So now that the 2006 election is over, all eyes are turning to the Presidential election in 2008. Here's my take on the early possible runners. Today I will cover a few of the Republican contenders.
First impression of Republicans:
So far, a pretty weak field. As was evident in the last election, the Republican Party seemingly lacks a leader after George W. Bush leaves office. No one in the House or Senate has stepped up to take the mantle, except for perhaps McCain. Another indication that the Republican field is weak: Rick Perry is rumored to be a possible VP selection! How does this happen? That's as big a sign of desperation as naming Trent Lott minority whip. Oh well, here's the early candidates:
1. John McCain -
positives: name recognition; seen as a Maverick so would draw independent votes; veteran; has supported and criticized Bush.
negatives: seen as a Maverick which has ticked off many in the Republican base; supported and criticized Bush; his age (he'll be 72 in '08)
chances of winning nomination: At this point, he would be the front-runner, if he can assuage the Republican base over the next 2 years, while maintaining his independent flavor.
2. Rudy Giuliani -
positives: Strong leader during 9/11; "America's Mayor;" Has little legislative record for opponents to run against; Cleaned up NY city; Well-liked.
negatives: very liberal on abortion and gay marriage; left his wife for an affair(family values?); besides being Mayor, what else has he done?
chances of winning nomination: While he is the early front-runner in many polls, there is simply no way he can secure enough of the Republican base to win the nomination.
3. Mitt Romney -
positives: Somehow as a Republican, he was elected Governor of Massachusetts; He gave Ted Kennedy his toughest election in 1994; Successful businessman; Conservative.
negatives: While this may seem very fickle, I am not sure that evangelicals in the Republican Party would support a Mormon for President. But his record and charisma may overcome his religion.
chances of winning nomination: His success in Mass. might be intriguing for voters looking to make in-roads in the NE, but his religious affiliation may hinder his bid.
4. Condoleezza Rice -
positives: She has the most foreign policy experience of any presidential candidate in 2008; She is very articulate and brilliant.
negatives: Her attachment to Bush and the Iraq War has badly wounded her chances; Unless public opinion changes, she may be doomed by the war; Also, although we claim to have come a long way over the last 40 years, she is a woman, she is black, and she is single.
Chances of winning nomination: There has been one single president in our history, 0 women presidents, and 0 black presidents. She is highly qualified for the job, in my opinion, but there are many factors that would unfortunately limit her electability in the South, where prejudice still runs high, and among independents, who are currently against the Bush foreign policy. I hope she runs, though.
5. Bill Frist
positives: Senate majority leader; Conservative on many issues.
negatives: Senators make terrible candidates, traditionally; He is out of office now, so it will be difficult for him to remain in the public eye; He supports stem-cell research, which may hurt him among the conservative base.
chances of winning nomination: I give him little chance. He seems like a boring candidate to me. Alienated many conservatives by supporting stem-cell research.
Any of those names get you going? See what I mean - so far a weak field. That doesn't mean that one of these candidates couldn't make major advances over the next two years. Political opinion changes quickly. Just ask Bush.
Next post: Possible Democratic nominees for President.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Election 2006 - A Reflection
So it turns out the polling was pretty accurate. For all the hoopla surrounding the pre-election polls, it appears that a majority of Americans oppose the War in Iraq and disapprove of Bush's leadership. While most prognosticators predicted a House takeover, few thought the Democrats would pick up 6 Senate seats. Ah, but I think there is much more to this election than just Iraq. And I think the next two years will prove very interesting with a touch of irony. Let me explain:
1. War, What is it Good for?
The War in Iraq was the winning issue for the Democratic Party this year. Six in ten voters oppose the war, and those voters voted overwhelmingly Democrat, tilting all the tight races in favor of Democrats. Clearly, the Bush administration has observed this as well, with the swift removal of Rumsfeld yesterday. (In all fairness, Bush said this was in the works for a while now, but he wanted to wait until after the election, so as to not make it a political issue. Not replacing Rumsfeld pre-election was terrible election strategy, so I believe him in this.) Bush calls on Texas A&M President Robert Gates to take the helm. Obviously, Gates jumps at the chance: What would you rather deal with - Aggies and Coach Fran's coaching strategy, or Iraq and terrorists? Pretty easy decision really. Hopefully, Gates can re-evaluate and make appropriate changes to win the war and secure the area. And hopefully he will have bi-partisan support. But...
...The Democrats campaigned on the war - calling for withdrawal of the troops and blaming everything on Bush. It was a winning issue for them. The Republicans supported the war, and it was a losing issue for them. So, in a bit of irony and hypocrisy, I believe these next two years, while the Democrats run Congress, there will be no withdrawal of the troops, but a continued gripe at Bush and the war. Finding "their" issue, the Democrats want to keep the war going to keep the pressure on the Republicans and maintain the winning issue for 2008. The Republicans, on the other hand, politically want this war to go away. So over the next two years, we may see politics reverse, with the Democrats secretly wanting the war to continue and the Republicans secretly, or publicly, wanting the war to end. If this happens, it will be politics at its worst, but I do not think it is beyond reality. (I realize this is a skeptical view of politics, but does anyone disagree?)
2. Scandals for the Party of Values... "Anti-Religion" Party Finds God?
Since 1980, the Republicans have owned the "values voter." The Religious Right has taken credit for Republican victories. But this year, results were different due to two things
a. Republicans had some scandalous dogs on the ballot. Republicans lost traditionally Republican districts due to DeLay, Foley, and some others who had contributed to scandal. One Republican candidate had his office raided by the FBI, an affair with a woman made public, and accusations that he abused his mistress as well. Great "family values" candidate there. Even George Allen ran into trouble with his mouth and lousy campaign. So much for his presidential bid in '08. After 12 years in power, many Republicans had become what they used to despise - corrupt, power hungry politicians out of touch with the real world.
b. Democrats found God - at least some did. Many Republicans were defeated, not by crazy left-wingers, but by pro-life Democrats. Heath Shuler is an example of this. Easily could be a Republican, ran as a Democrat and won. A number of pro-life, anti-homosexual marriage Democrats won this year - it will be interesting to see if the party changes, or if these are just temporary blips on the radar.
Predictions: This could be either a more conservative Congress than the last, or the Democrats will implode while trying to unify radical pro-abortion Dems with the new pro-lifers. It is easier to be in the minority party than the majority. We'll all see if the very liberal Pelosi will squelch or embrace the conservative Democrats, or whether the conservative Democrats were just wolves in sheep clothing. If the Democrats open the floodgates to investigations or impeachment hearings, I think their reign in Washington will abruptly end in '08. This was a close election, albeit one that the Democrats won. But many of these Senate races were decided by very few votes, and many of the House races too. This election could be good news for Republicans. To be out of power until '08 will allow them to run an opposition campaign to the Democrats in '08 much like the Dems did this year. And they shed the party of albatrosses like Foley, DeLay, Chafee, etc. If they're smart, they will continue to clean house and nominate stronger, scandal free candidates in '08.
Big Winners: The big winners in this election were the "Evangelical Left," led by Jim Wallis. (He would actually prefer the label of "the moral center," but he has spent much of the past 6 years hammering Bush and the Religious Right, so he is in effect functioning as the "Religious Left." Also, I am unaware of any Republican candidates he supports.) In his book, God's Politics, Wallis laments the fact the Religious Right had limited religious values to only abortion and gay marriage, while the political left held so much disdain for the religious voice. He has pushed for "values" to include abortion and gay marriage as well as poverty, war, and healthcare. He now has some voices in Congress who will echo his sentiments. At least in 2006, Wallis has shown some credibility in influencing the Democratic Party. He calls the election a "defeat for the Religious Right and Secular Left." He will now be a major player in 2008 much like Dobson and Falwell have been since 1980.
I'll talk about how I see this election influencing the choice for President in 2008 in my next post.
1. War, What is it Good for?
The War in Iraq was the winning issue for the Democratic Party this year. Six in ten voters oppose the war, and those voters voted overwhelmingly Democrat, tilting all the tight races in favor of Democrats. Clearly, the Bush administration has observed this as well, with the swift removal of Rumsfeld yesterday. (In all fairness, Bush said this was in the works for a while now, but he wanted to wait until after the election, so as to not make it a political issue. Not replacing Rumsfeld pre-election was terrible election strategy, so I believe him in this.) Bush calls on Texas A&M President Robert Gates to take the helm. Obviously, Gates jumps at the chance: What would you rather deal with - Aggies and Coach Fran's coaching strategy, or Iraq and terrorists? Pretty easy decision really. Hopefully, Gates can re-evaluate and make appropriate changes to win the war and secure the area. And hopefully he will have bi-partisan support. But...
...The Democrats campaigned on the war - calling for withdrawal of the troops and blaming everything on Bush. It was a winning issue for them. The Republicans supported the war, and it was a losing issue for them. So, in a bit of irony and hypocrisy, I believe these next two years, while the Democrats run Congress, there will be no withdrawal of the troops, but a continued gripe at Bush and the war. Finding "their" issue, the Democrats want to keep the war going to keep the pressure on the Republicans and maintain the winning issue for 2008. The Republicans, on the other hand, politically want this war to go away. So over the next two years, we may see politics reverse, with the Democrats secretly wanting the war to continue and the Republicans secretly, or publicly, wanting the war to end. If this happens, it will be politics at its worst, but I do not think it is beyond reality. (I realize this is a skeptical view of politics, but does anyone disagree?)
2. Scandals for the Party of Values... "Anti-Religion" Party Finds God?
Since 1980, the Republicans have owned the "values voter." The Religious Right has taken credit for Republican victories. But this year, results were different due to two things
a. Republicans had some scandalous dogs on the ballot. Republicans lost traditionally Republican districts due to DeLay, Foley, and some others who had contributed to scandal. One Republican candidate had his office raided by the FBI, an affair with a woman made public, and accusations that he abused his mistress as well. Great "family values" candidate there. Even George Allen ran into trouble with his mouth and lousy campaign. So much for his presidential bid in '08. After 12 years in power, many Republicans had become what they used to despise - corrupt, power hungry politicians out of touch with the real world.
b. Democrats found God - at least some did. Many Republicans were defeated, not by crazy left-wingers, but by pro-life Democrats. Heath Shuler is an example of this. Easily could be a Republican, ran as a Democrat and won. A number of pro-life, anti-homosexual marriage Democrats won this year - it will be interesting to see if the party changes, or if these are just temporary blips on the radar.
Predictions: This could be either a more conservative Congress than the last, or the Democrats will implode while trying to unify radical pro-abortion Dems with the new pro-lifers. It is easier to be in the minority party than the majority. We'll all see if the very liberal Pelosi will squelch or embrace the conservative Democrats, or whether the conservative Democrats were just wolves in sheep clothing. If the Democrats open the floodgates to investigations or impeachment hearings, I think their reign in Washington will abruptly end in '08. This was a close election, albeit one that the Democrats won. But many of these Senate races were decided by very few votes, and many of the House races too. This election could be good news for Republicans. To be out of power until '08 will allow them to run an opposition campaign to the Democrats in '08 much like the Dems did this year. And they shed the party of albatrosses like Foley, DeLay, Chafee, etc. If they're smart, they will continue to clean house and nominate stronger, scandal free candidates in '08.
Big Winners: The big winners in this election were the "Evangelical Left," led by Jim Wallis. (He would actually prefer the label of "the moral center," but he has spent much of the past 6 years hammering Bush and the Religious Right, so he is in effect functioning as the "Religious Left." Also, I am unaware of any Republican candidates he supports.) In his book, God's Politics, Wallis laments the fact the Religious Right had limited religious values to only abortion and gay marriage, while the political left held so much disdain for the religious voice. He has pushed for "values" to include abortion and gay marriage as well as poverty, war, and healthcare. He now has some voices in Congress who will echo his sentiments. At least in 2006, Wallis has shown some credibility in influencing the Democratic Party. He calls the election a "defeat for the Religious Right and Secular Left." He will now be a major player in 2008 much like Dobson and Falwell have been since 1980.
I'll talk about how I see this election influencing the choice for President in 2008 in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)