A quick thought. If the airport in Quito, Ecuador can have free wireless, why can’t airports in the U.S.?

My resolution is simple. I want to do a better job of seizing and enjoying the opportunities that God puts in front of me.

May He bless and keep each of you in the coming year.

Jim: Great, Marshall, take the high road. Now you’re making the rest of us look crass.

Actually, after a tumultuous year, filled with great joy and titanic life-altering changes, I want 2008 to go a bit differently. I’ve got a big new role - father - to go with the usual roles - employee, friend, brother, son, husband - and I’ve felt like I could use a 28 hour day for much of the past year. So my resolution in 2008 is to find balance, to find a way to do everything I want to do in those roles without any of the spinning plates crashing to the floor.

I’m off to one of the last few places in the world that’s largely undisturbed by man. And no, it isn’t the arctic. I’ll have lots to say about the trip when I get back, and lots of photos to illustrate it with.

Until then, I leave you in the hands of my good and faithful co-bloggers. Hopefully, both of you readers will still be here when I return. (But don’t worry. I’ve written my portion of the final On Tap Award. It should post itself tomorrow morning while I’m on my way to the airport. I know you’re dying to see it.)

While I’m gone, I’m told that I won’t have any access to any outside news. Indeed, there really won’t be any communication of any kind.

And by the time I get home, the Iowa caucuses will be over and the New Hampshire will be done.

It will be very interesting to see how the race looks after these two pivotal weeks without being a witness to the day-to-day tactics, the back-and-forth in the press, and all of the other minutiae that usually consumes political watchers like me.

It’s presumptuous to think that I’ll have anything profound or interesting to say, but this sort of thing can’t happen very often, so at a minimum, I’m sure I’ll have an unusual perspective.

Before I go, I’ll leave you with some predictions:

Huckabee is going to win Iowa, but Romney is going to finish closer to him than anyone expects. 7,000 Mormon caucus goers can have a tremendous impact. Romney will leave Iowa with the momentum. I have no idea who is going to finish third. My powers of vision don’t go that deep. (Side note: the results look the same in Wyoming on January 5.)

Romney’s momentum will be stopped in New Hampshire with John McCain’s victory there. Huckabee will finish second. Romney third. The final tallies are very close, with McCain prevailing by only a couple of points, but the press dubs him the comeback kid and predicts big things. Fred Thompson drops out the day after and endorses McCain.

On January 11, I’ll be back in the country to see how my foresight fares against actual events.

Either way, I predict Romney will win Michigan.

That means South Carolina will once again be a huge battleground. You could argue that whoever wins South Carolina will capture enough momentum to win the nomination. Or not…

See you in a couple of weeks.

Jim: I predict that Marshall will come back and ask, “Okay, maybe I could see Ron Paul winning either Iowa or New Hampshire, but BOTH?” And then he’ll drop to his knees before a cracked, damaged Statue of Liberty buried up to its chest and wail, “You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, d*** you! God d*** you all to hell!”

Semi-seriously, there’s only a few broad predictions I’m willing to make right now. First, Iowa will be very close between Romney and Huckabee - probably less than six percent between them, and maybe less than three percent. Despite the 33-30 or so finish, the second place finisher will be seen as seriously damaged. It’s not fair, but it’s the way the post-Iowa buzz will play out. I don’t know if third place will be enough to generate some momentum for Fred Thompson; there’s a big difference between finishing third with 20 percent and finishing third with 15 percent. I also think there will be a cascade effect; winners of Iowa and New Hampshire will surge in Michigan and South Carolina….

It would be easy to single out Governor Mike Huckabee for this distinction. Heck, I may be guilty of underrating him even today. Huckabee turned in magnificent performances in debates for months, he campaigned hard, and he carved out an interesting political niche — all with virtually no cash.

But picking Huckabee would be boring.

So I’m going to select former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Blair’s Labor Party basically ran their party’s leader out of town on a rail last summer so that they could hand the reins of government over to Gordon Brown.

Brown was supposedly young and energized, similar to Blair when he first came into office.

Blair had the courage of convictions, and was a rare statesman in modern politics. Calling him Churchillian may sound like hyperbole, but it’s not far off.

Brown, in contrast, seems rather ordinary. And his record since moving into #10 Downing Street has been pretty rough. Labor’s electoral fortunates have tanked. Brown’s policy agenda seems broadly thwarted. And Brown’s positive attributes don’t seem to have materialized.

So in retrospect, it turns out that Tony Blair was doing an awfully good job as Prime Minister. I wonder how many Labor MPs and party leaders would like the chance to reconsider their treatment of Mr. Blair in his final months?

Jim: I wonder if I can go with not quite a figure, but an event.

In my gut, I’m sympathetic to the Hollywood writers. I think if they’re not seeing any dough from work of theirs that is distributed over the Internet, they’re getting a raw deal, and the studios ought to give them their fair share. I’m not an accountant or an arbiter, I can’t tell you what a fair share is, but I figure it can’t be too far off from revenue percentages from other media.

But I think we’ll look back on the Writer’s Strike as An Event That Changed Hollywood and Pop Culture Forever.

As the strike has brought most television production to a standstill, we’ve seen networks getting ready to go all-reality, all the time. One of two things are going to happen as NBC becomes all-choir training and all-American Gladiators for the majority of their programming. Either there will be enough viewers to keep the networks in the black, or there won’t, and the networks will fold. If it’s the former, the networks may never feel a need to do more than a few scripted shows per year. If it’s the latter, once people find other entertainment options, I’m not sure they will come back.

The traditional audience for television is disappearing - going to the Internet, going to video game systems, going to On Demand, DVDs… perhaps even reading. One of the recurring themes here on On Tap is our collective irritation that television networks cancel shows we like like Firefly and keep crappy shows on the air because they’re cheap to produce. I watch a lot less television than I used to. With a baby in the house, I’m seeing fewer movies than I did a year ago.

In an effort to preserve their share of profits from new distribution systems, the striking writers and stubborn studios are hastening the destruction of the old distribution systems. It’s a truly colossal change, and nobody really knows what media world will be waiting for us when we get to the other side of this clash. The ramifications of this fight are, I submit, underrated in their importance.

I missed it over the holiday break, but it seems that the FEC is closed for a while.

This is a great of example of Congressional deadlock yielding a good result. Here’s hoping the Senate remains at an impasse on confirmation of these commissioners for years to come.

Want to know more? Here’s a great post from expert Bob Bauer

I am dying for Cam’s perspective on this story and this related post from Cato@Liberty.

Amid the goods found in the stores, there is one thing that many owners and employees say they cannot do without: their cats. And it goes beyond cuddly companionship. These cats are workers, tireless and enthusiastic hunters of unwanted vermin, and they typically do a far better job than exterminators and poisons.

[snip]

But as efficient as the cats may be, their presence in stores can lead to legal trouble. The city’s health code and state law forbid animals in places where food or beverages are sold for human consumption. Fines range from $300 for a first offense to $2,000 or higher for subsequent offenses.

“Any animal around food presents a food contamination threat,” said Robert M. Corrigan, a rodentologist and research scientist for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “And so that means anything from animal pieces and parts to hair and excrement could end up in food, and that alone, of course, is a violation of the health code.”

[snip]

“He wants me to get rid of the cat, but the rats will take over if I do,” Mr. Martinez [a bodega owner] said. “I need the cat, and the cat needs a home.”

[snip]

Many bodega owners reason that a cat is less of a health threat than an army of nibbling rats. “If cats live in homes and apartments where people have food, a cat shouldn’t be a threat in a store if it’s well maintained,” Mr. Fernández [another store owner] said.

So, the city doesn’t want the stores to have rats, but it also doesn’t want the stores to keep cats in order to keep the rats away.

Just one more example of the government getting in the way of common sense.

Cam: Back in the old days before I met my wife, she lived in public housing in Camden, New Jersey. She hates cats, but had to resort to having one as a mouser.

I hate cats too, but I’d much rather see a cat in a convenience store than a rat. Then again, when you have a rat as a mayor, what do you expect?

For my money, there’s only one possibility for this award. It’s Ron Paul.

Paul has, without question, had a better year than anyone could ever have expected. He’s raised a bunch of money. He has a bunch of aggressive, well-organized supporters online.

And he’s not going to be a factor when actual votes are cast.

Even if he chooses to take his war chest and run as an Independent, he’ll be an asterisk in the fall campaign and won’t have any impact in the electoral college.

Bottom line: Ron Paul has been this year’s most interesting political sideshow, but as an actual candidate, he has had minimal impact. That makes him this year’s most overrated figure.

Jim: RONPAUL! RONPAUL! RONPAUL! (I just figured someone should say that on behalf of the blimp financiers.)

I’m going to name New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Cam and Marshall can categorize his nanny state initiatives in a list probably as long as War and Peace, but for the life of me I can’t quite get why Bloomberg is being treated - nay, the media is begging him to run for president.

He won both of his mayoral campaigns by outspending his rivals. In 2001, he spent $73 million — outspending his Democratic rival by 5 to 1! — and still only won by 2 percent. He won a blowout in 2005, but only after spending another $66 million. Of course, I can see why a campaign operative hoping to be hired by Bloomberg (COUGHedrollinsCOUGH) would hope for him to run.

He’s by no means a bad manager of the city, but he’s being touted as a greater reformer than Giuliani, which just doesn’t wash. It’s a hell of a lot easier to create the New York City of late 2007 from the 2001 than to create the city of 2001 from where it was in 1993. The heavy lifting had been done; crime had dropped dramatically, the subways were cleared of graffiti, the city had enjoyed a great deal of economic growth, and Al Sharpton had decided to take a break from encouraging arson to focus on national politics.

Mike Bloomberg is an extremely rich man, who can afford to be fairly blunt — see his comments about diet guru Robert Atkins’ death - who knows how to schmooze the media, and who has taken care of New York’s various power bases and political constituencies. As a result of this, he is one of the most relentlessly revered figures in U.S. politics, in a manner wildly disproportionate to his actual accomplishments.

Cam: I’m with Jim when it comes to Bloomberg, but I think I have to venture out into the world of pop culture for this one.

J.K. Rowling is the most overrated figure of the year. Having now read all seven of the Harry Potter books, they were good but not great. And the payoff for these years of reading is what? Harry had a neat adventure as a kid and grew up to be… a bureaucrat. Talk about a bummer of an ending.

Marshall: Runners-up include Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Mitchell, and Reggie Bush.

Maybe it’s an indication of how cynical I’ve become that I really haven’t been able to come up with anyone in this category.

Jim gave me a preview of his choice, and I can absolutely see where he’s coming from.

But as I look around, I don’t really see anyone who has stood up to deliver the tough message or taken responsibility for something gone wrong. I see a lot of opportunists: guys like Governor Romney, who simply cast aside years of themselves and their records to remake themselves into something new. And they get away with it, just as Romney has.

More and more, it all looks like a big game of pretend. “I’ll say what I need to, get the suckers to vote for me, and then do what I want.” That’s the prevailing wisdom amongst candidates these days. And it’s the reason that I haven’t been able to get behind any of the Republican candidates as yet.

So my selection for Most Honest Person, though it pains me greatly to do it: None of the above. And I’m hoping for a better pool of nominees in 2008.

Jim: My nomination is Fred Thompson, for his willingness to share unpleasant truths regarding entitlements. Oddly enough, this year hasn’t seen it turn into the third rail, or seen voters rebuking him because they buy into exhausted attacks that he wants to “destroy Social Security.” I think voters have largely ignored his entitlement reform plans. The other candidates haven’t really attacked him on it.

This praise is not to be construed as an endorsement. But it is a salute; I’ve wanted to see what happened if a candidate came out and addressed America’s huge and growing unfunded liabilities in Social Security, and coming generational warfare, in ruthlessly blunt talk. This year I got my answer: voters yawned. No good deed goes unpunished.

Cam: Most honest person of the year? Either my wife (for speaking the blunt truth about several of my faults) or James and Catherine, who are at the age where they can speak their minds without the ability to self-edit. Gotta love standing in line behind a rather girthy individual only to hear a tiny voice pop up with “Big bottom, daddy! Big bottom!”.

My selection for Turncoat of the Year is General Ricardo Sanchez.

In October, Sanchez blasted the Bush administration in a speech to a group of reporters.

Sanchez said, among things, that the administration ordered a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan.” Later, he added, “The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat.”

Uh-huh.

General Sanchez, of course, commanded U.S. forces in Iraq for nearly a year after U.S. troops entered the country. During that time, he presided over the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and later retired from the army to avoid having to answer questions from Congress about that mess.

But one assumes that during his year in command, General Sanchez would have been able to impact the war effort in Iraq in some positive way. Certainly, he would have had a chance to persuade his commanders, the Secretary of Defense and the President himself if a change in direction were needed.

Indeed, in retrospect, it’s clear that the year that Sanchez spent in command of American forces in Iraq was the period of the most significant failing of leadership. During that year, it was crucial that Iraq be made secure, and that progress begin on restoration and rebuilding. Instead of progress, the situation in Iraq got worse.

So instead of pointing fingers at his superiors, perhaps General Sanchez ought to be looking in the mirror.

Jim: I’m wondering if “turncoat” has to be negative. Because while Joe Lieberman is loathed by liberal Democrats, I think his endorsement of John McCain is pretty extraordinary. Sure, Zell Miller came out and endorsed Bush in 2004, but Zell was definately further away from his party’s mainstream than Lieberman was, and he was on his way out of politics. Lieberman will be around for at least another four years, and seven years ago he was on his party’s ticket, 527 votes in Florida from being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Could we imagine if a Republican senator had endorsed one of the Democratic candidates? The one who flipped would be greeted with the glowing media coverage and hurrahs that greeted Jim Jeffords.

Cam: Well, I don’t think we’ve had any Red Sox players defect to the Yankees, so this will be a little tougher than usual. Not to mention the fact that I’m writing this on Christmas Eve, and thinking of turncoats isn’t high on my list of things to do. So I’m going to pass and come back to this one on Wednesday.

This one is always a tough one for me, as there are inevitably too many choices.

I was planning to select Ron Paul, but my wife said she didn’t want all of his wacko supporters picketing our house.

So instead, I’m naming former Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Mike Nifong.

Nifong, you might recall, was the overzealous prosecutor who lead the witch hunt of three Duke University lacrosse players after a stripper falsely accused them of sexual assault.

Though most of the story happened last year, Nifong’s moment of humiliation finally came just last June. After an investigation, the North Carolina Bar expelled Nifong and revoked his license to practice law. Days before their ruling was announced, Nifong resigned in disgrace from his prosecutorial post.

Nifong is now facing civil lawsuits from all three of the students and has at last dropped largely out of the public eye.

Jim: I was very tempted to say Alberto Gonzales, because barring him getting indicted over some sort of wrongdoing at the Department of Justice, he will never be heard from again.

But I think I’m going to go with Scott McClellan, the most strikingly ineffective White House press secretary in recent memory. He has a book coming out next year, in which he says the statements he made regarding Rove and Libby were untrue. It will be one last hurrah, one last round of interviews, for an underwhelming guy, the most awkward pairing of an individual and a role since Bernie Kerik was nominated to head Homeland Security. (Google “Scott McClellan” and “deer in headlights” and you get 1,100 matches.)

Cam: Jeez, who hasn’t had their 15 minutes this year?

Okay, how about Kim Kardashian. I think that’s her name. I’ve seen her start to appear on the cover of tabloids, who I guess are in need of a new rich bimbo to talk about (because Paris is soooo last year). She is (I’m guessing), the daughter of Robert Kardashian, who (again, going on memory here) is a celebrity attorney in California.

So we have the daughter of a lawyer in California who has her own reality show about the awesomeness of being the daughter of a lawyer in California. Remind me again why I’m paying for my daughter to go to college?