He won't make it out of the R primaries. Period. Unless there's some kind of gigantic softening of the Republican party of the next four years (which, I suppose, COULD happen.. given the current situation)
To hell with it. If those are the possible candidates, aside from McCain, we'll get a Democrat in the White House. Keep D&D Civil!!
Santorum is an utter crank. Not especially far to the left of Bauer or Keyes. He'd be fun in the debates, but he can't get the nod. Jeb's a moderate. Far more moderate than George. He's right of McCain on some stuff, but not enough to make it an issue. Can you see Jeb making the argument that McCain's not conservative enough? I can't. I don't see Rice running. She's not particularly comfortable campaigning. I think she likes her desk. Would be super interesting if she did though. And incompetence is obviously not a dealbreaker. You might have something with Frist. He's credible, has the microphone and he'd play well with conservatives. I'm not convinced he's very far right of McCain though and he's certainly not especially dynamic. Remember too that Giuliani is almost certainly in this thing (Pataki could be too) and, in the beginning, he and McCain have to be the frontrunners. They're the big names and they're very popular on both sides of the aisle. It's hard to tar McCain with a too left label without hitting Rudy too. I tend to think anyone who tries it will be marginalized a la Bauer etc., but I'm prepared to be wrong. There's a lot about GOP voters I don't understand at all. I also think you guys are underestimating McCain's conservative credentials. He's not a party line guy, but he is a true conservative. In many ways -- particularly with regard to fiscal responsibility -- he can argue he's more conservative than the party. On social stuff, apart from abortion, he isn't very right wing though. And, yeah, that could hurt him. Against the people you mentioned, I don't really see it though unless it's Frist.
While McCain has a certain appeal, he seems to have gotten more prickly as the years go by, I'm not sure if this would wear thin. Also he has a tendency to focus on reality, which is not a winning tactic if reality is unpalatable, as we saw this year.
Look for Josh to convince Jimmy Smits to run on the democratic ticket. Bingo Bob is a douche, Baker is out, Hoynes is a public relations casualty. Besides they wouldn't of signed that kind of eye candy just to have him pass the patients bill of rights and retire to private practice in Houston. And it sets up the most of the current cast to stay on if the ratings stay up and their contracts stay reasonable. I'd vote for McCain but realistically a maverick can be more influential with a bully pulpit that doesn't require the kind of compromise and back scratching the president has to do. There is probably no limit to the 6 year terms he can have in AZ.
Gene: I've been saying that since Smits first appeared. Isn't this season great? And wouldn't a Smits-Alda race be awesome?
Mitt Romney is who runs on the right. Unless his being a Mormon hurts him, I think he's got the best chance to run away with it. Romney is a Republican that got elected in Massechusetts, and he gets to talk about what the courts and the Democratic party is doing to the sanctity of marriage without being far out like Santorum. Not to mention, he's a good lookin' fella too. Frist is creepy looking. Looks like the Republican version of Kucinich. Jeb has said he wasn't running, although you never know. Those Bushes aren't too good with truth. If he ran, I think he'd have a good chance on name alone. Independents like McCain, Democrats like McCain, but Republicans- eh? They can take or leave him. I see Rudy, McCain (and maybe Pataki) splitting the moderate vote. I think McCain would likely win the election, by the way, just not the primary.
For Batman with respect. Trying to give you a reason not to vote for McCain. link McCain may be a work in progress (aren't we all?), evolving away from the Goldwater certainties of his early career to a kind of centrism. But the evidence of that conversion is thin. That analysis mostly comes down to this: Conservatives are dorks, and liberals are cool. McCain is a cool guy, therefore he must be a liberal. Nobody like him would try to turn back the clock on, say, abortion rights, would he? But of course he would. Any time McCain's been given a chance to act on abortion, he's voted to curb it. As Bruce Shapiro recently described in Salon, McCain has voted to deny federal abortion funds to low-income women, prohibit abortion at U.S. military bases overseas, and he supported a rider to an international aid bill that blocked all global family-planning funding, not just for abortion. Last year, he sponsored legislation that would have made it a felony to transport a woman under 18 across state lines to thwart parental-notification laws. Of 86 votes on abortion rights issues, he voted the so-called pro-life line 82 times, according to the National Abortion Rights Action League. It's true that last summer, while preparing for his presidential campaign, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that he wouldn't support efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade because it would drive pregnant women to "illegal and dangerous operations." But he quickly backtracked on the statement, and reaffirmed his support for reversing Roe. To his relative credit, he has pushed a big-tent Republicanism on the issue, refuses to make opposing abortion a litmus test for his vice president or Supreme Court nominees, and was brave enough to suggest the Republican Party platform be amended to allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, which the cowardly Bush won't back. The National Right to Life Committee has repaid him by running attack ads in South Carolina (though they're madder about his drive to ban soft money than his few conciliatory gestures on abortion). But even though only 14 percent of Americans polled want to see abortion illegal, McCain has chosen to play to them, at least for the primaries. He's had a similar failure of nerve on South Carolina's Confederate flag. The first time the issue came up, the straight-talking McCain got it at least partly right: He called the flag "a symbol of slavery," though he said whether it flew or not was a decision best left to the state. Soon after that he reversed himself on this crucial issue, just as he did on Roe vs. Wade, and defended the flag as "a symbol of heritage." At the time I wondered if the Arizonan knew "heritage" was a Southern code word for rehabilitating the Confederacy, slavery and all. Then I learned: Of course he did, because his key South Carolina strategist, Richard Quinn, is editor-in-chief of Southern Partisan magazine -- kind of a Southern Living for Confederacy lovers, except for all those nasty articles about that race traitor, Abe Lincoln -- and a paid consultant behind the effort to keep the flag flying. To me, McCain's keeping Quinn on his payroll is even worse than his flip-flopping on the flag itself. The list goes on. Though he's been called "moderate" on social issues, he opposes many gay-rights measures. His environmental record is weak. And while he may offer straight talk about adultery, he's had a forked tongue on key policy issues. He says he supports the conservative flat-tax proposal, but doesn't think it should apply to Bill Gates and some guy who makes $30,000 a year (memo to McCain: that's exactly what a flat tax would do). He wants every American to have health insurance, but doesn't want the government to pay for it, and gets flustered when forced to talk specifics about health care issues. On education, it's Bush who is the liberal choice, because his proposals for demanding accountability from run-amuck education bureaucracies and for closing the unconscionable achievement gap between rich and poor, white and non-white, is the best news on the education front for a long time. Until recently, McCain's only educational proposal was a school voucher experiment. For the right, school vouchers are the equivalent of the partial-birth abortion issue, draining tons of political effort for a matter that will affect a tiny minority. Conservatives like McCain would apparently rather fight teachers unions with the symbolic vouchers issue -- which will reach a small proportion of kids -- than take on the tough work of reforming public education. That would include taking on teachers unions, frankly, but in a meaningful and not merely symbolic way -- and in a way that would benefit millions of kids. On Thursday, he tried to flesh out his education ideas, but the hodgepodge proposal only showed his lack of experience on the issue. So in the end, I flirted with John McCain, but I left my registration Democratic." **************** "Liberals believe that McCain is a soft-spoken moderate Republican. The shabby treatment he received in 2000 at the hands of Bush and Karl Rove, whose operatives falsely claimed that he had fathered an illegitimate daughter with an African-American hooker, earns him sympathy from the left. So does the maverick style he employed to push for campaign finance reform. But McCain isn't what people think he is. "At the end of the day," said the chatty aide, "he's a Republican." His campaign finance reform banned soft money contributions, a much bigger source of funds for Democrats than Republicans. Later in 2000 he played Bush's b****, campaigning for the man whose staffers had smeared him. By all accounts his understated tone quickly rises to accommodate a sharp temper. Most of all, McCain's Arizona constituents vote for him because his conservative politics match theirs. "I am pro-life," McCain wrote on his 2000 campaign website. "I oppose abortion except in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. I support the coBatman, nstitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. [I will] curb the gratuitous violence in the media that "is desensitizing our culture to violence. Bearing arms is a constitutioFor Batman, nally protected right." How could liberal voters support Kerry-McCain knowing that a pro-life, flag-burning-obsessed, pro-censorship gun nut was a heartbeat away from the big leather chair?" link
Batman,I missed your previous reply so take the last post for what it is worth. I say Dean for DNC chair. I was very impressd by his rally in Herman Park with 1500 folks, mostly young. Just like McCain is no liberal, Dean is no flaming leftist. My strategy is that the one non negotiable Demo plank is Medicare for all Americans. You don't want it? Don't use it. None of the complicated Hiliary Clinton, insurance company dominated, unexplainably complex crap. If you can't explain it, you can't promote it. Let the GOP/Insurance Lobby claim that Medicare forces you to go to government doctors, when people just have to ask their parents or grandparents to unmaks the GOP and their insurance company contributors as liars. Aside for the 45 million and growing without insurance it would free up some jobs for younger folks. I bet there are a couple of million folks in their 50's and early 60's who would quit work today if it wasn't for the fact that they would lose their health insurance. Let the GOP explain how going without health care is a family value.
glynch: McCain's abortion stuff doesn't really move me since I'm pretty much pro-life (anti-death penalty, vegan, etc. What's your diet by the way, since I know you value ethics.). I do come down ultimately pro-choice, but it's a struggle and I understand why people like McCain (and Kucinich) have struggled with this issue. As for the rest, yeah, he's a Republican. But as Republicans go, he's one I can respect. Give me a Democrat I can respect and I'll definitely vote for and work for him. If the Democrats nominate someone I could respect though, it'd be the first time. I hope they do it but I'm not counting on it. And I say again, they have under four years to convince me not to vote McCain. If I vote Republican for the first time in my life though, that's on them not me. I'm a Democrat and they haven't asked for my vote since I reached 18 (I'm 35). No great surprise I might defect to vote for someone I could respect.
I like how, if you read deep into glynch's post, the word Batman keeps appearing inappropriately. It's like some kind of propaganda tactic. And it's utterly charming. serious: Good call on Romney. Think he'll run? The moderate vote's gonna come down to one guy in the GOP primary. It might split early (and by early, I mean the polls), but it's gonna come down to one guy. Unless it turns into a race between mods which is also possible, though I have a hard time featuring a hard nailed race between McCain and Giuliani (and I have a strong feeling Rudy will drop long before it comes to that if he runs at all). Regardless, one of those two guys will be one of the last two guys standing. And I predict here, with confidence, whichever of the two it is will win the nomination. It won't be Romney, it won't be Santorum, it won't be Frist (and those are the only guys sincerely to the right of McCain) and I seriously doubt it'll be Jeb. I think it's gonna be McCain or Rudy and I think either one's hard to beat. Next question is who's the Dem?
just an aside... Rudy will never get the nomination in my opinion. You think Kerik has skeletons in his closet? Wait until they start digging into Rudy's past. just my 2 cents
I couldn't agree more. Americans do vote for character -- especially when a clear vision of where the candidate wants to take the nation is added to the character equation. Also, IMO the nation will embrace a candidate who offers postive, unifying -- as opposed to negative, divisive -- positions. Vomit us moderates out if you like but moderates hold the keys to the kingdom. I don't see a John Kennedy or a Ronald Reagan out there yet, but both of these visionaries came out of the blue (nationally speaking). Incidentally, by 2008 age will be a serious factor in a McCain run.
I thought everybody knew it was Obama? Just joshing, kinda. I think its a race between Vilsack, Warner, Kerry, Hillary and "the skinny black kid with funny name." Edwards may run also, but I'd bet my moniker against his getting it. And for obvious general elction reasons, I really hope it aint Hillary. I think Kerry, Vilsack or Obama have the best chances. But, I had never heard of Dean or Clark before 2002 or 2003, so who knows who may pop up. Saw Michael Moore suggest Tom Hanks or Oprah the other day on Barbara Walters. You really never can tell. I really think Obama's got a hell of a shot, if he can keep the fire, which I think he can. Everybody loves him. To quote my parents in law, who by the way are evangelical Christian Republicans, "I like that Obama, he's got common sense, I really like him" to quote my swing voting mother, "he's like magic, isnt he?" Yes, Mom. He is.
How do you see Nixon as coming out of the blue? He was on the national stage from the forties (as a popular commie hunting senator) on to the seventies. He was vice president for eight years before running for president the first time for gawdsakes. His next run he was a former vp and former Republican candidate. Dont mean to nitpick, just not sure what you're saying here.
thumbs: True on McCain's age thing. His cancer could come back too. Either way, he'd be the oldest first term president ever. serious: I would love for it to be Obama, but he's got the same experience issue Edwards had running as a first term senator. On the other hand, he's neither as boyish nor as much of a huckster. If he runs, he'll likely have my support. You seem like you like Vilsack. Are you enthusiastic about him or are you just playing the odds? Likewise Warner. And I don't know how you're giving Kerry a serious shot. His connection problems are ingrained. They're not getting fixed. I could sooner see Gore.
thumbs: My thing with moderates is that the middle keeps moving. If moderates held the keys to the kingdom, Kerry would be president. Not because he's a moderate, but because there's never been a more radically ideological president than Bush. Presidential elections just don't break according to issues or ideology. They don't break according to positive message either. Edwards is the first example of that from the last cycle and Bush is the second. I don't remember the numbers, but Bush's negative : positive ad ratio was off the charts. Negative campaigns, smear tactics and, as of the last time around, playing to the electorates fears are at least as successful as Morning in America style campaigning these days. But in the end it all comes down to the guy you trust and the guy you like. McCain can rule the guy you trust stuff and do well on the guy you like stuff unless Obama's in. He's got likeability all over.
