<p>My cynical answer as to why Bush picked Cheney for VP: to make himself assassination-proof. My realistic answer: so that Republicans would feel that there was a voice-of-experience on the team.</p>
<p>My cynical answer as to “why not pick someone who could run in 2008?” is that there are still two years to go to 2008. I look for a Cheney resignation this summer with a replacement by Bush’s hand-picked successor. A further cynical suggestion is that Bush will have trouble getting his successor confirmed, because he left it too late and now has a Democratic Congress to deal with.</p>
<p>Forget the Democrats. Bush finding Republican votes on the hill hard to come by. A lot of those congressmen and senators have to run for reelection in two years and hanging onto Bush’s coattails doesn’t appear to be a winning strategy.</p>
<p>What does Rice bring to the party? She is responsible for one of the most devastatingly bad foreign policy agendas in history.</p>
<p>She can’t hide from that. National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. It so bad that, if this were traditional Japanese culture, she should fall on her sword in disgrace.</p>
<p>Tokyo-- he wrote a book about what he believes. It’s called “The Audacity of Hope,” and in every chapter he explores the country’s problems and offers solutions. I know not everyone has the time to read a book, but your claim that he expects people to vote for him based on a Monday Night Football appearance or because “people from Kenya” like him is quite ignorant. The man’s fast-growing celebrity (and his good looks, I might add) does not make him a lightweight politician, nor do they negate his intelligence and passion for pubic service. He’s got a good grip on the issues and some solid suggestions for what we could do about them. I’m sure a bulleted list will be available on his website when/if he officially announces.</p>
<p>Where’s UCLAri when you him need for information on Japanese culture? I though female Samurai had a specific ritual for seppuku, apart from the men. </p>
<p>It’s not falling on a sword.</p>
<p>Isn’t it too early for presidential politics?</p>
<p>I might vote for Hillary because… she can speak… in complete sentences, pronouncing words correctly, without even saying ummm and ahhh… As long as she doesn’t get excited she is a joy to listen to.</p>
<p>"I just thought of something really funny. If Hillary Clinton gets elected, then will Bill Clinton be…first man?? "</p>
<p>Some of us cynics in NYC theorize that he will get himself appointed to finish Hillary’s senate term and, thus, be able to live apart from his “wife” for part of the year without arousing too much suspicion.</p>
<p>"I’m not trying to start a fight here, but I gotta ask if people who like his policies really think he is electable? That is . . . among the female gender. "</p>
<p>I’m a female, so I will answer. No one has to like my answers, but please don’t attack me, ok? No, he’s not electable. But he is the smartest, most articulate conservative in public life who most clearly understands conservative political values. As far as his personal situation, there is more to the story than what is presented in public (isn’t there always?), but it IS a personal situation (which Monica was not, because that involved a criminal act designed to deny a private citizen her day in court). Newt understands what I, personally, want from my federal government, which is not much beyond strong defense and non-intrusive fiscal policy. I’m a “keep your hands out of my wallet and let me live my life as I see fit” conservative who abhors the nanny state. But, ultimately, Newt was too damaged by the Clinton smear machine to win. Interesting that republicans generally resign while democrats rarely do. I will support my party’s nominee because the alternative is too grotesque to contemplate.</p>
<p>"Fwiw, I think Obama is probably the only candidate who can foil Clinton getting the nomination. Not because he’s got a great track record–it’s painfully thin–but he’s the only one who can run the irregular emotional campaign. "</p>
<p>Brilliant observation, as always. I think that’s exactly right. I think there is such a deep personal appeal to the man that he could really win. Personally, I think he’s enormously bright and talented. Seems pretty sensible as well. Obviously, I don’t agree with his politics and philosophy, but he is a liberal and if the country votes for him, then it won’t be a surprise that he actually is a liberal.</p>
<p>Then, how in the world can you support the 21st century incarnation of the Republican party? </p>
<p>Federal spending like drunken sailors.</p>
<p>Not only do they want their hand on you wallet, they want to sit in your bedroom and dictate their religious views to you with their stance on abortion and contraception availability.</p>
<p>I don’t know anything more intrusive than the fed. government’s tacit participation in threatened legal challenges against private colleges. If Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr, and Haverford want to continue spending their own money to run a 25-year old summer orientation program for accepted minority students, what damn business is it of the federal government? It’s a pressing national interest to end privately-funded summer enrichment programs because…??? I bet if it were a summer yachting program, the ol’ boys would leave 'em alone.</p>
<p>There are Republican candidates I can’t stand, Republican candidates I <em>really</em> can’t stand, and Republican candidates who should be tossed into the lowest level of the Federal maximum security prison in Colorado and left to rot until the maggots were done with them, at which point we should absorb the expense of shooting their remains into space at velocity sufficient to escape the solar system so as to avoid having further pollution of mankind. Extreme, I know, but then so is the catastrophe visited upon us by GOP rule during the last five years. This what you get when you play hardball divisiveness and think you will never get burned.</p>
<p>However, it is possible that because of this view I will never be acclaimed emperor. Such is life.</p>
<p>N.B., I wish we could trade Lieberman for Hagel, straight up. I know that Hagel is much more conservative on a whole host of social and economic issues but it would rid of us of L’s smarmy obsequiousness.</p>
<p>N.B. #2, it is a small satisfaction, given the scale of disaster, that the Republicans, who sought to isolate the Democrats and hang being “soft” on Iraq upon them, will take the political damage for Iraq pretty much on their own. I smile when I watch the GOP Senators, particularly those due up for re-election in 2008, squirm and start trying to give themselves separation from Bush so that they don’t get trampled in a tidal wave of public opinion like the Democrats were in 2002. Max Cleland, this one’s for you. With any luck, the Neocons will become so irrelvant to American political life that they will have nothing better to do than to brush up their tennis and canasta games.</p>