Centerfield

Thanks, Simon, for that wonderful piece of dry humor. ;-) I particularly like the part about "rich liberals" victimizing poor Republicans, (who, as we all know, are never able to raise much money) and the "Republican hating" media who ignores Hillary's many scandals (ahh, the 90's, when the media never said a critical word about the Clintons...*sigh*...).

Two questions; what's Fred smoking? And where can I get some?

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 29, 2005 11:13 PM

I rather goes without saying that I hope his concerns are overblown, doesn't it. ;)

I think that the core of his piece is fair. If the dems put up a good nominee - which is to say, someone from the smart, intelligent wing of the party, an Evan Bayh, maybe - and the GOP base demand a really bad candidate, there's no reason to think that the GOP has a lock on the 2008 election.

Posted by: Simon at September 29, 2005 11:54 PM

Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level.

Hmmm, sounds like a certain governor from Texas. Posted by: c3 at September 30, 2005 12:10 AM

True, Chris, but remember: neither Allen nor Romney bear the sacred name of Bush, which is second only to the sacred name of (raise eyes to heaven) Reagan. There's a strong streak of royalism in the Rs; in fact, '08 will be the first election in 36 years where there's neither a Bush nor a Dole on the ticket. (that's assuming neither Jeb nor Elizabeth decide to run, which is a big "if").

You're right, Simon, the Dems could nominate a Bayh and the Reps could nominate someone who's completely crackers (pun intended) like Bill Bennett, but judging by past experience, the Rs can sleep pretty soundly.

Sweet dreams.

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 30, 2005 12:33 AM

My, what a waste of digital ink.
It couldn't possibly be the war, the deficit, gas prices, arrogance, scandal and corruption that destroys the republican momentum. No, it the media. I'm beginning to think the republican mascot should be the ostrich.

Posted by: Bob J Young at September 30, 2005 01:18 AM

True, Chris, but remember: neither Allen nor Romney bear the sacred name of Bush, which is second only to the sacred name of (raise eyes to heaven) Reagan. There's a strong streak of royalism in the Rs; in fact, '08 will be the first election in 36 years where there's neither a Bush nor a Dole on the ticket. (that's assuming neither Jeb nor Elizabeth decide to run, which is a big "if").

I agree, but I'm also not convinced that GOVERNOR George W. Bush would have been as credible a candidate in 2000, if 9/11 had occurred in, say, 1999. I think the country weighs national security far more heavily now than they did in the pre-9/11 era, and most Governors just aren't all that likely to have strong records of experience on national security. The same goes for GOVERNOR William Clinton in 1992, for that matter.

Or maybe not. Governor Bush always had people thinking of a return of his father's foreign policy team (Baker, Powell, Scowcroft, Cheney, Rice, et. al.) when he was a candidate, so perhaps they would have reckoned upon them in supporting his candidacy (now knowing, of course, that only Cheney and Rice would have any real influence after the election). I guess a governor's relative position depends on how much influence "national security" issues really have on the electorate (vis a vis the economy/social issues/etc.), and what other credentials they could bring to that field.

Posted by: Bobby at September 30, 2005 05:54 AM

Bob J. Young,

My thoughts exactly. There couldn't possibly be any real dissatisfaction with Bush; it's all just a figment of the liberal imagination.

I think the GOP should put up Tom DeLay; obviously, he is the victim of a liberal conspiracy and this would allow him to clear his good name and expose the sinister elements that are undermining this great Republican country. Not to be partisan of course. -;)

Posted by: Marc at September 30, 2005 01:49 PM

[T]he Dems could nominate a Bayh and the Reps could nominate someone who's completely crackers...but judging by past experience, the Rs can sleep pretty soundly.

This reminds me of one of my personal favorite political quotes, from Thomas Brackett Reed, the late Speaker of the House, who was asked by a reported whether his party would nominate him for President. Czar Reed replied, "They could do a lot worse - and I suspect they will."

I think the party could do a lot worse than nominating Elizabeth Dole, personally. I also think that the Democrats could do far, far worse than Hillary Clinton, were it not for all that baggage she carries around. It's not yet clear whether her surname is more of an asset (with the dem base) or a liability (with everyone else). On balance, I find it perfectly possible that both sides are now so in hoc to their bases that both sides will nominate a mediocre nutjob, and we'll see another injurious bout of infighting. The best outcome, it seems to me, would be for the GOP to nominate a credible moderate (by credible, I mean, not only credible to the majority of the country, but also credible with the GOP base, which sadly rules out McCain and Snowe) and the dems to nominate someone crazy, so we can have a nice 70/30 election to bring the country back together.

Sadly, there are some people who I think would make great Presidents, but whom I just don't think will run (Cheney, Giulliani), would ever get the nomination (McCain, Snowe), or who, if they somehow managed to get nominated, simply couldn't win an election (Gingrich, Scalia). Sad, but that's electoral politics.

Posted by: Simon at September 30, 2005 02:15 PM

As a Republican, I can't say that I'm horrified if Fred's predictions come true. President Hillary doesn't scare me. I think she'd govern a lot like her husband, only with perhaps a little more focus. Yes, a lot of people say that a lack of attention to terrorism in the Clinton years contributed to 9/11, but whether or not that is really true, I don't think Hillary would be asleep on the switch at all. In fact, I could see her bombing the hell out of somebody just to prove she's as tough as anybody else.

As far as Liddy Dole goes, she may run and probably has a better resume than just about anyone else in the GOP field, but she's too old. (I'm being realistic here, not sexist.) For some reason, the same voters would probably not care about McCain's age might hesitate over hers. Just look at the national media. We let the old men (Rather, Brokaw, etc) hang around, but with the exception of Walters, where are the women over 60? For some reason, women do not get equal face time when they pass that magical 50-55 number. It sounds petty, but don't count it out as a factor.

Posted by: AR at September 30, 2005 03:06 PM

I can't say that I'm horrified if Fred's predictions come true. President Hillary doesn't scare me.

Provided that Justice Stevens retires within the next two years, and is replaced, I agree to a certain extent. If, on the other hand, Justice Stevens is still to be on the bench on January 21 2009, I would fight tooth and nail in the '08 election for any Republican candidate against any Democratic candidate, period. First principles come first. Posted by: Simon at September 30, 2005 03:32 PM

Yeah, I'm afraid I don't see I don't see a "Clinton-Dole II: the Ladies' Turn" in the future. Not because they're both women, but because they're both senators. Senators never do as well as governors. If I had to take a guess, I would go with Romney or Allen. Maybe little more weighted toward Romney, since he's governor of a blue state. THEN whoever's the nominee could pick Libby Dole as Vice-President, both to overcome the historical gender gap and reassure the Rs' traditionalists.

Of course, that's the chess player's answer, which in the political world means it will turn out completely wrong. ;-)

Still, it would be fun to see Libby and Hillary debate, wouldn't it?
Both of them are smart, both of them are articulate, and both of them would be trying to shank the other without losing "lady" points.

Every so often, the cameras could cut to the gallery where Bill and Bob would be watching, just to see their reactions when one of their lifemates scores a point. And the guys will probably be sharing a bowl of popcorn. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 30, 2005 06:10 PM

I've already said my views on Mitt Romney, so I won't waste your time in reciting them (instead I'll waste it by making you open another link).

These are my top two Dark Horse candidates for right now for the Democrats and the Republicans.

Democrat Evan Bayh - Senator of Indiana.
Democrat Mark Warner - Governor of Virginia.

Republican Mark Sanford - Governor of South Carolina
Republican Mike Huckabee - Governor of Arkansas

Only reason why I think Huckabee has a better shot than George Allen is because Huckabee will be fighting extra hard since he'll be without a job at that point.

Posted by: CleverWes at October 1, 2005 02:18 AM

True. After all, we've had one Arkansas Gov as President; why not another?

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 1, 2005 08:04 AM

There's a strong streak of royalism in the Rs; in fact, '08 will be the first election in 36 years where there's neither a Bush nor a Dole on the ticket.

Huh?! OK so I'm relatively young to the party and not an activist but did I miss something? I sure haven't seen that (and I won't discuss the Kennedys). I gotta ask other republicans on this blog, do you perceive the party as having a "royalist" streak?

On a separate issue but related to this thread you all should visit this website's archives and review our November 04 posts. Less than one lousy year and we're already bemoaning the decline of the Republican Party.

Posted by: c3 at October 1, 2005 03:16 PM

Let's see...

Gerald Ford/Robert Dole-1976

Ronald Reagan/George H.B. Bush-1980

Ronald Reagan/Gerge H.B. Bush-1984

Geore H.B. Bush/Dan Quayle-1988

George H.B. Bush/Dan Quayle-1992

Robert Dole/Jack Kemp-1996

George W. Bush/Dick Cheney-2000

George W. Bush/Dick Cheney-2004

Now, is it me, or do the same names keep popping up again and again?

I think the GOP is full of brilliant, talented individuals who would make fine presidents, so I wonder why the same last names keep making the top spots. (Even when they've been on a losing ticket, like Dole or the first Bush.)

I'm sure there's no lack of talent or ambition in the GOP, so I credit it to Sideshow Bob philosophy "What you really want is someone who will rule you like a king." ;-)

As to the Kennedys, JFK was the only one who made it to the top and that was in 1960. Bobby was assasinated in 1968, and Edward didn't make the ticket in 1980.

Perhaps that's why the Rs keep saying Hillary will run--even though she's given every indication she won't. Once you have that magic last name, then the nomination is yours for life.

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 1, 2005 11:29 PM

well, c3, after the news about DeLay, Frist, Abramoff/Adam Kidan/MoscatielloFerrari whack job, Conrad Black and Richard Perle,Gov Robert(plead no contest)Taft, Gov. George Ryan, Thomas Noe (Coingate), Randy "Duke" Cunningham,Republican National Committee's new treasurer, Robert Kjellander(subpeona of records dealing with Ill Teacher retirement system and the Carlyle Group) hitting the public airwaves - did you catch CNN's wrap up of Republicans in trouble yesterday on Blitzer? - I'd say no surprise.

Posted by: Marcus at October 1, 2005 11:37 PM

Blue Jean, say whatever you like now, and I'll have to agree with you. Anyone who can nail a Simpson's reference AND have it include Sideshow Bob is a good person to agree with in my book.

Marcus, I couldn't have summed it up better.

Posted by: CleverWes at October 2, 2005 12:33 AM

Thank you, Wes. Like I said before, I consider that praise from Caesar, or at least, from Mayor Quimby. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 2, 2005 01:09 AM

If, on the other hand, Justice Stevens is still to be on the bench on January 21 2009, I would fight tooth and nail in the '08 election for any Republican candidate against any Democratic candidate, period. First principles come first.

So, should I take that as you want 9 James Dobsons (with legal qualifications of course) on the Supreme Court?

Posted by: Scott Smith at October 2, 2005 02:53 PM

I too am curious about "principles come first".
Which principles?
-Smaller less intrusive government instead of one of the largest expansions in govt in history not to mention laws giving the government more power to intrude upon private lives??
-Balanced budget instead of leaving a legacy of trillions more in debt??
-Acountability and respect for law instead of virtually no responsibility where screwups given medals of freedom?
-Getting a Supreme Court justice that's an ideologue on the right?

Because I tell you that I, nor my daughter, can afford 4 more years of the first 3.

Posted by: Marcus at October 4, 2005 01:26 AM

Maybe calling it royalty is overdoing it a little. But I know that in my lifetime, the GOP has shown a pronounced preference, in Presidential politics, for these 2 tendencies: 1-giving the nomination to the guy who waited patiently and loyally for it, because it was his turn and 2-lining up very quickly behind the guy the power brokers were pushing.

You could say that this is a little bit ironic for a party that advocates individual merit over systemic bureaucracy, but then the GOP is not a free market, it's a club.

Posted by: bk at October 4, 2005 12:13 PM

LOL! Too true.

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 4, 2005 09:43 PM