<p>“Heck, they’ll probably make the nominee sign a loyalty oath opposing the teaching of evolution.”</p>
<p>As I’ve said before… no need to slam 50% of the country.</p>
<p>I’m only slamming about 30% of the country. Unfortunately, it’s the 30% that controls the purse-strings to the Republican nomination.</p>
<p>I slam the 30% of the country that controls the purse-strings to the Democratic nomination just as fiercely. The 40% of us in the middle can only sit and watch in disbelief as both parties fire away at their own feet and wonder why the electorate is disengaged.</p>
<p>
The debate whether the balanced budget in the late 90s was the result of Clinton or the Republican Congress will go on forever; but the real star of the show was an economic bubble, the likes of which we will likely not see again in our lifetime.</p>
<p>idad,TheDad, Do you really think the FOBs are that organized? If they were, the Dems might have a prayer in 2008. Frankly, the Republican organization machine looks damned powerful–governors in the three largest states, diverse talent on a deep bench, family dynasties with good looking candidates in the wings, a take-no-prisoners spin machine greased by oil and God.</p>
<p>The last factor, a Republican coup, may be the lynch pin. Evangelism and conservative religion is gaining ground in swing states like Ohio, Missouri and Iowa. Family members in the military tell me that military bases/academies are increasingly fraught with emotive religion, unlike the tolerant and diverse military bases they grew up on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Condi Rice would make a marvelous Poli Sci professior. Although I’m generally favorable to the Bush “war on terror” military policy, I have not been particularly impressed with Rice. I think both she and Bush have done a tepid job outlining a vision to the country.</p>
<p>
Agree. Actually, the best presentation that I saw of it was John McCain at the Republican convention.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like they say back home, “sometimes the bear gets you and sometimes you get the bear…”</p>
<p>I don’t recall any great sympathy for Jimmy Carter trying to wrestle with oil-crisis fueled inflation on his watch. </p>
<p>The reasons don’t really matter in a soundbyte driven electoral landscape. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic President oversaw a balanced budget and the recent Republican presidents have overseen periods of extreme fiscal irresponsibilty and runaway deficits. </p>
<p>The Dems, with the right candidate, could and should bludgeon them do death on that issue. Who are the Republicans going to blame now? They control the White House and both Houses of Congress. There’s nowhere to hide.</p>
<p>Idad, Kerry could have set broad brushstrokes on economic policy and various social issues. I looked at Bush’s poll numbers in April 2004 and could see that it was going to be a nasty campaign with every other word being “terrorism,” linking it to everything up to and including heartbreak of psoriasis. The only issue where Bush had a significant positive rating was terrorism, around 59 percent. Iraq had a bare majority or so, 51-52 percent. Everything else was underwater. Ergo. That dictated his strategy and no Dem strategist shouldn’t have seen it coming. Too bad that the election was seven months too early. Today, Bush’s terrorism number is 50-49 and everything else is underwater, most of it way underwater. There’s about six months left before the rats on the GOP ship start bolting to protect their own skins and preserve their own ambitions…I’d just as soon plunk in four torpedoes amidships and when the dust settled plunk in another four.</p>
<p>Aries, the theocrats hold veto rights in the Republican primaries. Romney doesn’t have a chance in hell. You also need to look to the balance of power in the GOP, in the Northeast, it’s like the Antarctic ice pack disappearing at an alarming rate. The GOP nominee will almost certainly be someone from the South/Plains/RockyMountain states.</p>
<p>
Well, that’s been the mainstream media strategy lo these five years, but they seem to be plunking their own flagship institutions more successfully than they plunk the Good Ship Bush. I predict Cheney will be the GOP candidate in '08.</p>
<p>“I think both she and Bush have done a tepid job outlining a vision to the country.”</p>
<p>Compared to whom? </p>
<p>Let’s address the international policies that seems to create the biggest criticisms. </p>
<p>Compared to the past? Do we have less “vision” now, than we did at the end of 2000 -after eight years of abject laissez-faire policies that created most of the post 2001 malaise? Did the prior government of Clinton and Albright put the country on the right path? Allow me laugh at that tought! The jury is still out on how the post 2001 policies will pan out, but there is little doubt that the Clinton years represented the period where our foreign policies were the most inept in generations. </p>
<p>Compared to other countries? Which one would you like to emulate in dealing with the threats of terrorism and overall insecurity?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All I can say is that the Houdini-act of Hillary Clinton successfully repositioning herself as a centrist is one of the most impressive pieces of politicking I’ve ever seen. The fact that she has managed to get herself routinely “skewered” in the press for working so well with Republicans is a truly inspired piece of work.</p>
<p>It’s way too early for predictions, but I think she’ll be a formidible opponent, ideally suited to strip away the soccer moms who are the most tenuous part of the Republican coalition.</p>
<p>She’s also ideally positioned, as a woman, to beat the Republicans over the head with the abortion issue, which is a loser-issue for them in a general election and symbolizes a right-wing fundamentalist bent that really doesn’t play all that well to centrist voters.</p>
<p>The Republicans haven’t been winning because centrist voters are born-again Christians. They’ve been winning because the Democrats have allowed themselves to painted as the wacko fringe party. A successful Democratic candidate must stake out the center and push the Republicans into the fringe corner – a strategy that Bill Clinton understood and worked to perfection.</p>
<p>Above all that, any candidate who successfully sells a positive vision will win the next election. The last two elections have been rather uninspired affairs.</p>
<p>TheDad: As a native Bostonian, I do recall Romney being slammed during the gubunatorial election because of his strong Utah ties. IMO, that, if anything, will carry him with the theocrats. He also had the sense to choose Healey as his running mate: successful, intelligent woman when he was running against four (yes, four!) other women for the MA governorship. Pundits said that no Mormon would ever win MA with its strong Catholic base, but no dice there.</p>
<p>
So perfectly that he lost both houses of Congress. I also question how successful Hillary has been with her “repositioning.” It may have spooked a few editorial page ninny-nannies, but I have more faith in the electorate to see through an obvious ploy. Artful she is not.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, why are you surprised? Bill did the exact same morphing act. A supposed centrist with socialist leanings only emerging after he was elected.</p>
<p>“The last two elections have been rather uninspired affairs.”</p>
<p>Were the prior two elections “inspiring”? </p>
<p>Humm, according to a few CC voices, the 2000 election had done miracles to reenergize a moribund party after the 2000 debacle. Weren’t the pundits glowing about how intent the Dems were to kick Dubya out of the White House? </p>
<p>Obviously, all the crowing took place before voters spoke. :)</p>
<p>As far as Hillary constant reinvention, some may see it as the sign of a mature and smart politician -as the Economist reported; others may not be duped that easily and recognize the selfish, cynical, and utterly wicked behavior of another Clinton.</p>
<p>I think many people pray for rain but don’t want lightning. Hillary is a thunderstorm in most of the country. The Wellesley freshman nude shot is still out there (pictures taken of every entering student for some study.) Condi Rice is a potential vp candidate but the Repubiican Base would not give her a primary in any state.</p>
<p>It is very hard to give up the sure thing of being Senate Majority Leader for a potential Presidency, but if his ego is strong enough and the next Senate Majority leader urges him on enough… who knows he might be the candidate.</p>
<p>I usually keep track of whose name turns up on the front page of the New York Times the most to anticipate Presidential Bids.</p>
<p>I’m not surprised that she would try. I’m impressed that she is pulling it off. Hillary is a much more polarizing candidate than Bill. I didn’t think she had the skill for a Houdini act. I started to take notice when she voted, time after time, on the Iraq bills in the Senate, laying the required foundation for a centrist candidacy.</p>
<p>TheDad: I agree with you on the timing of the election. That election was always going to turn 100% on terrorism and the timing didn’t work to the Dems’ advantage. Of course, I listened very hard for Kerry to outline a plausible position as a searched for a single reason to vote for him. I never heard anything.</p>
<p>I thought all along that the way to attack Bush was to paint him as not being aggressive enough on the war on terrorism. IMO, his Homeland Security efforts were weak as water and his post-9/11 leadership efforts were no more impressive than his Yale transcript.</p>
<p>Oh please, no. Naked Hilary? Just the thought…And just think, people might stop blaming Bill for straying.</p>
<p>I don’t have anything to add to the discussion at this time. I’m only posting this because I just noticed that my current number of posts=the Sign of the Beast, and as a theocratic reactionary Bush supporter, I just can’t have that. So I’m bumping my number of posts up to “667”. Whew.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, like the faux-Falwellian transformation of the Connecticut yankee blueblood Rockefeller-Republican Bush clan isn’t transparently cynical. Puhleeze.</p>