<p>According to an article in the paper
</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>At the beginning of the year, I would have bet that Sen./Dr./Leader Frist would get the GOP nomination in 2008. Just shows that nine months, let alone three years, is an eternity in politics. Between this and Terry Schiavo, I think he’s done.</p>
<p>I also thought that Dick Cheney might emerge to “save the legacy” but I think it’s beginning to be a question as to how many Republicans want to tie themselves to “the legacy [of the current administration],” though there may be more squishiness among Republican officeholders having an eye to re-election than there is among voters in the Base. </p>
<p>My current calculus rates George Allen and Sam Brownback very high, Chuck Hagel at nil. John McCain is the curious one. I would have written off his chances of surviving the pivotal [in the GOP] South Carolina primary but he’s been making nice with James Dobson, endorsing Intelligent Design, etc. The question is whether he can become acceptable to the Base while retaining the appeal to moderates, independents, and Democrats that he had in 2000.</p>
<p>I see too many negatives surrounding Condi without any countervailing positives and think Giuliani is a pipe dream: a pro-choice, divorced, former mayor of NYC surviving the GOP primaries? I don’t think so. Moreover, I think the iconic value of 9/11 is dissipating and that was probably Giuliani’s biggest asset.</p>
<p>And then there’s poor Jeb Bush. The smarter, more competent brother gets diddled by Chance and Fate. I think there’s going to be simply too much “Bush” fatigue for him to have any chance, even if relented from his current disavowal of interest.</p>
<p>I thought when Frist contradicted Bush on the value of stem cell research he crossed his Rubicon. This move would activate the Wrath of Rove which is eternal, so Frist has to have written off his political future. I think Frist took the criticism over his Schaivo video diagnosis seriously and realized that his scientific / medical reputation is more important to him than his political reputation. In my opinion a good choice. Now hes just trying to survive the next few years with his reputation intact and trying to avoid death by a thousand cuts. I think Frist goes back into medicine and does not run for president or the senate again. Watch Lindsay Graham. …I think he is one republican who is looking for collaboration, if not consensus and realistic solutions. George Allen is an idiot and an oppportunist. and McCain…he believes his own press. Making nice with the Bushies is so transparent…he doesnt want to risk the Wrath of Rove. Bush may be a lame duck but most of these guys are still petrified of Rove and will not stray too far, even as they argue post hurricane economics. The Prince put Macchiavelli in the adjoining office for a reason.</p>
<p>I think 2008 is too soon for Lindsay Graham. And one is certainly risking one’s body if one steps between McCain and a microphone or camera though he is not unique in that regard.</p>
<p>Your description of George Allen inclines me to think he will get the nomination…it worked before. Certainly, I think Allen is a favorite of the inside-the-Beltway Republicans.</p>
<p>Smiles, smiles! </p>
<p>I love to read the handicapping of the republicans candidates by the democrats pundits. By the way, the smiles came from remembering how sure you were about your spring and summer predictions that turned out to be more wishful thinking that cogent analyses.</p>
<p>Rather than measuring the idiots on the republican side of the fence, why don’t you try to come up with an electable candidate who could survive your own primaries. I concede that it represents a much harder intellectual exercise. That said, don’t you have all the smart people in your ranks? </p>
<p>The reality is that using logic about candidates two years before elections is a futile exercise. If there was ANY logic involved, your last successful presidential candidate should have never been on the ballots. Even one year before the elections, only a blind and deaf mule in Arkansas could have predicted his success. Well, I think there was one!</p>
<p>A lion comes out of the bushes and surprises a monkey. “WHO is the king of the jungle?” the lion roars.</p>
<p>“Why you are, O great one.” cries the monkey and the lion smiles and leaves.</p>
<p>Then he comes across a Zebra, “who is the king of the jungle?” he roars again.</p>
<p>“Why you O great one,” says the Zebra,the lion smiles and walks off.</p>
<p>Then the Lion sees an elephant. "Who is the king of the jungle,? roars the Lion.</p>
<p>The elephant looks at the lion, wraps his trunk around him and bangs him back and forth between two trees before flinging him into the pond.</p>
<p>The lion crawls out all wet and in a more humble voice says, “Just because you don’t know the answer you don’t have to get mad about it.”</p>
<p>Xiggi, “Is Frisk in trouble was the question”, if you don’t know the answer, you don’t have to get all mad about it.</p>
<p>Lindsey Graham?</p>
<p>Gag me. </p>
<p>He proved himself to be the class dunce during the Clinton impeachment witchhunt. Have you ever watched him question witnesses during committee hearings? He makes “W” sound like a silver-tongued orator.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not true at all. Many political observers had seen Clinton on the horizon for quite some time. He’d been running since he was in law school. </p>
<p>Any saavy political observer knows that a DLC Democrat is the only electable Democrat in a national election.</p>
<p>“Xiggi, “Is Frisk in trouble was the question”, if you don’t know the answer, you don’t have to get all mad about it.”</p>
<p>Who is mad here? To convey an expression of anger (mad) one needs to use many facial muscles. On the other hand, to laugh only requires very few.</p>
<p>And, no, I don’t have an answer for the extent of Frist’s legal troubles. And neither will I study this issue!</p>
<p>Interesteddad, while I do not have any personal recollection of who were all the candidates in the early rounds, I can relate a real life story of my father. He was in Washington, DC at the monthly private luncheon for Texas congressmen. The guest of honor was the former Speaker of the House, Jim Wright who had been forced out. This was at the apex of the banking scandal. The main discussion of the day and the reason to invite Jim Wright was to handicap the chances of the democrats in the upcoming election. Going through the list of the so-called dirty dozen, he decreed the least likely to WIN to be Bill Clinton. On his own words, if the answer was the governor of the most backward state of the Union, the question had to be very screwy. Everyone in the attendance seemed to agree with the analysis of a Congress legend. </p>
<p>If the story is dismissed as anedoctal, the record of the primaries still stands. Candidates after candidates self-imploded or were victim of their own checkered past. The fact that Clinton survived is nothing less than a testament to Clinton’s charisma and ability to dupe a gullible nation. The same nation that would later demosnstrate a tremendous capacity to overlook the moral frailty of the individual, to forget his legal faux-pas, and mostly forgive him without second thoughts. Other candidates were not as lucky!</p>
<p>The question " is Frist in trouble". According to CNN, he was advised repeated what was going on in the trust, especially about number of shares and where they were…and then he sold his family hospital stock right before the stock took a big fall.
Does the name Martha Stewart ring a bell? If she was IN JAIL for insider trading than he will be following her. If he does not go to jail and it is proved he did insider trading than I feel that Martha got shafted…by the incredibly male government. No wonder why our government did not think it that bad that the new Iraqi constitution did not have equal rights for women!! AND to continue this lovely thought…according to our really male oriented country’s status quo: Roberts is, indeed, the perfect choice for the Supreme Court.
Frist would be an even BETTER “example” of “insider trading is not acceptable” than Martha ever was.</p>
<p>I don’t suppose that Jim Wright will be the last consummate Washington insider to misjudge the pulse of the country outside the beltway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One would have thought that those particular political skills would have been given more weight in political handicapping, especially coming on the heels of Ronald Reagan’s popularity. Although apparently not, since the two political parties have since nominated three candidates (Bush, Gore, Kerry) without an iota of charisma among them – one of the flaws of a nominating system controlled by insider money.</p>
<p>What you call “dupe the country”, someone else may call “leadership skills”. I would rate that very highly on the list of desirable attributes in a President. For example, Bush would be far more effective if he had the ability to sell a cogent vision to the American people in a period of great challenge, i.e. “dupe the country”.as you put it.</p>
<p>"What you call “dupe the country”, someone else may call “leadership skills”.</p>
<p>In my personal ranking of leadership skills, I’d prefer to include ethics and morality and leave compulsive lying well outside. Bill Clinton may have an effective leader, but a morally flawed one nonetheless. </p>
<p>FWIW, I-dad, my prior statements related to the handicapping of the chances of winning the elections, not the mere fact of running. You correctly pointed out that Bill had been pegged to run since he left Hope and had become a known figure -or notorious at least. The issue was about the number of people who would have considered him the leading -or even reasonable- candidate a few weeks before the first Caucus. </p>
<p>The fact that Ted Kennedy might have been rumored to run most of his adult life never made him an electable candidate for the presidency.</p>
<p>I think most of our country’s historically great leaders have been flawed in one way or another. I suspect that flaws are part of the package when talking about men with the egos and self-confidence required for great leadership.</p>
<p>For example, Ronald Reagan, who by most accounts, provided strong leadership for the country, certainly had his flaws. As did a natural-born leader (at least at the Senate level) like LBJ.</p>
<p>On an historical basis, Clinton’s flaws were pretty penny-ante stuff. Strong national leaders with a predilection for the ladies goes back to the founding fathers. </p>
<p>I’m afraid the era of “gotcha” politics may rob the country of some strong leaders going forward as we have seen with the three most recent presidential nominees, who would all rank close to zero on the natural-born leadership scale. I’m not sure that Bush, Gore, or Kerry could inspire someone to go to the kitchen for a cold drink and a bag of chips during halftime of a football game. The inability to “connect” with the American public on an intangible level is a real shortcoming in the Oval Office. The ability to do so is what made presidents like Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton effective, despite their obvious flaws.</p>
<p>I-dad, Clinton’s moral bankruptcy is not solely defined by his penchant for the ladies. As far as measuring his leadership and effectiveness, the jury will be out for a few more generations. Considering the mediocrity and insignificance of his legacy, I expect historians to rank him in the bottom third of all presidents. His “reign” was a historical aberration that allowed him to apply a laissez-faire attitude while benefitting from measures that were implemented well before his time. His legacy is best measured by his lack of response to growing problems. </p>
<p>If he played in the NFL, he would have been the best punter ever, not our best quarterback.</p>
<p>interesteddad,</p>
<p>I too liked Bill Clinton’s leadership skills. As someone who voted for him I feel he let me down because of the items listed by Xiggi. </p>
<p>It is one thing to have a “predilection for the ladies”, it is another to lie under oath about it. I see a tremendous inconsistency between the way Clarence Thomas was treated compared to how Bill Clinton was treated. Which “offense” was worse? The answer often depends upon the party you affiliate yourself with . . . and why I am a registered independent.</p>
<p>When Bush is the original post topic, the republicans talk about Clinton. When Frist is the original post topic, the republicans talk about Clinton. And when Hurrican Katrina was the original topic, the conversation was turned to . . . . Clinton.</p>
<p>I couln’t resist:</p>
<h2>SkyNews Inadvertently Tells the Truth about Bush*</h2>
<p><a href=“http://www.jeffcoop.com/blog/archives/002419.html#002419[/url]”>http://www.jeffcoop.com/blog/archives/002419.html#002419</a></p>
<p>Eagle, I recognize a vast distinction between lying about a consensual sex act and lying about the predicates for a disastrous foreign policy.</p>
<p>“When they ask you why we died,
Tell them that our fathers lied.”
– Kipling</p>
<p>See also: lying about science, lying about class warfare, lying about the environment, etc. ad nauseam ad infinitum.</p>
<p>Hadyen, the Republicans invoke “Clinton” so much that it would be only karma if they really had “Clinton” to howl about for another eight years, if you know what I mean and I think you do. Not a reason to vote for her but a nice side benefit were it come to pass.</p>
<p>Marite,
Good one! The Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers are running a humor therapy thread called “What did he say?” They might like to see this, too.</p>