I've been thinking about making a bumper sticker that reads "bumper stickers are for assholes". ZRB, do you want to be the first person to test market it?
While Powell could be a solid candidate, I think there are better...In either party. Many people think he should be the man, simply because he is black. I think it would be great if we could get an African-American or Woman into office, but they shouldn't be elected just because they are.
I think it was Achebe who about a month ago posted a thread talking about the division among the Republicans and what direction was the party going, etc. I said at the time it was merely a cycle...I stand by that today. But let's keep in mind, it was the left that ultimately split votes in this last election. There is a growing disconcernment with the Dems by many liberals who are embracing the Green Party. There was an editorial written in by a Chronicle reader the other day talking about this. He was a lifelong Dem who is fed up with the Dems who seem to be embracing more conservative views. Instead, he's choosing to not vote Dem again and to embrace a party more closely aligned with his concerns...the Green Party. How can that be anything but bad for the Dems??? It forces them to either 1. lose many of their more left/liberal voting bloc..or...2. forces them to adopt some policies that mainstream voters just aren't cool with. It's always been said that America is more conservative than appear...they are just afraid of being labeled as such. Dubya wins this next election hands down if the Greens run again and split the left vote in any way. He was not running as an incumbent or even as a VP from an incumbent administration last time. All the advantages were on the other side. He's also finally getting good press...even from liberals. Dan Rather wrote a nice little piece about a week ago talking about how, though he didn't agree with Bush on many things, he thought the first 6 months of his presidency were as productive as any president he'd ever covered. Keep underestimating him and he'll roll right over you...those were nearly the exact words of Bill Clinton after he met Bush.
I do think some of us underestimate Bush, particularly myself. Perhaps we democrats got spoiled w/ the notion of 'success' when the only 'success' the democrats have experienced in the past 20 years was to elect a president, though brilliant, that one would be hard pressed to differentiate between many moderate republicans. We also perhaps underrepresent the liberal population of the US. Many of the young liberals today would never vote for the corporation known as Gore... though moderates would insist that they're being impractical or that they gloss over significant differences (I'm not sure this is really true though). The moderates can pat themselves on the backs on their 'electable' campaign, and insist many of Nader's voters wouldn't have otherwise voted... but the liberal voice is getting a stronger platform. Eventually many moderates that rode on Clinton's coattails will spiritually go back home. A charismatic fiscally moderate/conservative, socially liberal candidate could bridge that gap and cease the schism... but I'm not sure there are too many of those. On that note, I'll just pray that Ventura and McCain at least make it interesting in '04. BTW MadMax, I'm not sure I posted that thread... perhaps though..
Many good points MM. However as much as the things you discuss were going for him, there were some big negatives. Namely 1) guilt by association (w/Clinton's); 2) him just not being perceived as likable. Al Gore's views are closer to the center of American politics than Bush's and indeed he did get more total votes than Bush. However Bush did a very good job presenting himself as moderate, enough so that sufficient swing voters went his way on likability to make the election so close he could get the electoral margin with a good roll of the the dice. (Let's not forget how close the election was in both popular and electorial votes). As you also say Al Gore was not good about getting Green voters, I think this also was in part do to his lack of ability to inspire. I believe if the Demo's had a candidate of equal likability than Bush, they would have had a safe margin in 2000. That said, things will change by 2004. Bush has not been playing to the middle on a lot of issues that has turned off many middle roaders. I think people are more likely to see real differences between the parties they didn't see in 00, and this will not work for the republicables. Of course maybe the electorate won't remember what Bush did his first 1 year and he will swing middle the last 2 years and get away with it--especially if the economy is healthy late in 2003. IMO, the surest way to not underestimate Bush is to put a more coherant and more charismatic ticket togther than Gore-Liberman in 2004.
