2008: A Race Too Far?

Remove all ads!

Suddenly, George II looks like the "dead man walking" in American politics. This is not so surprising to those of us who actually believed that Social Security was called the "third rail" of American politics for good reason. George was like the man, standing on the building ledge, and all of us chanting: "Jump! Jump! Jump!" Well, he did. And the arrogant little man, believing that he could defy the gravity of American politics, splattered himself on the hard reality of working class America (they are not called "working" for nothing). One has to wonder at the wisdom of someone who would suggest that investing in the stock market was a good thing, given that it barely has a pulse under the last five years of this same administration's economic policies.

George's sudden political demise has created a wide open race in the presidential race of 2008. A long way off? You bet. But nevertheless the prospects are tantalizing to say the least. Here's some early reads on where this may be heading: Democart Mark Warner (who's that anyway?)

So here's Mark Warner:

Here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063367/site/newsweek/

To me, he sounds like John Edwards all over again.

On the Republican side the choices are far more interesting - and who's this Brownback guy anyway?

A liberal Democrat? I didn't think there were any left.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7899861/site/newsweek/page/2/

But why do liberals like this man?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7969343/site/newsweek/

Liberals have never had much power in the US. Even at the height of the Vietnam hayday of "liberalism," George McGovern was crushed by a corrput, but political savy Richard Nixon. Liberals were only able to sit back after Vietnam and Watergate and say: "We told you so." And that was something that did not especially endear them to "middling America."

For the last five years the liberal battle cry has been, "anyone but Bush." It seems an odd thing that, in the time of the high-water mark of conservative Reupulicanism, some liberals and conservatives can find points of agreement. The plain fact is that some liberals have seen that small, efficient government is superior to that of a large monolithic government that sucks up money and resources from working Americans. In fact, balanced budgets and strong economics actually helps the very people that liberals have been trying to get help to for years - since Johnson declared a "war on poverty."

While some conservatives have seen the ugly face and horror of an imperial presidency and over-reaching American foreign policy abuses that liberals have worried over since the Vietnam days; even though the media has attempted, with great success, to keep that face hidden from the eyes of the American public.

That's why some of us are still sticking with McCain - a liberal's "conservative." He's an avowed conservative with a reformist agenda. But can Hilary become America's first woman prez? Not this time around - but 2012?

[ June 03, 2005, 07:53: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Can't say I know about the contenders but I did read an article that George Sr. wanted Jeb to run.

 

Proclamations of President Bush's political death might be a bit optimistic and premature. He is already a sitting lame duck, and at the moment he only seems to have 2 major agendas, appointees and Social Security. He can hold the Democrats in congress hostage with their own words if he can keep passage of all the spending bills held off until after the nuclear option is invoked (Dems stated that the would shut down the Congress if the nuclear option is invoked, and it likely will be). This action can be easily spun against the Democrats, and they could stand to lose a lot of seats in the next election. So I would say that he is very viable politically on this issue.

As far as SS reform goes, this is going to be a very uncomfortable issue for both parties. Neither party really wanted this issue brought to the forefront, as it is really a political dog. None of them want to touch it, but recent polls have been very difficult to read as some indicate that the issue is gaining traction with the public, but others seem to indicate that people are afraid of change.

Should be very interesting around Washington this summer.

As for Hillary, 2012 is bad for her. She will be 64 years old, which will tie her for 4th on the oldest Presidents list. Of the six men who were 64 or older at inauguration, I believe that only one was elected for a second term (Reagan). Hillary's looks aren't holding up that well, and I don't think she can keep the moderate act up for another 7 years. Finally, if a Democrat wins in '08, Hillary would be locked out until 2016, that would make her 68, and that would make her only one year younger than Reagan at inauguration, 2nd on the oldest list. Given the lack of shelf life, she just about has to run in 2008 if she truly wants the job.

Contrary to popular belief, the Bushes are not politically stupid (and the GOP definitely isn't stupid), and they know that Jeb has to sit out for at least 1 term, or it will look like a dynasty is being established. Jeb will only be 59 in 2012, and 63 in 2016, so he can bide his time.

Personally, I think it is time for the Bushes to fade into history, the last thing I want is another family of US political royalty, the Kennedy family is more than enough.

 

I have already thought a lot about potential contenders for the '08 election. While I think that Kerry and Edwards may run again, I do not think they would even win in the primary. History has shown that you only get one chance. If you lose the first time around, you usually lose again when you run again. The only recent canidate that I can think of that lost and then won was Richard Nixon. (Lost to Kennedy the first time he ran.)

Look at some of the others that we have seen - and this is the more common result. The incumbent Carter with VP Mondale lose to Reagan/Bush I in 1980. Mondale then attempts to run again against Reagan in 1984 - and gets absolutely killed at the polls.

Which does leave the Democrats with Hillary as the front runner for '08. There are good points and bad points for this. Generally speaking, Bill is still highly regarded by most Democrats. His messing around with Monica Lewinsky not withstanding, he was still the captain at the helm during the most prosperous time in U.S. history (once you convert to current dollars that is). Based on that fact alone, I think that Hillary could win a sweeping success in the primaries, and become the first woman to be a serious presidential canidate. (Yes I know that we had Ferraro run in '84, but she was on the ticket as the VP.)

However, the very thing that will endear Hillary to Democrats is the same thing that may damn her in the eyes of Republicans. That's why I'm confident that she can win the primary but is likely doomed in the general election. The evangelical christians cannot possibly look too forgivingly on Bill's past transgressions, and that was the group that swayed the last election to Bush II's favor. So I'm not so sure Hillary is a great choice.

The Republicans are even harder to fathom. Cheney has already stated that he won't run. McCain may have another run in him, but I'm not so sure that's true. He'll be 72 in 2008, and he may be looking forward to retiring - not running a country by then. I've also heard some talk about Rudy Guiliani, but I think he has too much baggage. That whole thing with the affair/estranged wife is something the Republicans couldn't possibly push for. There has also been some local talk the current Governor Ehrlich of Maryland has ultimate aspirations for the presidency. However, he is still in his 40s - so still young by presidential standards - and seems to want to serve another term as governor (although that is also in doubt since the extremely popular Mayor Martin O'Malley of Baltimore is his likely challenger).

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/30/2008.behind.us/index.html

As you noted Aldeth, McCain is running out of time. And the hardcore, Bible tooting conservatives don't want him, because he's too much his own person, and not in their pockets. IMO, he can win the general election, but it will be tough for him to get past the Republican primaries without support from the religious right. But either way, Hillary or McCain would be great choices.

DW - Everyone knows that George II wanted that showdown in Congress, so that the way would be cleared for his Supreme Court pics. That did not happen. And most everyone believes that the Democrats are in a fight for their political survival at this point. The Republicans will take the blame for most everything that happens, because they have almost all the power. That is an inescapable reality. The days of the easy blame game of saying, "it's the Clinton's fault," for every little thing that happens in life, are long over.

 

I disagree, I think that the Republicans could wind up the spin machine, launch the nuclear option, and then when the Democrats such down congress prior to any spending bills being passed, blame every shortfall in funding in every department on the heads of the Democrats who were the "evil obstructionists". If you believe that he Press is in bed with the Republicans, then this shouldn't be that much of a stretch for you to believe in.

As far as McCain, he doesn't stand a snowballs chance of getting out of the primaries, so he has no chance of being President, but he could make a serious statement and run as a independent, or on a third party ticket. He still has almost no chance of being elected, but think of the fits it would cause both parties. It would force them to take a serious introspective look at themselves.

 

From an economic standpoint, I can certainly see the value of having moderates from both parties working together -- an overly ideological approach to economic policy almost always ends up screwing one sector or other of theeconomy over.

From a social standpoint, I'd hate to see another Dem in the White House. Their attempts to socially engineer society scare the tar out of me.

I don't really think that Hillary would have much of a chance in the election -- too many people would see her as a puppet of Billy boy, and I think America has had enough of family dynasties -- which is the same reason I think Jeb would be a fool to run.

I wouldn't mind seeing what McCain has to offer the country and the world.

 

LKD, is this an attempt at dark humor? Perhaps irony? Possibly cynicism? If not, you have got to be yanking my chain. "Socially engineer society"? Isn't that what see happening RIGHT NOW?

 

Yes, Aldeth, we are seeing it right now, but I see the present efforts as an attempt to restore the standards of decency and common sense that the Dems want to toss aside in favour of all sorts of weirdness.

Put another way, I agree with the present engineering policies, as do many Americans (just because they are on the Religious Right doesn't make them any less American.)

I also freely admit that there are large numbers of Americans (just as American as their right wing brothers) who like the Dems attempts. I'll keep my snide comments about those folks to myself, though

 

This so strange - discussing what it means to be an American and American society with a Canadian. Although I suppose your society isn't that much differnt from ours.

My point is that the republicans are doing much more engineering that the democrats have ever done. You see it as restoring standards of decency, whereas others see it as the legislation of morality. To legislate things like sex and family life, it is the republicans that want to institute policies. The democrats seek a more permissive solution, where more is allowed, so I don't see that as engineering anything - more like deconsturction.

Of course either exteme does not a good solution make. In Robert Reich's latest book he makes a good comparison between republican and democratic views (although he frequently refers to them as conservatives and liberals respectively). Granted he is talking about a polictical/social and not a moral disagreement, but it works in this context as well.

 

I feel 1/2 American as my mother was born there, and I've always respected the values on which America was founded.

I see the Republican efforts to "legislate morality" as an effort to entrench ideas and mores that built the fabric of western society.

Here's an example: For centuries, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. That has never been questioned, and so it's never really been placed into law. Now, however, that definition is being challenged. Since Conservatism frequently chooses to respect the people and ideas that have gone on before, they react by trying to legally entrench what has been socially entrenched but is being challenged by liberal reformers. In a sense, it's reactionary engineering.

Now, I'm all for change if the change will improve things -- after all, if we didn't embrace positive change, we'd still be living in caves. But change for the sake of change -- change that is not beneficial -- needs to be resisted.

Going back to the topic, I see Hillary and the rest of the Dems as wanting to seriously alter (note I didn't use the word 'improve') the social fabric of America through engineering (or deconstruction -- you're right, that's likely a better term), which scares me. I see the Republicans as trying to preserve that fabric from damage.

Funny thing is, I have the feeling that economically speaking, Canada would likely be better off with a Dem in the White House, though I have little solid evidence one way or the other.

 

Be specific, please. How are they doing these thngs? By what mechanisms or legislation?

Did someone say: "The values on which America was founded?" Whose "values would you like to discuss? Franklin's? Hamilton's? Jefferson's? How about John Adams'? Let's not forget Washington, Madison or Thomas Paine. Or is there someone else you had in mind? I would love to discuss those "values." Start a thread, LKD, and I will meet you there.

 

You know what just occured to me? What about Howard Dean? We haven't heard much from him lately, but if you're looking at possible canidates for 2008, he has to be on the short list, doesn't he?

 

I seriously doubt it Aldeth. He has been a failure so far in raising money for the DNC, and he is rapidly falling out of favor with the Party. Additionally, he has been a quote fest with extreme statements that would probably kill him in the primary, never mind in the actual election.

Howard Deans is his own nemesis.

 

Howard Dean is alive and well in the Democratic party as Chairman. He appeared for the entire hour with Tim Russet on "MTP" a few weeks back. He was his usual combative self. He opened with a quote from Harry Truman: When Harry Truman was told, "give them Hell, Harry." Truman replied: "I just tell the truth and the Republicans think it's Hell."

[ June 06, 2005, 23:39: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@ LKD

Didn't the Clinton's deconstruct welfare?

 

Chandos, are you serious? Dean got humiliated on Russert's show. Russert ate him alive. Dean did little more than spin and offend. If he ever did get elected, how would he get anything done given that he has taken every opportunity to piss on every Republican he can find, as well as the GOP itself?

The DNC is in a major hole when it comes to fundraising, with many moderate Democrats are sitting on their wallets specifically because of Dean. The Democrats aren’t going to stand by and watch the Republicans out fund-raise them 2 to 1(per FEC publications re. fundraising), especially after Kerry was able to motivate the base sufficiently to compete head to head with the GOP just a year earlier.

Dean might (and that is a big maybe) survive to the midterms, but if the Democrats don't take a serious number of seats away from the Republicans, he will be out on his ass, humiliated, and left without a party to support him, leaving him politically dead.

 

He did get elected. He was governor of Vermont. Regarding MTP: Russert tried every trick on Dean he could, but, IMO, Dean held up very well - even down to Russert's personal attacks about "not attending church." Quick! Which church did Ben Franklin attend on a regular basis?

[ June 08, 2005, 19:24: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Nitpick! You know I meant elected to the Presidency.

I guess it is a matter of perspective. IMO, he spent far too much of his time alternating trying to rationalize his previous comments, and trying to justify his failures, usually by redirecting and/or trying to pass the blame off on others.

He did have some good points, but he more than offset that with footage and quotes that will be easy to use against him should he try to run, and those would be just for the primary (remember, he will likely be going up against Hillary, and if he thought Kerry was tough...). The Republicans would make an absolute laughing stock out of him if he won the nomination.

As far as the one point you have elected to focus on, I agree, who gives a rat's ass where or if he goes to church. Going to church proves nothing about integrity or character.

 

DW - I don't think Dean is running for president. As he noted, he has to be neutral to all sides on the Democratic side of possible contenders - that's part of his job. When he took the position of chairman, many of us thought he sold out (he did). He can't seriously run for prez, given his current position.

I picked on that point, because it really stunned me that Russert would make an issue out of those supporting him who don't go to church. Ask yourself this: Who is likely to be Russert's audience at 10:00 AM Sunday morning? That would probably someone who is NOT in church.