People were drawn to Oprah Winfrey's interview with Sarah Palin yesterday for an assortment of reasons. For many, perhaps most, it was to reaffirm what they already felt about her, good or bad. For others, it was to see if they could learn anything new about her, to see if maybe something had changed.

I'm not sure if the appearance on Oprah changes anything. I can't tell you with any certainty what her plans are for 2012. But I also get the sense that her approach to the world as she sees it -- and to the media that cover it -- hasn't changed at all either.

Here is some reaction to the interview.

Rush Limbaugh:

The reason why Palin's being hit here is not because she's Palin, it's because she's conservative. ... Of all the Republican public figures that might be in politics, she is by far the most conservative and everybody's threatened by that.

The ideas work. Conservatism is the number-one thing which will undermine Obama. Conservatism is the number-one thing that would undermine the Beltway Republicans, the RINO Republicans' hold on power in the Republican Party. Any conservative would do that, any conservative who sought elective office and might win, threatens everybody else, Republican or Democrat alike. So they fear the rise of a conservative. They fear the success that a conservative would implement if given the chance. As for elites, if you don't use your brain it doesn't matter how smart you are. And they're not using their brains. For intellectuals, the last organ they're using is their brain. They're reacting with their heart, or some other orifice that's getting jealous. But they're not reacting with their brains. And this is the thing that's the most amazing to me. These are supposedly the smartest people among us. These are the elites. These are the classically educated. These are the people who have a refined sophistication, and in their reaction to Sarah Palin or anybody else who's prominently conservative, they don't use their brains. They use other emotions, primarily fear and jealousy.

National Review's Rich Lowry, writing in the New York Post:

It's September 2008 all over again. All the same players are lining up to put a good hate on Palin. She's like an isotope designed to course throughout our politics and culture, lighting up press bias, self-congratulatory liberalism, Christianity-hating secularism and intellectual condescension wherever they are found. ...

American Specator's Philip Klein:

I thought Sarah Palin came off very sympathetically on Oprah -- as the mother struggling to balance the challenges of work and family, used to following the beat of her own drummer, and then suddenly swept up into a heated presidential campaign, with all of the scrutiny and choreography that goes along with it. ...

For me, Palin remains somebody who is personally likable but better off remaining out of elective office. She seems a lot more comfortable when she's free to say and do what she wants, but running for (or holding) office means constant scruitiny, giving up a lot of freedom and independence and having to delve into policy questions in more detail than she's ever shown interest in.

Los Angeles Times' Mary McNamara:

Charming, articulate, unflappable and firmly in control of her material, this was the Palin the McCain campaign had no doubt dreamed of all those long months ago. Of course, Winfrey wasn't pushing her on the Bush Doctrine or even the newspapers of her choice, but watching a polished and possessed Palin as she once again made her case -- she's just an ordinary working woman trying to do right by her kids and serve her country and is guilty of only a little naivete -- it's hard not to see the formidable candidate she could have been if she had been given a little (OK, a lot) more time to prep. Or even if she had watched a few more episodes of "West Wing."

The No More Mister Nice Blog:

Palin seems to have put syntax-mangling incoherence behind her. Her sentences sound as if they're in the English language! When did this happen? And what if this continues? America doesn't have particularly high standards for this sort of thing -- we sent Reagan and both George Bushes to the White House. I'm afraid people are going to see the new, not-inarticulate Palin and think she's ... um ... intelligent.

Well, there's an explanation. She's not talking about foreign policy. She's not talking about foreign policy. She's talking about the one and only subject she really knows a lot about: herself. So of course she's semi-articulate.

Can she talk about nothing but herself all the way through the 2012 primary season? Probably not -- but she may try. And she'll feel aggrieved if it's deemed insufficient.

New Republic's Michelle Kottle:

All things considered, the sit-down should prove a plus for Palin. That said, it did raise a few questions about the long-term prospects for her reinvention tour. This is clearly a woman who has neither forgotten nor forgiven the many injuries she feels were unfairly visited on her last year by the media, the Democrats, the McCain campaign, and other "haters." It's possible she realizes that she made some significant mistakes, but that realization is clearly buried under a massive glacier of resentment and irritation at others.

New York Times' Alessandra Stanley:

For all her aplomb and telegenic charm, Ms. Palin still had the hunted look and defensive crouch she wore in television interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson last year. And it would seem that the pain of those tongue-tied encounters was not exorcised by writing "Going Rogue: An American Life," a tell-all book that blamed the McCain staff for the way it "handled" her on the trail. ...

It was a surprisingly unsmooth performance for a politician-celebrity who insists that the McCain campaign stifled her spirit and smothered her natural talent for communication. ...

Ms. Palin is obviously hurt and angry about the way Mr. [almost-son-in-law Levi] Johnston has exploited his connections to convert fame into fortune, but there are other reasons for resentment. In the age of balloon dads and transformative reality television Ms. Palin has emerged as quintessentially American, in terms of the America of the moment. Her career gyrations, life and family continue to feed a spotlight-hungry media carnival. In some ways her almost son-in-law's quick and callous cashing-in looks like a junior version of her own quickie book campaign.

New York Times' David Brooks, on ABC's "This Week":

I just can't take her seriously. We've got serious problems in the country. Barack Obama is trying to handle war. We just had a guy elected Virginia governor who's probably the model for the future of the Republican Party, Bob McDonnell, pretty serious guy pragmatic, calm, kind of boring. The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Voters -- Republican primary voters -- are just not going to elect a talk show host.

Boston Globe editorial:

She claims victim status for herself. Her narrative requires that she be a neophyte in perpetual war with the political pros. Kicked around by the vicious media (for her family!), straitjacketed by the McCain campaign, forced to wear fancy duds, Palin is the Pitiful Pearl of her tale.

This would all be fascinating if it were reality TV, not reality politics. "Going Rogue'' has the audacity to disguise its attempt to launder Palin's image as an exercise in truth-telling. People who are disgusted with Washington, who yearn for an authentic outsider, should take their business elsewhere.

Immediate reaction to watching Sarah Palin appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show, discussing her new book, Going Rogue:

Despite the relentless pounding she took -- some deserved, some not -- since John McCain pulled her from anonymity to a potential heartbeat away from the presidency, Palin has lost none of the confidence that apparently made her an attractive choice to the McCain campaign last year. You feel for her when she expresses her dismay at the world learning about her unmarried daughter's pregnancy, about the "tabloidization" of her children. But at the same time you wonder about her naivete -- nothing in politics, for better or worse, is off limits; how could anyone in politics not know that? (I also thought she handled the endless questions about Levi Johnston, the teenage father of her grandchild, with dignity and calm.)

She was also correct, in my view, in explaining why the ticket lost. It was not because of her. It was because the "economy tanked under a Republican administration." She and McCain were perceived as the status quo, and nothing she could have done differently would have affected that.

Her likability and "aw shucks" manner, which not everybody is drawn to, came through during the interview. But her explanation for her disastrous Katie Couric interview, in which she failed to list a magazine or newspaper she reads, seemed unconvincing. Pressed as to why she quit as governor of Alaska, she never really seemed to give an answer that made sense.

And that leads to questions about 2012, which she refused to entertain. But those kind of questions remain, and they are legitimate.

If they were a team in 2008, they're certainly not now.

The relationship between presidential candidates and their running mates often makes for an interesting read, especially in instances in which the two are not always on the same page, which apparently is not all that infrequent.

George McGovern was furious over Tom Eagleton's failure to inform him of his medical history, a union that lasted all of 17 days until Eagleton was forced off the Democratic ticket in 1972. Bob Dole and Jack Kemp had complete disdain for each other from the get go, and that was true during the congressional budget battles in 1986, when they ran against each other for the Republican nomination in 1988 and, one wonders, when Dole picked Kemp as his running mate in 1996. And both sides in the John Kerry-John Edwards "marriage" of 2004 have openly spoke of their dissatisfaction with the other.

So maybe the leaks about the unhappiness among the John McCain and Sarah Palin camps were to be expected. But in this era of tell-all books (or, at the least, tell-it-the-way-I-want-it-to-be-told), the antagonism between the two Republicans during their 2008 campaign was pretty intense.

That's the message one gets by reading reviews, excerpts and leaks from Palin's book, "Going Rogue: An American Life," which she wrote with conservative editor Lynn Vincent.

In the 444 days since Sarah Palin was plucked out of near obscurity as the governor of Alaska to be John McCain's running mate, she has become one of the most recognizable -- and controversial -- figures in American politics. From the time she gave a speech at the GOP convention that electrified the party faithful to the ticket's resounding defeat two months later, Palin was the talk of the political world. Much of the talk wasn't complimentary, and perhaps this book is payback.

But, as Michiko Kakutani of the New York Times writes today, her barbs are "directed not at the Democrats or liberals or the news media, but at the McCain campaign:

In what reads like payback for disparaging comments by John McCain's aides about her after the ticket's loss to Barack Obama, Ms. Palin depicts the McCain campaign as overscripted, defeatist, disorganized and dunderheaded -- slow to shift focus from the Iraq war to the cratering economy, insufficiently tough on Mr. Obama and contradictory in its media strategy. ...

All in all Ms. Palin emerges from "Going Rogue" as an eager player in the blame game, ungrateful to the McCain campaign for putting her on the national stage. As for the McCain campaign, it often feels like a desperate and cynical operation, willing to make a risky Hail Mary pass to try to score a tactical win, instead of making a considered judgment as to who might be genuinely qualified to sit a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

In the book, she is critical of the McCain campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan, to bill her $50,000 for her "vetting" as a running mate, and their refusal to let her make a concession speech on the night of the election.

Her barbs and criticisms have left McCain campaign veterans none too happy. An anonymous campaign official is quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "John McCain offered her the opportunity of a lifetime, and during the campaign it seems that, for all of her mistakes, she is searching for people to blame. We don't need to go through this again." Similarly, regarding the charge about billing her for the vetting, CNN's Political Ticker quotes a McCain official as saying, "That is one hundred percent untrue. All those bills are from her personal attorney Thomas Van Flein, mostly relating to the Troopergate investigation and other ethics investigations. It is not legal to pay for those investigations out of general election funds, even if the campaign was so inclined." The Huffington Post quotes a McCain aide thusly: "There are elements of truth underlying a narrative that is completely false." NBC News' Mark Murray quotes GOP consultant and former McCain campaign Mike Murphy, never a Palin fan to begin with, as saying, "She is polarizing within the GOP and totally unpopular outside the party. And that is not a recipe to get into the White House." And Politico's Andy Barr writes that ex-McCain John Weaver "slammed Palin for using the book for 'petty and pathetic' score-settling":

"Sarah Palin reminds me of Jimmy Stewart in the movie 'Harvey,' complete with imaginary conversations. All books like these are revisionist and self-serving, by definition. But the score-settling by someone who wants to be considered a serious national player is petty and pathetic."

"The problem wasn't who her interview was with, the problem was her interview [with CBS' Katie Couric]," he added. "Couric asked no trick questions. This just seems to be an attempt to obscure as bad a performance since Roger Mudd asked Ted Kennedy that simple question."

Of course, the rancor between the two camps can't be blamed on only one side. Steve Schmidt, a top McCain adviser who was one of the more forceful advocates of putting Palin on the ticket to begin with, has said in recent months that making her the party's 2012 nominee would be a catastrophe. Other McCain aides have said the same thing, usually under the cloak of anonymity. As for McCain himself, he has in the past been complimentary of his former running mate; regarding Palin's book, the senator has told his campaign aides to refrain from talking. But they haven't.

Palin's interview with Oprah Winfrey airs today in the D.C. area at 4 pm. Stay tuned for updates.

A good piece in today's New York Times about what's happened to Gen. David Petraeus, who heads up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but whose influence may have been lacking since the change in U.S. administrations last Jan. 20.

The piece, by Elisabeth Bumiller, notes that Petraeus was a "favorite" of George W. Bush, but may not have the same clout with President Obama.

The general's closest associates say that underneath the surface of good relations, the celebrity commander faces a new reality in Mr. Obama's White House: He is still at the table, but in a very different seat.

No longer does the man who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have one of the biggest voices at National Security Council meetings, as he did when Mr. Bush gave him 20 minutes during hourlong weekly sessions to present his views in live video feeds from Baghdad. No longer is the general, with the Capitol Hill contacts and web of e-mail relationships throughout Washington's journalism establishment, testifying in media explosions before Congress, as he did in September 2007, when he gave 34 interviews in three days.

Petraeus' star may have dimmed a bit with this White House, and perhaps Obama has turned more to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is running the Afghanistan theater. But one wonders about McChrystal's influence too, in light of his clear outspoken view that more troops should be sent to the region -- a policy that may not jibe with the administration. (His public comments on troop strength sure seemed to get a bit of a slap down from National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones over the weekend.) Perhaps that's why Petraeus has been somewhat quiet as of late about the best way of fighting the Taliban.

But war strategy aside, this was the bombshell in Bumiller's piece:

Continue reading "President Petraeus?" >

Once, Sarah Palin was going to rescue the GOP ticket.(Button courtesy of Brendan Kelley, Anchorage Press. / © 2009)

Phase Two of the political meteor known as Sarah Palin ended yesterday, as the Alaska governor, with 17 months left in office, officially quit her job. That the response to her leaving was mostly negative is not a surprise, and it probably says as much about us as it does about her.

In the 332 days since John McCain tapped her to be his running mate, Sarah Palin has endured many different political personas, much of it unfavorable. It's hard to remember that once upon a time, she was the person who was going to rescue the GOP and put McCain into the White House. That was, of course, before the near collapse of the economic system that ended any chance of a third straight Republican victory.

But it was also before Katie and Tina and the debates, when Palin became a caricature.

Still, as the Washington Post's Dan Balz wrote this morning, she embodied a "rise and fall almost unprecedented in modern politics."

The "fall" is what most people are focusing on as she leaves office.

Continue reading "Sarah, We Hardly Knew Ye" >

What her fellow Republicans are saying.

Well, you've seen my still-confused reaction to the Sarah Palin announcement that she's going to resign as governor of Alaska on July 26.

I asked a dozen Republican/conservative movers and shakers to describe how they read her decision. Here are some of their responses:

Continue reading "Exclusive: Republican Leaders Sound Off On Palin Decision" >

Many people think the reason Sarah Palin announced she is quitting the governorship is to pave the way for a presidential bid in 2012.

Other governors, such as Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, decided not to run again, presumably to focus their aim at the White House. But they finished out their terms.

I won't be on NPR's Talk of the Nation this week -- I'm leaving tomorrow for a five-day station visit to Aspen Public Radio in Colorado and will miss TOTN. So I'm offering this week's trivia question instead in Political Junkie. (Sad note: no t-shirt will be awarded for the first correct answer.)

And so the question is ...

Who was the last governor who left office before his or her term was completed with the understanding that one of the reasons was thought to be to prepare for a presidential bid?

You can answer in the comments below. First correct answer gets, well, his or her name mentioned in this blog. Not as exciting as winning ScuttleButton, but it's close.

You don't need me to tell you that the Republican brand has not been doing so well lately. They've lost more than 50 House and 14 Senate seats in the last two election cycles, and polls show the public souring on the GOP like never before ... at least in recent political history.

There is a widely expressed feeling that, far more so than with congressional Republicans, the party needs to look to its 22 governors to find its future.

One person on the list, Mark Sanford, didn't do his chances much good this week. That leaves 21 others.

I've decided, in a completely unscientific, data-free exercise, to rate the GOP governors in terms of their likelihood of ever reaching the White House (not necessarily in 2012, but sometime in the future).

I readily concede that my list will not universally be agreed on. You may completely dismiss it. I confess I don't share the optimism about the national future of Alaska's Sarah Palin as many Republicans do. And note that I have Nevada's Jim Gibbons last on the list -- even below Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is constitutionally ineligible.

Here it is. Let me know where you agree or disagree.

1. Tim Pawlenty (MN)
2. Jon Huntsman (UT)
3. Haley Barbour (MS)
4. Bobby Jindal (LA)
5. Charlie Crist (FL)
6. Mitch Daniels (IN)
7. Sarah Palin (AK)
8. Rick Perry (TX)
9. Mark Sanford (SC)
10. Jodi Rell (CT)
11. Bob Riley (AL)
12. Sonny Perdue (GA)
13. Mike Rounds (SD)
14. John Hoeven (ND)
15. Butch Otter (ID)
16. Dave Heineman (NE)
17. Jim Douglas (VT)
18. Don Carcieri (RI)
19. Linda Lingle (HI)
20. Jan Brewer (AZ)
21. Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA)
22. Jim Gibbons (NV)

In the bizarre and often surreal world of politics -- where we like to say we've seen it all -- the strange situation involving South Carolina's Mark Sanford seems to have touched a nerve.

Sanford, for those who haven't heard (or who got lost hiking in the woods), is the two-term Republican governor who disappeared on Thursday and hadn't been heard from for four days -- and that includes last Sunday, Father's Day. His wife Jenny said she has not been in contact with him either, which led to a whole assortment of rumors.

Continue reading "Sanford Takes A Hike; Blogosphere Has Answers" >

Any list of potential Republican presidential hopefuls for 2012 invariably includes Haley Barbour.

The 61-year-old governor of Mississippi is enormously popular among GOP rank and file. His aw shucks charm and good ol' boy demeanor win over audiences, and many remember his stewardship of the RNC during Bill Clinton's first term -- when Republicans won control of both the House and Senate for the first time since 1952.

Barbour will be headlining party fundraisers later this month in both Iowa and New Hampshire, early states on the nominating calendar. He insists that the visits are tied to his role as the incoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association, but everyone knows that 2012 is a major subtext to the visits.

The obvious question, as asked by The Associated Press' Pettus and Fouhy:

If the Republican Party is in danger of being marginalized as a conservative, white male Southern enclave, is Haley Barbour the best person to turn things around?

Continue reading "Haley Barbour To Visit Iowa & N.H. This Month" >

The political media were fairly breathless this week about a Republican fundraising dinner held in Washington and whether Sarah Palin would show up or not. Would the Alaska governor upstage keynote speaker Newt Gingrich? Would she be allowed to speak? Would she see Mitt Romney from her kitchen window?

While this American Idol-esque silliness was going on, Mike Huckabee was in Iowa -- his third trip to the Hawkeye State since he won the presidential caucuses there last year.

Continue reading "While Newt & Sarah Make Headlines, Huck Works Iowa" >

While Minnesota residents are still awaiting the results of the Nov. 4 Senate race -- only 210 days ago, if you're keeping score at home -- at least they now know something about their governor.

Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, is to announce this afternoon he will not seek re-election.

Pawlenty, who was on John McCain's short list for VP last year -- he was, for the record, my personal prediction -- is thought to be looking at a 2012 presidential run. And no one wants to go into a presidential effort with a defeat back home. Yet that might have been the case had Pawlenty sought a third term.

Continue reading "Pawlenty To Skip 3rd Term Gov Bid; An Eye For WH In 2012?" >

Ron Paul is overcome with emotion as he easily captures our March Madness pool! Eric Thayer/Getty Images

Forget University of North Carolina and Michigan State.

The real drama, excitement, emotion and tension came in our first annual March Madness pool -- to determine (yeah right) the 2012 Republican presidential nominee.

And today, just hours after the NCAA tourney, we announce OUR winner, as voted by you. And it's Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

Paul defeated Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina in the finals by 13 points, 56-43 percent, with 963,719 total votes cast.

Continue reading "Ron Paul Tops Jim DeMint, Wins March Madness Pool" >

We're now down to the championship round of our March Madness pool to "determine" -- and we mean that lightly -- the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Round 4 is over, and of the 32 prospective GOP hopefuls who began this journey, voters have advanced Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina to the finals. Paul easily dispensed with South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, 78-21 percent (302,000 votes cast), while DeMint edged Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, 51-48 percent (229,000 votes).

My picks, of course, have gone a different route from the second round on. My final two: Mitt Romney vs. Mike Huckabee. I had Romney defeating, in order, George P. Bush, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman and then, finally, Mark Sanford (who ousted Bobby Jindal). I had Huckabee defeating, in the same order, Chuck Hagel, Jim DeMint, Tim Pawlenty and then, finally, Paul Ryan (who ousted Sarah Palin). I explain why my picks differ from yours here.

The winner will be announced on April 7. Time to vote now!

Don't forget to send in your votes in Round 4 of my March Madness pool -- to help determine the 2012 Republican presidential nominee.

The Final Four: Rep. Mike Pence vs. Sen. Jim DeMint, and Rep. Ron Paul vs. Gov. Mark Sanford.

Also tomorrow: New podcast to be heard. And new ScuttleButton puzzle will be revealed.

Happy Friday!

Finally, a question about my March Madness 2012 GOP presidential nomination pool that doesn't accuse me of bias, bigotry or fascism.

Eileen Taylor of Ann Arbor, Mich., writes:

I'm having fun with your March Madness pool, but I'm a little confused about something. When I look at "Ken Rudin's Picks," I see you are selecting candidates who are no longer in the running. Please explain.

The votes that have come in during the first three rounds -- and there has been an astounding degree of participation -- are all from people who are voting their personal choices. The "Ken Rudin Picks" is an indication of the way I think the results would turn out if Republican voters were given the choice. It is solely my opinion.

Continue reading "March Madness: Why My Picks Differ From Yours" >

Round 3 of my March Madness contest -- the 2012 Republican presidential nomination -- has ended, and there's a lot to report.

Don't forget to vote in Round 4. But first, a look at the latest results.

Continue reading "March Madness: Paul Edges Huntsman; Pence, DeMint, Sanford Advance To Final Four" >

Round 2 of my March Madness contest -- the 2012 Republican presidential nomination -- has ended, and there are some major surprises to report.

First, we'll go over the results. Analysis will follow. And don't forget to vote in Round 3.

And the headline is that both No. 1 seeds -- Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney -- were soundly defeated, and both by candidates seeded sixth. Palin, the governor of Alaska, was defeated by Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, 58 percent to 41 percent. Total votes cast in that matchup were nearly 135,000. A bigger jolt was the loss by Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who got walloped by Texas congressman Ron Paul, 70-29 percent. Nearly 1.4 million votes were cast -- a disproportionate number, compared with the other contests -- and again, it's something that will be addressed later in this posting.

Two other shockers came when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a third seed, lost to Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, seeded eighth, by a 61-38 percent vote. More than 110,000 votes in that one. And in a face-off between two Southern governors, Florida's Charlie Crist, a fourth seed, ousted Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, rated No. 2; nearly 50,000 votes were cast in that one.

Continue reading "March Madness: Upsets Galore As Paul Ousts Romney; Jindal And Huck Lose; Round 3 Awaits" >

Round 1 went pretty much according to plan; all the top seeds won, as expected.

The biggest upset came as Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, seeded 12th in his division, defeated Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who was seeded fifth. Daniels, re-elected last year rather comfortably over former Congresswoman Jill Long Thompson, has long been a favorite of the GOP establishment and is thought to be looking at 2012. Brownback, on the other hand, had his shot at the brass ring last time out. But he never made an impression and was gone from the race in October 2007.

Brownback, in fact, is leaving Washington next year, keeping a term-limits pledge. He long ago indicated he would run for governor. Kathleen Sebelius (D) was ineligible to seek a third term in 2010, but she'll be leaving Topeka earlier than expected now that President Obama has nominated her to be secretary of health and human services.

Brownback now squares off in Round 2 against Utah Gov. John Huntsman, who handed Sen. Jon Ensign a 7-point defeat.

The other surprise came in the other division, as No. 8-ranked John Thune, the senator from South Dakota, was upset by former eBay executive Meg Whitman, ranked 9. Whitman is hoping to succeed term-limited Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in California next year.

So, now, go vote for Round 2. I'll announce winners for that round March 30.

Everybody is filling out brackets, including the president of the United States. Why not? It's March Madness! Every year at this time, it takes the nation by storm. It's the NCAA basketball tournament (or, as someone once said on NPR -- I kid you not -- the "NAACP Tournament"). But then it's over.

It doesn't have to be.

How to combine the excitement of picking winners and making it last? Simple. Especially when you're picking the 2012 Republican presidential nominee.

Let's face it, Barack Obama is going to head up the Democrats in 2012. So the action will be on the GOP side. Seeded below are 32 potential (and yes, some far-fetched) Republican presidential candidates. As the NCAA tourney gets under way, we'll update our GOP brackets as well. I'll compare your picks with mine.

Don't let the Liberal Media Elite decide that Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican Party! Fill in your brackets today. The first round of results will be announced next Tuesday, March 24. Then three more rounds will be announced on March 30, April 1 and April 3. The final result -- the name of the 2012 Republican presidential nominee -- will be announced on Tuesday, April 7.

Why go through the expense of primaries and caucuses? Fill in your picks now!

Here's an update on some political happenings over the weekend:

With only about 1,340 days until the election, Romney wins CPAC straw poll.

CPAC Straw Poll. This is a perfect example of my schizophrenia. I say (and truly believe!) that 2012 presidential straw polls at this point are meaningless, if not nutty ... and yet, I'm interested in every one. And so, I watched with fascination at the lines of people ready to cast their ballots at the multiple booths at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday. These straw polls may all have the legitimacy of a typical Chicago election, but nonetheless, here are the results, as per CPAC:

Mitt Romney 20%
Bobby Jindal 14%
Ron Paul 13%
Sarah Palin 13%
Newt Gingrich 10%
Mike Huckabee 7%
Mark Sanford 4%
Rudy Giuliani 3%
Tim Pawlenty 2%
Charlie Crist 1%
Undecided 9%

This was Romney's third CPAC straw poll victory in a row.

The poll was taken of 1,757 people who were preregistered to attend the conference. Most of those who voted were between 18 and 25. Ninety-five percent said they disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president. Fifty-five percent said they were "generally satisfied" with the potential field of GOP candidates for 2012, while 44 percent said they were not.

Sebelius for HHS. President Obama will name Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his secretary of health and human resources later this afternoon. This is the post that Tom Daschle was ready to take until he, oops, realized he hadn't paid $140,000 in taxes until he was nominated. Here's my political bio of Sebelius that is currently running on the home page of NPR.org.

When the Sebelius nomination is official, we will reveal our contest winner: As promised, the first person to correctly guess the next HHS secretary wins a genuine Nixon's The One campaign button from 1968. I'm not exactly sure what the correlation is between Sebelius and a Nixon button, but that's OK.

Paul Harvey dies. A legendary radio commentator (and one of the first people I remember listening to on politics as a kid on WABC in New York), Paul Harvey died Saturday at 90. A longtime conservative voice in the 1950s and '60s, Harvey broke with President Nixon on the Vietnam War in 1970, calling for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops. ABC Radio Networks President Jim Robinson said, "Paul Harvey was one of the most gifted and beloved broadcasters in our nation's history. We will miss our dear friend tremendously and are grateful for the many years we were so fortunate to have known him." He had worked at ABC for more than 50 years.

Please, please, let's not do 2012 just yet.

I now know why tonight's Republican response by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is so important: It will help him with the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

Am I the only one who thinks that's just nuts?

And yet, I've been hearing that constantly over the past couple of days. Bloggers are weighing how tonight could affect his chances for the nomination. Now, I understand the desire to write whatever comes into your head -- see Junkie, Political -- but seriously. Republicans not only need to recover not only from the 2006 and 2008 elections but need to regain the confidence of the American people. And it's not about 2012.

Continue reading "The Jindal Response: Republicans Need A Boost Now, Not For 2012" >