'08 Watch!
I know, I know. It keeps getting earlier... Well, anyway-
As the Optimates spread decently well across the ideological spectrum, inquiring minds want to know: Who would you most like to see win the race in '08? Who among the likely primary candidates? If the party opposing your own were to win, who would you hope to be the victor, and why?
As the Optimates spread decently well across the ideological spectrum, inquiring minds want to know: Who would you most like to see win the race in '08? Who among the likely primary candidates? If the party opposing your own were to win, who would you hope to be the victor, and why?
posted by Pascals Bookie @ 12:09 AM
5 Comments:
First, a little personal history-
- Voted for Bush in '00 (not with great enthusiasm, but I did and I'll own up to it. I was a big backer of McCain in the Republican primary)
- Voted straight Republican in '02 mid-terms (the Democrats weren't a credible party on defense to me)
- Voted for Kerry in '04 (again, reluctantly; and voted for Republicans in every other office)
So where does that leave me in '08? Well, I feel pretty betrayed by McCain and his pandering to the Bushites. Right now, that may leave me as a Chuck Hagel guy in the GOP Primaries, maybe a Rudy Guiliani guy. Not sure.
If it's a Democrat who wins, I hope it's Obama. He seems reasonable.
I think it may be too early for Obama. If the Dems run him before he is ready (or credible) they may be wasting one of their biggest rising stars. However, JFK was neither old nor terribly experienced when he took office, so perhaps Obama sooner rather than later might make some sense. It would also help him project an image of being "untainted" by Washington. On the other hand, he really would be inexperienced, making him less effective at navigating political waters. The final decision is up to Obama himself.
As for McCain, the gloss seems to have come off of him of late on account of his pandering, as evidenced in his scheduled appearence at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. It appears that he no longer thinks he can win as the the straight shooting maverick. I think he is wrong, but it may be too late. Speaking of McCain, there is an interesting article here discussing his monopoly, in recent years on the concept of bipartisanship. Thought provoking at the very least.
I must admit to being a little behind on tracking '08 presidential hopefuls. Does anyone have some suggestions of people to watch out for on both sides, or perhaps an article with good summaries of the current contenders? I think that the midterms later this year will really set the stage and perhaps the (percieved) issues for the 2008 presidential elections.
Obama's not going to run this time around. I'll wager $20 on that to any Optimate who wants to take the bet.
As for a good summary, as always, ABC's (The Note ), is an excellent rundown of inside-the-beltway-style stories. And they also have a nice first bit of their Invisible Primary series (here.)
Personally, I think the Democrats are best off with nominating Southern centrist Governor Mark Warner of Virginia or non-threatening Latino everyman Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Richardson's my favorite out of the two because of his varied resume (Congressman, Energy Secretary, US Ambassador to the UN, Governor), interest in foreign policy, and blue collar appeal.
On the other side of the aisle, I have been and remain a strong backer of McCain and I personally think the stories of the senator's pandering and flip-flopping are overrated. Politics is a messy business and if he has to be a little friendlier and more compromising for the sake of the greater good, I'm ok with that, especially when the alternative is someone like Bill Frist winning.
Ah, Cato, digging up my past!
In my recollection, I think it was a six-sided die, and I rolled a "1", the number I had assigned to Bush. I remember that Marty Northrop - also witness to my indecision - said "NO!" when it came up "1". Ah, memories...
'00 - Although the Gore we now know and love wasn't seen much then, knowledge from my family and from having grown up mainly in Texas granted me all the passion I needed to vote for anyone but Bush. And as a vote for Nader just a smug way of voting for Bush, that wasn't cool with me. Plus, the Clinton years were the best years, politically, of my life, and I'm guessing of most other people's as well. If I were his buddy, I'm sure I'd have to give him a smackdown or a talking to every time we were out at the bar, but as a leader, he was astounding. Also voted Hillary for senate, proudly. SHe's as smart as Bill is, if not more so, and is one of the few politicians I know who are proud to be policy wonks, which after all, is their job. Gore lost, but not really. Hillary won, and I don't know how that's affected my life at all.
'02 - Congressional - Voted for Owens. He won. He always does, but he's not running again this year. Besides, I'm now represented by Nydia Velasquez, who was cool enough to suggest that Martha Stuart's community service be an urban renewal project for Bushwick.
'03 - James E. Davis, my city councilman, is murdered inside City Hall. I'm lucky enough to have met him beforehand. My block (also the block where he had his office) is mobbed with flowers and mourners, reminding one that local politicians CAN make a difference if they set their focus correctly.
'04 - I raise the roof for Edwards (unnofficially) canvassing on my own around Sunset Park, including in a police station directly across the street from the polling place, where I cleverly flaunt the rules by asking all the officers I could find, "I'm here to make sure everybody gets out to vote for Edwards, how far away to I need to be before I begin campaigning?" He loses, and then gets the VP ticket (!) and then disappears. Which was ridiculous, and I feel that with a lot more face time, he and Kerry would've had a much better showing. But they "lost." Diebold won. And Bush claimed a mandate with the slimmest victory margin in the last hundred years, when even that was almost certainly illigitimate.
'05 - Mayoral - Unable to sing my name next to either Bloomberg or Ferrer, I cast my vote for Jimmy MacMillan of the "The Rent is Too Damn High" party. He loses, but you know what? It is.
As for '06, I'll vote for Hillary again, and certainly for Velasquez. But in '08, Obama isn't ready yet, and we'll know when he is, because he'll be unstoppable. I like Gore again. Just as the '00 election was a referendum on the Clinton years, whoever runs on the republican ticket in '08 will be tagged with heavy Bush fatigue. Gore, now on his own and a brilliant, personable firebrand (check out the documentary Spike Jonze made of him and his family back in the day) will give Americans a second chance to elect him, to see the road not taken, which I think would be full of pleasant surprises. Hillary's stances lately have pissed me off as well, but I write to her often to tell her so, and I don't think she'd hold to the fringe one's iff elected. She'd probably be great, but it's too much of a risk.
As for the Republicans, I read a great editorial in the Daily News (I know) the other day, which basically pointed out that Giuliani's views were, for the most part, liberal (abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc.) and that he was a lifetime Democrat until he ran for Mayor. (A Republican in New York is a centrist Democrat anywhere else in the country. Just ask Alex.) Meanwhile, McCain is uniformly conservative on those same issues, but here's the thing. McCain, being personable, constantly in the spotlight, and the only national republican to ever go up against Bush, is more beloved by liberals and moderates, whereas Giuliani, by running New York during 9-11, is more beloved by conservatives.
Now there are reasons that I don't like Giuliani - the insanity over the Sensation exhibit was censorship for the pure purpose of courting Catholics, whom he already had, but I trust him more than McCain, who is no doubt saner and more responible than Bush, but still follows a similar ideological vein.
Post a Comment
<< Home