “If Kucinich’s first run was a long shot, his second run is even more so.” A liberal’s liberal, Kucinich is becoming the Dem equivalent of Alan Keyes, except inarticulate and without intellectual consistency. I would love to see him spend more time on the national stage.

Tier Two: Sucks to Be You
Joe Biden - Delaware Senator since 1972 - see above. Also has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth. Bonus points: Biden is a foreign-policy wonk, and actually has articulated a clear Iraq plan. I’m not a big fan, but credit for actually offering a clear course of action instead of vague “plans.”
Bill Richardson - Governor of New Mexico, with a slew of committee and other leadership positions. He is the one Democrat with a proven executive record, which would make him my clear pick. The problem: due to being outshone by the 1st tier candidates, he has resorted to running commercials saying that he would pull out of Iraq immediately, which, in addition to being just retarded, also reeks of desperation. The top candidates have all started moderating their positions in the event that they actually have to defend them on a national scale. Good luck in the VP race, Bill.

The Rockstars
John Edwards - One-term senator, failed VP nominee in ‘04, and pretty-boy trial-lawyer. Absolutely pwned by Dick Cheney in the ‘04 debates - I was practically embarrassed for the guy. A uber-rich lawyer with a lavish lifestyle running on a platform of representing the poor is always good for a laugh, though.
Barack Obama - He’s young, black, good looking, clearly very bright, and a great public speaker. He has also been running for President since 2004, when he won his first national-level election, defeating Keyes for the Ill. Senate in a non-race (Wiki it if you’re that interested). That is probably his biggest disadvantage: he has, in reality, no experience on the national stage, and CERTAINLY no experience in terms of being an executive. Clinton & Co will absolutely murder him in a tight, 2- or 3-way campaign. It’s what they do best.
On the plus side, he has been anointed the Dem rockstar, and he’s got Oprah stumping for him. What more does a man need?
Hillary Clinton - Well, she lived in the White House for 8 years, and has spent 8 painstaking years in the Senate, trying to avoid taking any position that would not appear to be moderate. Unbiased review would indicate that Clinton has spent the past 28 years of her life (at least) in preparation for this moment, and no one plays the campaign game like the Clintons.
Downsides: the only thing she has ever led, executive-style, was the quickly aborted Hillary-Care health care reform. It was a train-wreck from the get-go, and was quickly swept under the rug. Perhaps, while toting national health care, she is hoping that we all forget this.
She also carries all of her husbands baggage, but none of his charm. This is never more glaringly apparent until they started campaigning side by side. Dem supporters are thrilled to see aw-shucks Bill, but his wife comes off, well, like a battle-ax. She isn’t able to talk herself out of trouble, which spells trouble when her record starts getting examined in the campaign.
Incidentally, 40% say they would never, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary for President. She may be popular with the lefties, but those are pretty tough negative numbers to overcome. That said, she’s the man… er, person to beat.

So who does Pat endorse? Biden, I guess. He seems the most qualified and prepared to be President. How’s that for glowing?
Really, it’s a shame they can’t all lose. On the other hand, I think each Dem is eminently beatable by whichever Republican gets the nod, which is about the only good thing I can say about the GOP field. More on that tomorrow.

It’s caucus time in Iowa again, or at least that’s what the media has been saying for the past 18 months. And since I know my many loyal readers see this blog as a beacon of political wisdom, or, at the very least, good for a chuckle, I think it’s time for me to dismantle and/or dismember the candidates currently running for their respective party’s nomination to be President of the United States.
Let me start out by saying this: the fact that every one of these candidates feels that the best way to accomplish this goal is by calling my house several times a day with recorded messages and endorsements does NOT bode well for the future of our country.
That being said, what, besides effective push-polling, should one look for in a prospective President? Toughness and confidence? Absolutely, if for no other reason than the brutality of the campaign trail, having your every move, past and present, dissected by the 24-hour media whores horde. And that’s BEFORE you get elected. Afterwards, you face daily threats to your safety, tirades from opposing leaders filled with violent personal attacks, questions about your ability govern, to lead, to spell – and THAT’S just from members of the opposing party. A strong spine and thick skin are important.
A good President also needs a good moral compass – they should know what they believe, why the believe it, and be able to communicate this to others. A weakness of our current president is that he fails at the latter. His predecessor consistently failed at the other two. I maintain that being unable to communicate your deeply held convictions is less of a sin than sticking your thumb to the wind, and then serving up a heap of sugar about why, even though you are a liberal, you now suddenly think that welfare reform and NAFTA are great ideas. But, hey, pick your poison. Not to romanticize Reagan, but he fearlessly communicated his deeply held ideas about the evils of communism, and look how that turned out.
Finally, to be a good President, one must be a good leader, and therefore, must be able to delegate. The jobs of President, CEO, and Head Coach have never been more similar. The ability to do is irrelevant; the ability to get others to do for you is what is important. This is why we so consistently elect Governors, as opposed to Senators, to the Executive office. A Senator picks an issue that is important to him, writes a bill, lobbies and negotiates with colleagues, makes necessary compromises, all with the end goal of reaching a strong enough consensus to make the bill a law. A Governor (President/CEO/etc) says, “Here is the outline of my energy policy. Flesh it out, write it down, make it better, and have it back to me by Wednesday. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to make sure that tax and foreign policies are ready to go, and then give a speech to rally the public behind my ideas.” Letting go to this extent is not an easy thing to do for an ego-maniacal control-freak, and since anyone who actually WANTS to be President must, by default, fit that description to some degree, I think that this trait, often overlooked, is probably one of the most important.
Over the next several days, I’ll examine each candidate, both Democrat and Republican, and then tell you who you should vote/caucus for. Here’s a little suspense: I bet not one of you can guess correctly.

Hello?
“(Pause. Pause.) Mr Blair?”
(Strike one.)
Yes?
“I’m sorry to bother you tonight…”
(Strike two.)
“My name is Nate, and I am with the Republican Issues Fund [or something like that], and I was just wondering, if I could take a moment of your time sir, would you like to see Hillary Clinton elected as the next President of the United States?”
Um, not particularly.
“I’m glad to hear that, sir. A President Hillary Clinton means increased taxes and cuts in spending for national defense…”
(Not to mention First Lady Bill Clinton.)
“So I was wondering, sir, if I dropped an envelope in the mail, would you be willing to send us a gift of $75, $100 or more to help stop Hillary Clinton from being elected?”
(Foul-tip - that’s hysterical.) You know, Nate, I’m really not able to do that right now. (Nor am I particularly interested in doing so.)
“I sure understand, sir. What I’ve been doing for a lot of folks with similar situations tonight is that we can send you an envelope in 2-3 weeks. At that point would you be able to help out, even with a smaller gift of $35 or even $50?”
(STEEEEEEE-RIKE THREE! Nate, I have no idea what you stand for or who you support, just that you are from some nameless committee that really, REALLY hates Hillary Clinton. While that, by itself, does have some merit, I am NOT sending you money. For all I know, you could be Obama-ites, or even, God forbid, liberal Christians!)
You know, Nate, the election is quite a ways off, and I have not yet decided who I want to support with my money. But I appreciate the call.
“And thank you for your time, sir.”
(No problem. I’ll send you the bill.)

From foxnews.com:

MPAA Adds Smoking as Film-Rating Factor
MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman said his group’s ratings board, which previously had considered underage smoking in assigning film ratings, now will take into account smoking by adults, as well.
That adds smoking to a list of such factors as sex, violence and language in determining the MPAA’s G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 ratings.
Film raters will consider the pervasiveness of tobacco use, whether it glamorizes smoking and the context in which smoking appears, as in movies set in the past when smoking was more common…
Descriptions on sex, violence and language that accompany movie ratings now will include such phrases as “glamorized smoking” or “pervasive smoking,” Glickman said…
(Activist Kari) Titus said film raters should be as tough on smoking as they are on bad language to minimize the effects of on-screen smoking on children, including her own 5-year-old daughter.
“I don’t want her using that language, but last time I checked, she’s probably not going to die from that,” Titus said. “If she starts smoking from these images she sees in movies, chances are she’s probably going to die early from that.”

Kari, if your daughter starts smoking because of images she sees in movies, I think that cigarettes should be the least of your concern, especially if her mom is a spokesperson for Breathe California. I don’t want to be a busybody or stick my nose where it doesn’t belong (ahem), but maybe you should worry about parenting. I have no evidence, but I’m willing to wager my net worth (roughly -$4,000 right now) that friends and parental involvement (including keeping an eye on who the child’s friends are) play a much larger role in determining a child’s risk to participating in unhealthy activities.
Or, how about we just rate movies based on anti-social behavior and participation in unhealthy activities. Yes, they’d all be rated R, but at least that would keep young kids out of the theaters. Maybe then they could do something healthy.
Like watch TV.

You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you can commission a study, and interpret the results to say whatever you would like them to. From foxnews.com (emphasis added):

Study: Conceiving in Summer Lowers Baby’s Future Test Scores
…Winchester and his researchers found scores for math and language were clearly seasonal, with the lowest scores going to children conceived in June through August…
For the females in the study the difference was a 1 to 1.5 percent drop, and the results were similar for all groups and sexes conceived in May through August. Winchester noted that even though “it might not sound like a large number, it is significant on a population basis.”
How could a baby conceived in the long days of summer test so differently? Researchers reasoned that the culprit is the more than one billion pounds of pesticides used annually in the U.S…
“The fetal brain begins developing soon after conception. The pesticides we use to control pests in fields and our homes and the nitrates we use to fertilize crops and even our lawns are at their highest level in the summer,” Winchester said in a news release.

Wait… WHAT???
Winchester is a neonatologist, meaning that his area of expertise has NOTHING to do with chemicals or pesticides. There is absolutely NOTHING in the study regarding the effects of pesticides. All of this hand-wringing is based COMPLETELY on speculation, and yet there are easy steps listed in the article to avoid making your child up to 1.5% dumber.
Now, I’m not saying that pregnant women should go around huffing chemicals, but, in the spirit of the study and press-release, I’d like to offer an alternative, and equally viable conclusion: children conceived in the months of June through August often tend to be born in March through May. This could put those children at a severe developmental disadvantage - the school calendar is arranged in a way that makes it likely for them to be 8-11 months younger than many of their peers.
Actually, who are we kidding? I’m sure those “pesty” scientists know as well as I do that the results are the effects of global warming on the baby… er, fetus… in the early stages of pregnancy.

Yesterday in Ames, IA, it was 57 degrees Fahrenheit. Though this was really only slightly above the average high of 45° (and well off the mark of the day’s record high and low of 72° and -11°), it seemed a bit strange. Perhaps because I went on a long motorcycle ride while there was still significant amounts of snow on the ground, which was left over from two weekends of an ice/snow extravaganza (probably about 2 feet, all told).
Today in Ames, IA, it was 72 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s a beautiful day for golf, except for all of the snow on the fairways. No big deal, except that in the Wal-Mart parking lot, there are still mounds of plowed snow that are OVER TEN FEET HIGH. It is so warm in my apartment that I was considering turning on the AC, but then I remembered that I could just go outside and make snow angels.
Have I mentioned that I love Iowa?

***

In related news, a trek to the North Pole, designed to call attention to global warming (because, really, who hasn’t heard of it yet), was halted due to extremely cold temperatures.

A North Pole expedition… was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. …extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
(It was) quite a bit colder… then (they) had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times…
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.
“They were experiencing temperatures that weren’t expected with global warming,” Atwood said. “But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability.

And yet, this is so predictable.
Just in case you don’t know, the hallmark of a conspiracy theory is that it cannot be proved to be false. Any evidence to the contrary is simply further proof of the depth of the conspiracy/cover-up. So, let’s review. Warm temperatures? Caused by global warming. Cold temperatures? Caused by global warming. Excessive precipitation/dryness? Caused by global warming. Inability to predict climate patterns based on assumptions of man-made global warming? Oh, that’s because of global warming, too. Trust me.
Manbearpig is a danger to us all.

The erroneous headline was what caught my eye: “Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack Announces 2008 Presidential Bid.” Certainly there was a mistake. The article DID mention that Vilsack, the first candidate to announce, is currently running FOURTH in the polls of his home state of Iowa. It didn’t mention that over the next few months, Vilsack’s travels and grandeur will costs Iowa’s taxpayers millions of dollars (bad), and will severely limit the Governor’s ability to govern (your call).
The article also does mention that Vilsack is running on a campaign of energy independence (good) via alternative energy sources (hysterical). “”Energy security will revitalize rural America, re-establish our moral leadership on global warming and climate security, and eliminate our addiction to foreign oil,” said Vilsack, a prominent proponent of ethanol, biodiesel and wind power,” but not of common sense. Wind power? Seriously. Not only is it completely inefficient, do you have any idea how many birds get thwacked by those giant turbines? Neither do I, but it’s a lot (also hysterical - the environmentalists just can’t win).
The main thing the article neglected to do, though, was correct the headline: “Outgoing Democrat, Purple-State Gov. Tom Vilsack Announces Long-Shot 2008 Vice-Presidential Bid.” There you go. All you need to know.
The blog about Chuck-Schmuck Hagel’s (D-NE) Veep run will be coming shortly.