Punditification
Fact: being your party's front runner 13 months before the election doesn't mean squat.
Fact: punditry is fun.
Fact: I wanna play.
One Thing Democrats Do Not Seem to Understand and Neglect at Their Peril
Evangelicals, as a voting bloc, hate Hillary Clinton. (They also hate Bill and still blame him for everything they don't like. Including the New Deal).
We're not talking a benign shrug of "I never vote for Democrats" or even firm and impassioned "I am a values voter and consequently will never vote for someone who is pro-choice". We are talking about wild-eyed, fire-breathing loathing. While most evangelicals wouldn't be thrilled with a Democrat in the White House, the specter of Hillary as President makes their blood boil.
Please note that the evangelical bloc is ticked at the GOP. They feel betrayed. (Well they should). Rove/Bush Co. totally played them. They know that now and they aren't going to settle for lip service from the GOP. While the GOP is in a tad bit of disarray at the moment, there is no single candidate on the Dem roster with the potential to galvanize this angry, disenfranchise "base" like Hillary.
I don't care how many Dems love Hillary. I don't care how good a President she'd have the potential to be. If she is the candidate, this election will be ugly with a capital U.G.L.Y. It's going to make the swift boating of Kerry look like a coronation.
Not to mention that if she were elected she's looking at 4 years of brick walls, even with a Democratically controlled Congress. Period.
A Couple of Things the Republicans Do Not Seem to Understand and Ignore at Their Peril
Word is that the evangelicals don't like the idea of Rudy Giuliani as the GOP candidate (he's pro-choice, pro-gay and anti-gun). They talk of running a third party candidate should he be the nominee. That works for the Dem side of the equation. If the evangelicals get behind someone else (eyes on Mike Huckabee, people) or stay home on election day, that makes things easier for the Democrats. It is possibly the only scenario which benefits a Clinton candidacy (although come election day I could see them abandoning Huckabee or whoever just to insure Hillary doesn't win).
Please understand that when I talk about evangelicals I know whereof I speak. I used to be one. My family is full of them (and they are all very lovely, thoughtful people. Just saying. Obviously, we don't talk much about politics).
Based on my knowledge of evangelicals I must point out that while they don't like Giuliani for political reasons, they are never going to get behind Mitt Romney, either.
1) He's a flip-flopper. Evangelicals hate that. What they are looking for in a candidate - GOP or 3rd party- is someone with convictions and a consistent record on their issues. Romney was pro-choice when it suited him and now he's pro-life. The evangelicals aren't buying it.
b) He's a Mormon. Evangelicals do not regard Mormons as just another Christian denomination. They regard it as a cult. No way they are getting behind Romney.
The GOP also doesn't get that the majority of Americans, red and blue, do not support the Iraq war. While we continue to be divided as to how and when, we agree that America needs to leave Iraq. A candidate who fails to run with an exit strategy of some kind is going to miss out on a lot of votes.
Look at John McCain. By all rights he should have been the heir apparent for the GOP. It's my belief that his insistence on the righteousness of the Iraq war is why he is so far behind in the pack.
Here's where I move from plain facts ('k, my facts but still) to pure conjecture.
Americans need a moderate in the White House. Historically, we careen from left to right and we've done so to our detriment. We are bitterly divided on a great deal. We are, I think, the closest we've ever come to abandoning democracy in favor of fascism. Our next president needs to be someone who can work the purple, so to speak, the purple in all of us. There's plenty of purple on issues both domestic and foreign and the next President needs to be someone who gets that, speaks to it and works to unify us.
I don't know what that ticket looks like on the GOP side. For the Dems, and I've been saying this for a long time now, the perfect ticket is Edwards/Obama.
That won't likely be the bumper sticker that'll wind up on my car. But it should be.
Fact: punditry is fun.
Fact: I wanna play.
One Thing Democrats Do Not Seem to Understand and Neglect at Their Peril
Evangelicals, as a voting bloc, hate Hillary Clinton. (They also hate Bill and still blame him for everything they don't like. Including the New Deal).
We're not talking a benign shrug of "I never vote for Democrats" or even firm and impassioned "I am a values voter and consequently will never vote for someone who is pro-choice". We are talking about wild-eyed, fire-breathing loathing. While most evangelicals wouldn't be thrilled with a Democrat in the White House, the specter of Hillary as President makes their blood boil.
Please note that the evangelical bloc is ticked at the GOP. They feel betrayed. (Well they should). Rove/Bush Co. totally played them. They know that now and they aren't going to settle for lip service from the GOP. While the GOP is in a tad bit of disarray at the moment, there is no single candidate on the Dem roster with the potential to galvanize this angry, disenfranchise "base" like Hillary.
I don't care how many Dems love Hillary. I don't care how good a President she'd have the potential to be. If she is the candidate, this election will be ugly with a capital U.G.L.Y. It's going to make the swift boating of Kerry look like a coronation.
Not to mention that if she were elected she's looking at 4 years of brick walls, even with a Democratically controlled Congress. Period.
A Couple of Things the Republicans Do Not Seem to Understand and Ignore at Their Peril
Word is that the evangelicals don't like the idea of Rudy Giuliani as the GOP candidate (he's pro-choice, pro-gay and anti-gun). They talk of running a third party candidate should he be the nominee. That works for the Dem side of the equation. If the evangelicals get behind someone else (eyes on Mike Huckabee, people) or stay home on election day, that makes things easier for the Democrats. It is possibly the only scenario which benefits a Clinton candidacy (although come election day I could see them abandoning Huckabee or whoever just to insure Hillary doesn't win).
Please understand that when I talk about evangelicals I know whereof I speak. I used to be one. My family is full of them (and they are all very lovely, thoughtful people. Just saying. Obviously, we don't talk much about politics).
Based on my knowledge of evangelicals I must point out that while they don't like Giuliani for political reasons, they are never going to get behind Mitt Romney, either.
1) He's a flip-flopper. Evangelicals hate that. What they are looking for in a candidate - GOP or 3rd party- is someone with convictions and a consistent record on their issues. Romney was pro-choice when it suited him and now he's pro-life. The evangelicals aren't buying it.
b) He's a Mormon. Evangelicals do not regard Mormons as just another Christian denomination. They regard it as a cult. No way they are getting behind Romney.
The GOP also doesn't get that the majority of Americans, red and blue, do not support the Iraq war. While we continue to be divided as to how and when, we agree that America needs to leave Iraq. A candidate who fails to run with an exit strategy of some kind is going to miss out on a lot of votes.
Look at John McCain. By all rights he should have been the heir apparent for the GOP. It's my belief that his insistence on the righteousness of the Iraq war is why he is so far behind in the pack.
Here's where I move from plain facts ('k, my facts but still) to pure conjecture.
Americans need a moderate in the White House. Historically, we careen from left to right and we've done so to our detriment. We are bitterly divided on a great deal. We are, I think, the closest we've ever come to abandoning democracy in favor of fascism. Our next president needs to be someone who can work the purple, so to speak, the purple in all of us. There's plenty of purple on issues both domestic and foreign and the next President needs to be someone who gets that, speaks to it and works to unify us.
I don't know what that ticket looks like on the GOP side. For the Dems, and I've been saying this for a long time now, the perfect ticket is Edwards/Obama.
That won't likely be the bumper sticker that'll wind up on my car. But it should be.
Labels: political theater
cobbled together by Moi at 9:49 AM
24 Comments:
some days it is hard to think about the upcoming election. It scares me. As for the computer....i will tolerate it today.
I hear you, Ro. Pretty much why I wrote this...get it out there and move on.
I have been scared of a Hillary nomination for a while; I know how much people hate her and feared she would be creamed. Of course, I also contend that most of the folks who hate her have never had a chance to really hear her. A lot of upstate New Yorkers HATED her at the beginning of the Senate race in '02, and ended up voting for her.
Until I met the contenders. This is the weakest GOP field that could have possibly arisen to face off against Senator Clinton, and I think that if she wins the nomination (and yes, she has my vote as of this writing), she's got a real shot (especially if that asshat Giuliani gets the GOP nod).
You're absolutely right -- this is going to be an ugly election. But these days, is there such a thing as a civilized election? I haven't seen one in a while. And ... if, at the end of it all, we inaugurate our very first woman President -- HALLELUJAH, won't that just be all worth it.
I am as enamored of the idea of a woman (or a black) President as the next guy, Red. But I also want that person to be able to be effective. I see the GOP throwing up roadblock after roadblock after congressional hearing after justice investigation, over and over and over for 4 years.
I would agree that the I-hate-Hillary thing was significantly mitigated in her Senate run and if anyone can do it again tis her. And of course I'll vote for her if she's the nominee.
I just think there's a better way forward.
John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards
John Edwards
Sez you. And Bill Maher. And Jon Stewart. And me.
Man,Hat, we are in some good company there, wot?
I'm just happy that for the first time since 1992, I know I'll be happy with the Democratic nominee, whoever s/he is. John Edwards would be great, and not just because he's cute. Obama works for me. Hell, Joe Biden or Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd would all be good choices.
No matter who gets it, I'm thrilled. And, no matter who gets it, the message I will send to anyone who even thinks about voting GOP or third party in 2008 because of a personal dislike of the Democratic nominee is: It's the Supreme Court (stupid).
No matter how ugly it gets, just think about those nine people in long black dresses and what the country will look like fifty years from now if a Democrat doesn't win.
Cuz, y'know ... I'm just sayin'.
With you on that, Red. I pretty much like 'em all.
Now we just have to jump on Naomi Wolf's bandwagon and do something to reverse the debacle of executive power as wielded by Bush Co. because that is some scariness right there. I don't care who the President is or from which party, he/she needs to be frakking accountable to Congress.
Hi, it's called the Constitution.
(shivers)
Martin Sheen for President. I'll take Josiah Bartlett as a close second.
Well, sure, SCG. Who wouldn't?
i said the same thing 6 or 7 months ago about edwards/obabma... so did my brother. (he's really into john edwards and has been for some time but is behind obama on general principle) i don't think either of them would concede to a VP position though. we shall see.
oh yeah, a lot of people forget that new yorkers can't really stand giuliani OR hilary.
Every politician says they wouldn't concede to the second chair but that goes away as soon as said politician knows they aren't going to get the nomination.
No one said this wasn't going to be an interesting cycle, though.
I agree with everything you say. Including the Mike Huckabee is probably the most likely Republican to be able to defeat a Democrat - although for some reason no one on that side seems to see this.
I personally am backing Bill Richardson, but I fear that he's not going to make it (although I do think he'd make a swell US Senator from New Mexico - just saying).
I, too, have many evangelicals in my family tree, and I think you're thoughts match those that I see in my family concerning Giuliani and Romney in particular.
Wow, I feel like I've been anointed or something, Alan. 'Cause you actually make a living knowing about stuff like this.
D'you know, I actually understood most of that. I didn't think I knew that much about US politics. Then again, I probably don't: I think you just explained it very clearly.
I love it when you talk politics, the two of us agree on this one completely. If Hillary is the nominee, the Dems better hope for a 3rd party candidate!
I agree wholeheartedly with your ticket. I would love to see Hilary in the White House, but let's face it, Edwards would appeal to those who vote a man with pretty hair. Remember Kennedy vs Nixon?
Also, Edwards' Southern twang is a lot more palatable to the evangelicals than Hillary.
Dariush, there's a whole mess of things I could garble up quite nicely. Glad this wasn't one such time. Plus, now you can sit around at dinner parties and say things like, "Well, as an American friend of mine explains it..."
Wait. Having American friends probably doesn't have the cache it once did. Assuming it ever did. I mean, geez, we're a bunch of freaky rebel colonists with bad manners.
See? Garble.
Twisi, don'tcha just wish we had buckets of money to throw in the direction of that ticket? I sure do.
Oh, yes, Buck. I love it to but I fear it is not to be this time around.
I believe you are correct about the impact of good hair (better be if you're spending $400 on a cut) and melodious twangs. Let's face it, while this has nothing to do with my analysis, Edwards and Obama? We are talking about some fine looking men right there.
Romney is the only Republican with some serious looks and he won't be the candidate so there you go. We win all the pretty points.
Spot on with the evangelical thoughts. Them hating Hillary? Uh, yeah. I'd pay good money to be a fly on the election booth wall the day my mom has to choose between Mitt and a Dem. ("do I go with the cult leader or the baby killing socialist?) Mitt and Hillary? She'd probably blow a gasket. She's still upset about the whole 'baking cookies' thing, and the fact that Hillary "lied" about using a hyphenated last name until she became First Lady.
I am just not feeling John Edwards.
Likewise the gasket that would be blown in a Rudy-Hillary ballot, eh.
Obviously, you're not the only one "not feeling" Edwards or he'd be doing better in the polls. Although it reminds me of a time long ago when I was very "meh" about the Democratic candidate until I heard him speak down at the Market. I remember walking home and thinking, "I totally want this Bill Clinton guy to be President".
When all is said and done, for once we're the ones with the fairly easy choices.
Post a Comment
<< Home