Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 12, 2006
By: Roxanne Cooper

REPUBLICANS IN '08....I agree with Atrios. Neither Frist, Romney, Allen, or McCain will be the Republican nominee in '08.

Frist lost the nomination the day he danced the Schiavo shuffle.

A Republican candidate from New England? Get serious. The Dems can't even nominate a candidate from New England.

Allen's got some personal data that's already giving push-pollers wet dreams.

McCain will again get swiftboated in the primaries. Dude will never, ever learn.

If I was a betting woman, I'd be taking a hard look at Huckabee, Hagel, Brownback and Graham. As a candidate straight from the Senate hasn't taken the Presidency in eons, smart operatives will be pushing Huckabee.

Roxanne Cooper 9:11 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (119)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Claude Allen is da man.

Of course, there is that Target on his back.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 12, 2006 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Roxanne -

Nice Drum impersonation.

I think you grossy underestimate a strong crop of republican nominees. Romney, I agree, is a RINO, but either Frist or Allen would make fine Presidents and are of Presidential timber. Allen especially reminds me a little of Bush, and Lord knows we can't let down our guard during the GWOT.

And anyway, who do the Dems have? Hillary? ROTFFLMAO!!!! Hey, but ya can always blame Diebold. Heh heh.

Posted by: egbert on March 12, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

George Allen's "personal data?" Which personal data is that, please?

Come on, spill!

Posted by: LAS on March 12, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

1. This post has nothing to do with what I personally think of these candidates. It's about who I think would survive a primary, based on how I think the Republican base would react to them.

2. The only virtual performance art I do is Michelle Malkin.

3. We're talking Virginia's George Allen here. Divorced, Arab-French mother, flip floppin' on stem cells, etc. --all stuff an evil push-poller can capitalize on.

Posted by: Roxanne on March 12, 2006 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

Repubs have a very small eye of the needle to thread. Republicans only win the presidency when they nominate a candidate from a large population state--with the exception of Eisenhower, and even he was more or less from Texas.

Posted by: KevStar on March 12, 2006 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

Allen (George!) strikes me as the sacrificial lamb, the point man who takes the shot for the platoon.

I'm sure the Carlyle Group wants Jeb, but W may have poisoned that well too much. I just don't see how Jeb gets out from behind his brother's disastrous presidency.

McCain is Rove's useful idiot right now, I have no doubt he'll be discarded when W doesn't need him for cover anymore. I suspect McCain's dream is Lieberman as his VP running mate (they may even have talked about it), I wonder if he would consider a third-party run if he doesn't get the nomination? He has the ego for it.

My nomination for dark horse candidate: Giuliani.

But only if Rove is still a kingmaker (and not an indictee) in 2008.

Posted by: Taylor on March 12, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

sorry roxanne,

You don't have clue. Chuck Hagel won't get above 3%. McCain won't get SBV'd. You still don't get it. McCain never pretended to be a hero and didn't routinely exaggerate his 'war'stories. Nor will you ever hear him report for duty.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Brownback? A good old Kansas evolution versus creationism showdown would be interesting..

Posted by: neondo on March 12, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Don't be fooled folks, it will be Jeb Bush in '08. His term as governor expires in one year and he can't run again. That give him plenty of time to organize and begin campaigning in '07. The Bushes also have a lot of dirt to coverup and keep covered up from Dubya and Poppy.

Besides, who else do the Repugs have? Frist? Give me a break. That stiff has all the charm of a mortician and a closet bulging with skeletons. Trust me, Howard Dean is praying the GOP is stupid enough to run Frist.

It will be Jeb Bush in '08, he will win, we will go to war with both Iran and North Korea and the collapse of the American Republic will be complete.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 12, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

IIRC, the only two to go straight from the Senate to the WH are Harding and JFK.

Posted by: Minnesotachuck on March 12, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Divorced, Arab-French mother, flip floppin' on stem cells, etc. --all stuff an evil push-poller can capitalize on.

You abolutely live in a liberal bubble. A divorce by itself means nothing. Reagan was divorced. You'll need a lot more dirt than divorce. An Arab-French mother means nothing and may ben be an advantage. As you know, conservatives love diversity.

But flip-flopping on stems cells is an issue. If in fact he did.

I cannot believe you named Hagel as a candidate. The man is detested by conservatives. Take Graham off your list as well.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Jeb Bush.

Seriously. Anyone thinking anything else is nuts.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 12, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Hagel!? An Eisenhower republican running for president? That would be interesting, but I doubt I'll see it in the next 20 years. American "conservatives" are slow learners.

It about makes me gag to use conservative and republican in the same breath.

Posted by: dennisS on March 12, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Baring health problems, McCain will be the man. Jeb's last name is poison now. McCain will suck up to the wingnuts and the press will carry him through. You are delusional if you think someone with no name recognition will get through.

And luckily for Freedom Everywhere, Diebold will ensure McCain's election -- he'll even carry CA now!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on March 12, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Jeb is not running of his own accord as he's made clear repeatedly. Conservatives have always preferred hiom to his brother. Family issues are the main reason.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

REPUBLICANS IN '08....I agree with Atrios. Neither Frist, Romney, Allen, or McCain will be the Republican nominee in '08.

Roxanne Cooper

As we handicap all these clowns, let's keep in mind that we have the Mother of All Clowns in the White House. If that idiot can win, any one of the above can also.

Especially against a cowardly democrat.

Posted by: Econo Buzz on March 12, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

The American people won't vote for another Bush in 2008. The GOP may be stupid enough to nominate him, but the public has had it with the BushCo dynasty. Remember that Jeb was neck-deep in the Schiavo fiasco too.

Giuliani, Rice, Arnold and other social liberals won't make it past the Religious Right firing squad. My guess is it will be some governor that nobody's even talking about yet.

Posted by: Mott on March 12, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Bill Frist has the charisma of a crab cake, only less tasty. His chances are great, as long as no one has to see him speak. Dubya may be often borderline incoherent, but folks think, "Doggone he's real excited 'bout something." With Frist they think, "No really, where are the wires?"

Posted by: papaplovesmambo on March 12, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

George Allen is a good ole boy with Confederate Flags everywhere and lynching ropes in his office. IOW, the Republican dream canidate.

Posted by: Rob on March 12, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

I've examined the video tape of Frist and I believe his ploitical ambitions to become president are in a natural self-inflicted vegetative state

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on March 12, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

REPUBLICANS IN '08....I agree with Atrios.
You mean Duncan "we're gonna win" Black? The guy who has been wrong about political prognostications as much as Dick Morris? I know you guys love him, but come on, he hosts a 'bash the GOP' web site and throws out red meat. If you're really getting your political insight from him.....well, whatever makes you sleep better.

Allen's got some personal data that's already giving push-pollers wet dreams.
And as we all know, the man who defeated Ann Richards, Al Gore and John Kerry had squeaky clean personal data.

Posted by: RW on March 12, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Ever watched those C-Span shows that just follow candidates around on the campaign trail, showing them talking to regular folks?

Watch Huckabee and get back to me if you still think he can win the nomination.

Posted by: demondeac on March 12, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Do not underestimate McCain's ability to pull together the party. The people who've spent a career despising the guy will suddenly discover that he is the only chance they have to keep power. That will be more than sufficient for them to swallow their "principles," just as it always has been.

Posted by: Bill Camarda on March 12, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Don't forget/dismiss Huckabee. The guy's not getting a lot of exposure in the media right now but I've seen him a few times and he's smart, personable and very moderate, not what you might expect of a baptist preacher. Oh, and he's the Governor of Arkansas. Tradition has it that Governors of Arkansas kick Bush butt.

I think that if this guy gets the Republican nomination he'll be a formidable candidate.

In the mean time though, the Dem's need to reclaim control of congress.

Posted by: Thomas Smith on March 12, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

As long as we dems are on our way to nominating Hillary, it really doesn't make any difference who the repugs run. Even Cheney on life support could win.

Sorry, terrorism will once again be the issue and even dem soccer moms will reject Hillary and vote for any "manly" man.

Posted by: Econo Buzz on March 12, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

The Club for Growth aren't fans of Huckabee.

Link

No guesses from me about how important their opposition is.

I also remember something about Huckabee attempting to make the tax structure in his state less regressive. In other words, tax the rich, relief for the poor. If I remember right, it didn't pass.

Posted by: Lame Man on March 12, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

And as we all know, the man who defeated Ann Richards, Al Gore and John Kerry had squeaky clean personal data.


Well, I'll give you Ann Richards and John Kerry....

Posted by: ColoZ on March 12, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

I think you grossly underestimate George Allen. Our current president had some interesting "personal data" when he was running, too.

What's interesting is that I think it's going to come down to Allen playing McCain to McCain's Bush. McCain is now the establishment candidate (which is also why he won't be swift-boated).

Posted by: jhupp on March 12, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

The American people won't vote for another Bush in 2008. The GOP may be stupid enough to nominate him, but the public has had it with the BushCo dynasty. Remember that Jeb was neck-deep in the Schiavo fiasco too.

Funny thing is, a 2 term governor of FL that the evilvangelicals support would be the GOP frontrunner if he was Jeb Smith.

Jeb vs. Hillary! in '08, it's the only both sides avoid the "family dynasty" argument against voting for them. They need each other.

Posted by: Scott on March 12, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Who is Roxanne and why does she get so confused?

Her analysis of McCain and Frist tell you she thinks the GOP primaries are like the Democratic primaries. But they aren't.

Example: She says Frist lost the nomination due to his involvement in Schiavo. Excuse me? In a GOP primary, having defended the rights of Shiavo HELPS the candidate. She would be closer to the mark if she said Frist is vulnerable for not going to the 'nuclear option' over judges already.

Example: She says McCain will be "Swiftboated," implying there will be some attack on his military record. Ridiculous. McCain IS vulnerable to charges he supports CAFE auto standards. But he will not be "Swiftboated" because all the men who served with him in Vietnam - and all the men who were POWs with him - respected him.

And by the way, George Allen has alot of support among conservatives. Personal attacks will backfire.

Try again, Roxanne.

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 12, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

And I thought some of our ancestors left the old countries to avoid that political dynasty thing.

Posted by: Roxanne on March 12, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Roxanne, you really are clueless, aren't you.

Posted by: ernie on March 12, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Being called clueless by conservatives. You should wear that as a badge of pride, Roxanne.

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK


Little Lord Lindsey?

Ah, shucks, if he was ever accused of crimes against the state, wouldn't we have to try him in juvenile court?

Posted by: g on March 12, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Wasn't it John O'Neil who advised Bush/Cheney in '00 on the McCain smear campaign?

http://salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/index_np.html

Posted by: Roxanne on March 12, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Huckabee, yeah--a diet guru for president! Dr. Phil can be his running mate!
Actually, it's probably just what our morbidly obese country needs right now.

I just don't see how McCain, the guy who was smeared as unhinged and mentally unstable in '00 is now the darling of the party. I suppose after fellating GWB so much, he might have changed.

Posted by: Ringo on March 12, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

Seriously, I accept your take on Romney and McCain.

Romney will never make it out of the Northeast, no matter what appeal he has for conservative Christians.

I agree that McCain will be "swiftboated," if by that you mean not a Kerry-style attack on his military record, but the general kind of underhanded stuff they pulled out against McCain in the 2000 primaries (he was mentally unstable, he'd fathered a black child, etc.). They did it once and it worked, so why not again?

I think Frist will be helped by the Schiavo mess in the primaries, but I think he'll lose even more support for his waffling on stem cells, not using the nuclear option on the lower court judges, and the like. Plus, he'll be running without office at the time and that'll take the shine off him.

Allen's personal dirt doesn't matter, and if he survives his re-election campaign in Virginia, I'd pick him as the front-runner. But that's a big "if" there, with former Navy head Jim Webb wading into the race.

Hagel and Graham are too contrarian to get the nod, and Brownback perhaps too beholden to the religious right.

Guiliani would be tremendously popular in the general election, but he'll never make it out of the primaries. He's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, divorced, and even appeared in drag on SNL twice. He's not going to make it out.

So, if he stays alive in '06, I'd say Allen. If not, a player to be named later.

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

But he will not be "Swiftboated" because all the men who served with him in Vietnam - and all the men who were POWs with him - respected him.

Hello, all the men who actually served with Kerry respected and supported him too--they were all on the stage with him at the convention in '04.
O'Neil and his smear group didn't actually serve with Kerry any more the you and I live together because we're both in the same country. Even John McCain condemned them.
Get a clue. Oh, and apparently you've already forgotten the "Manchurian Candidate" attacks against McCain in '00 due to his POW status. That came from the Bush campaign and other Repubs, not Democrats.

Posted by: Ringo on March 12, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

The tagline 7 dwarfs is what comes to mind with this bunch: Allen, Brownback, Frist, Graham, Hagel, Huckabee, and Romney

I've never seen a less impressive bunch of GOP candidates.

McCain and the 7 dwarfs.

Posted by: molly bloom on March 12, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Conservative (I use that word loosely) posters here seem to be under the impression that conservative fundalmentalist=Republican. On many of the issues discussed here the party is pretty split. For example, according to a WSJ poll, two-thirds of Republicans are against Congress passing interfering legislation in cases like Schiavo. And believe me, the Club for Growth, aside from their right-wing moneytits supporters, holds little sway with mainstream Republicans.

Posted by: R.Porrofatto on March 12, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

I agree that McCain will be "swiftboated," if by that you mean not a Kerry-style attack on his military record, but the general kind of underhanded stuff they pulled out against McCain in the 2000 primaries (he was mentally unstable, he'd fathered a black child, etc.). They did it once and it worked, so why not again?

Exactly. And what changed in the meantime, except that he became a blind loyalist of the same guy who smeared him, and who currently has a 38% approval rating and led us into a war which a majority now thinks is wrong? Yeah, hitch your wagon to that star baby!

Posted by: Ringo on March 12, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

What world do liberals live in? First of all, any Republican will beat Hillary. Easily. I doubt she wins a state. Nominating her is political suicide, but it'll happens because Dems love that Clinton name and she has all that money. But in your heart, you have to know that the majority of voters will not elect a woman, let alone one as demonized as Hillary, while they consider themselves to be at war.

Second, McCain is easily the favorite. His biographer plays perfectly to the times and the media loves,loves,loves him. All his recent efforts (ripping Obama to shreds, favoring the SD abortion ban, etc.) show the GOP base that he will be their man. He has learned from his primary loss.

But if he doesn't get it (maybe because of age), Rudy, Allen, or Frist are very electable nationally. Only Rudy might have primary problems.
Frist and Allen might have some negatives, but the record of Dem campiagns exploiting those is pretty dismal.

Posted by: Tom on March 12, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans will have as much trouble trying to win the presidency with a genuinely conservative Southern candidate as Democrats have had with liberals from New England. (Yes, I know that Bush is "from Texas" but let's be real here, in 2000 he counted on his father and his family's New England roots to provide moderate cover. And that still only got him close enough -- not over the top in terms of a real majority. In 2004 he had the advantages of incumbency and war, yet still won with the slimmest margin of any incumbent president in the last century.)

Their best showings in the post-civil rights years (Nixon, Reagan) have been with candidates from the West who were able to gain the support of their increasingly Southern and rural conservative base without scaring away too many voters elsewhere. (For Democrats during the same period, the situation has been reversed -- they have won with moderate Southern candidates who are able to win support in the most traditionally liberal and urban strongholds without scaring away too many voters elsewhere.)

For this reason, McCain (as the money guys know) really is their best bet. And, since this really is a top down party, I suspect, unless health issues get in the way, he will -- one way or another -- end up with the nomination. If not McCain, they might do better with one of the candidates from the Northeast -- but Rudy may be hard for the social conservatives to swallow and Romney may just not have enough national recognition or appeal.

As for the Democrats, the South is now really too Republican and too conservative to allow for another win with the same old Southern strategy. Yet, they still have faint hope of winning with one of the usual suspects from the Northeast. They need to put their energy and effort into gaining strength in -- developing strong candidates from and a new coalition with -- the West. Which may take some time. (If nothing else, Democrats should definitely put someone from one of the increasingly Democratic-leaning inner-mountain western states in the number 2 spot on the ticket.)

Posted by: esmense on March 12, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

My prediction: it WILL be Allen or McCain. I'll take them against the field.

The GOP isn't just a conservative version of the Democratic Party. By sometime next year, the Big Money will have anointed a winner. That candidate will NOT be Swiftboated. The question is, who will be anointed? It'll have to be someone who the business community and the fundies both like, and who doesn't have any major liabilities.

I've been figuring Allen to be in the mix ever since the summer of 2004. He's just too perfect a fit to be ignored. The business community and the fundies both love him, he's got the requisite experience, he's one of those upbeat types that goes down well with people, and despite allegations that he's dumber than a box of rocks, nobody's caught him doing anything particularly stupid and embarrassing. And neither being divorced, nor having an Arab-French mother, will make him vulnerable; hell, Reagan was divorced. And stem cells won't kill him either.

What's surprising to me is how well McCain's suck-up-to-Bush-and-everybody-GOP campaign seems to be working. He's met with Falwell, who's too crazy even for most fundies; the money boys are starting to rally behind him; and yet somehow his Mr. Straight Talk image never gets punctured.

McCain's the only guy who can take it from Allen, and right now, I'd give him the edge, though I wonder if the fundies will truly accept him enough for him to win it. That's the big 'if' for him.

We'll see who the big money's lined up behind, a year from now. But it's going to be one of these two. Bet on it.

Posted by: RT on March 12, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

> Second, McCain is easily the favorite. His
> biographer plays perfectly to the times and the
> media loves,loves,loves him. All his recent
> efforts (ripping Obama to shreds, favoring the SD
>abortion ban, etc.) show the GOP base that he will
> be their man.

That depends in large part if Rove is still a factor in '08. By the end of the week in which a president McCain takes the oath of office Rove will be secretly indicted for treason and sent to Gitmo, using the laws which W will have so helpfully provided for McCain's use. Rove knows this, and he will do whatever it takes to stop McCain.

However - will Rove still be a factor? He sees himself as a key player in the Republican party. However, the other possibility is that he has just been used as a tool; a tool which has lost its effectiveness and is about to be discarded. I suspect Rove is about to find out who runs the Republican (and Radical) parties. And that he is going to be quite surprised at the answer.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 12, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans are as hierarchal as a pack of wild dogs. Cheney will have "heart issues" sometime after the midterms; Jeb will be appointed and run in 08.

Probably against Hillary, which is what I would call a lose-lose situation.

Posted by: TomO on March 12, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Which leads to the next question: who really DOES run the Republican Party? And the Radicals? Both efforts are clearly organized and orchestrated, but it is not clear from the public evidence _who_ is doing the orchestrating. My bets are on George HW Bush for the Republicans and Norquist for the Radicals, but that is far from certain. Any other candidates?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 12, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Roxanne,

You are wrong. Both Frist and McCain are strong possibilities for the nomination. McCain is presenting himself as a Bush clone. Terry Schiavo will be a distant history by the time the primaries roll.

Graham? Not gonna happen. Way too many skeletons in his closet.

Posted by: Nan on March 12, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Otto Man, does Romney really have appeal for conservative Christians? It's true that conservative Protestants and Catholics have recently learned to work together, but I think they're going to have big problems swallowing a Mormon.

Posted by: KCinDC on March 12, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

*if* GWB continues his track in the polls down, then it could well be McCain v. Clinton.

For that to happen we have: 1). a housing bubble bust and 2). Iraq keeps going wrong and 3). the current scandals brew and fester, Plamegate spreads beyond Libby, Abramoff turns states evidence etc.

McCain because the Republicans will be desparate and the voters will be against anyone establishment. And because McCain talks the language of national security, but also of fiscal sense.

Hilary because she is head and shoulders in front of any other Democrat, and the one Democrat who can speak the language of faith. And the truly talented operatives like Carville are all Clintonistas.

If it is McCain v. Hilary, then McCain will win hands down. If the Republicans choose anyone else, they risk losing to Hilary Clinton.

I *think* Jeb Bush's strategy is to wait through a Democratic president in 2008-12, and be the first Bush to beat a Clinton.

If GWB goes out on a high note, having tamed Iran, settled Iraq, the economy still ticking over, maybe a major terrorist attack with the country unifying behind him, then maybe JB will toss his hat in earlier, but I can't see the party or the country going for such an obvious political dynasty.

Posted by: John on March 12, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

KC

As a Washington Monthly article explained, evangelicals have a real problem with Mormons. Mormons are, in fact, in Christian terms heretics. This will also trouble Catholic voters. 'heresy' is not a word much used these days, but even as a British Anglican (episcopalian) I can tell you it would give me pause on voting day.

Since it is unlikely Romney could even bring Massachussets to the Republican electoral table, I can't see the party going for it.

Electorally it will be hard to beat a Republican presidential candidate. Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin and Minnesota have all been tilting increasingly Red, in each successive election.

The Democrats have an emerging outpost in 'new America': call it the environmentally conscious mountain states of the new West: NM, NV, CO, AZ, now filling (like Florida) with migrants from the more liberal coasts. If they were really brave they might take a look at Bill Richardson.

Posted by: John on March 12, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP strategy relies upon winning a growing share of a shrinking demographic.

Most of the candidates mentioned already aren't 'hot' enough.

The Talibornagain wing of the GOP is now in a predicament familiar to addicts - any candidate strong enough to get them high (out to vote) is perilously close to strong enough to kill them (cost the GOP the election).

Expect a religious Goldwater -- my money's on Brownback, Catholic notwithstanding.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on March 12, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

What world do liberals live in? First of all, any Republican will beat Hillary. Easily. I doubt she wins a state.

This is stupid. Hillary would eat Frist alive, and thanks to George Bush, a dog turd would get 150 electoral votes if it had a (D) by it's name.

The Democrats made this sacrifice to end segragation. The Republicans made it so they could subject the country to a moronic drunken whore.

Posted by: Boronx on March 12, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Hello, all the men who actually served with Kerry respected and supported him too

Er, No they didn't. The SBVs did serve with Lurch but they didn't end his candidacy. Lurch told some outright lies and exaggerated much of his record making himself a very unappealing figure. He became Al Gore.

McCain is already a very appealing figure and his war record cannot be attacked. America has known his life story for 30 years. The image is set in concrete. It would merely make the attacker look like a chump. Lurch came to be something he is not. McCain has always taken the exact opposite tack. He's always claimed, "I'm no hero".

His problem in the GOP primaries will be his lack of conservatism. His vote to support the tax cuts signals his awareness of this impression and his intnetion to corrected it. If he wins the GOP primary he can coast. There are a number of things liberals can attack him on but military service is not one of them.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

I could vote for a Chuck Hagel and I could probably vote for a Huckabee. Not saying either has the juice to get the nomination but if they did, and depending on who recieves the Democratic nod, I could see myself voting for them. Frist? Dead in the water. Allen or Bronwback would be getting the safe money from me right now. I'm highly doubtful of a Jeb Bush run in '08.
Dem side, I still remain unconvinced that Hillary is going to run, let alone recieve the nomination & I'm not changing that until her 2006 Senate race is done and we see how the numbers shook out.

Posted by: Nathan on March 12, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Otto Man, does Romney really have appeal for conservative Christians? It's true that conservative Protestants and Catholics have recently learned to work together, but I think they're going to have big problems swallowing a Mormon.

I think he does, primarily because conservative Protestants and Catholics now view Mormons through the lens of Orrin Hatch. They've seen Hatch fight hard for their causes in the Senate, and I'm sure that innoculates Romney to a great deal.

Ultimately, the question may be moot -- if Brownback (or to a lesser extent Frist) makes a strong appeal to the religious right, it's not going to matter how close Romney is to them, they'll go with a purist. But if those candidates don't make it through, then I could easily see them rallying around a second choice like Romney.

But again, if Allen survives the '06 challenge, he'll be the pick. He'd be a perfect heir for Bush, since he's one of the few who holds equal appeal for the CEOs and the Religious Right. Anyone else is going to speed the unraveling of the GOP coalition.

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP strategy relies upon winning a growing share of a shrinking demographic

You have this perfectly backwards. The GOP base is expanding rapidly. The top 10 fastest growing states are RED. The liberal - secularist world in the USA is going the way of Western Europe and Russia. Secularists simply do not reproduce. The blue states will lose 7 to 10 electoral votes and house seats in the 2010 census.

You should be prayng for a Hillary victory in 2008. She is liberalisms last hope.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP base is expanding rapidly.

The country is less white,
less Protestant,
less Christian,
less observant, period,
less straight,
less native-born,
less prosperous,

every year than the year before, and the GOP is the wave of the future?

Like I'm an Adele penguin.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on March 12, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

New York, March 8, 2006 - The Hudson Employment IndexSM climbed to 108.2 in February, up 5.6 points from Januarys 102.6 reading. The rise is attributed to a significant increase in the percentage of workers and managers who expect their employers to hire, as well as improved expectations regarding personal finances. The latest Index is among the strongest readings on record, and considerably higher than the 102 recorded in February 2005.

The economy is not going to help Democrats in 2008. We have 4.8% unemployment and the strongest hiring since 2000. This is also how/why McCain can suddenly get the needed religion on taxcuts to please the base. John is very well positioned if he continues to acknowledge the base.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

You have this perfectly backwards. The GOP base is expanding rapidly. The top 10 fastest growing states are RED.

Yeah, those states represent a series of electoral powerhouses -- Idaho! Utah! Such states win the title of "fastest-growing" because such titles are given out on percentage changes, not absolute numbers. (You add 100K to a state that has 100K in it, and that's a 100% increase. Add 100K to a state with 2 million and it's a 0.05% increase.)

Look at the absolute numbers -- Utah and Idaho gained 30K and 40K, while New York lost 20K. Impressive? Not when you realize that New York still has a population of 19.2 million, compared with the 2.4 million and 1.4 million in Utah and Idaho.

Fastest-growing means nothing. Absolute numbers do. I mean, a five-year-old has a bigger growth rate than I do right now, but I'm pretty sure I could take him in a fight.

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

The economy is not going to help Democrats in 2008. We have 4.8% unemployment and the strongest hiring since 2000.

Yeah, that's going to be a real campaign winner. "After six years, we finally got the economy back to where it was when we inherited it!"

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

A little realism here. McCain will be, what, 73 in '08? I believe that would make him the oldest nominee ever to run. On top of that he had a malignant melanoma removed fairly recently. I don't wish him ill but I think either of these two factors could work seriously against him. And he has been showing dangerous signs of pandering to the 'stay the course' crowd lately. This may well be an obsolete position in another year.

As for Hillary, she makes me want to puke! Anyway, a sitting U.S. senator has other baggage to contend with, by definition. I am no fan of David Brooks but read his op-ed in today's NYT. He nails it.

A moderate Republican friend heard a talk by John Edwards recently and came away deeply impressed. Who knows what other dark horses might emerge in the next 18 months?

Posted by: RWH on March 12, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

A moderate Republican friend heard a talk by John Edwards recently and came away deeply impressed. Who knows what other dark horses might emerge in the next 18 months?

No moderate republican could ever be impressed by an ambulance chaser. If they are impressed by Edwards they are by definition liberal. Johnny boy lost even a chance at VP by not delivering his home state in 2004. Hillary will not pick him as a running mate.

McCain will only be a year older than Reagan so age will not be an issue in the GOP primaries. I'm not sure what you mean by pandering to the 'stay the course' crowd but if you mean the conservative base you are wrong. McCain has been consistently to the right of GWB on this all along. This is one of the few time he hasn't been pandering. It is clear he is working hard to attract the base.

It could not be simpler. He cannot win in the GOP primaries unless he has the base on his side. For some strange reason in 2000 he thought all he needed was the press, liberals and independents. He learned those groups can only hurt him in GOP primaries. We know from his recent support for the tax cuts he's learned the lesson well. Far from being an obsolete position conservtives form the largest single voting bloc in the country and that's not changing.

It's even more critical for McCain in 2008. Beside age he has a perfect opportunity in runing against Hillary. The gift is there for the taking.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Fastest-growing means nothing. Absolute numbers do. I mean, a five-year-old has a bigger growth rate than I do right now, but I'm pretty sure I could take him in a fight.

A five-year old isn't going to pick up 7 electoral votes in 2010 either you twit. The Red states have been picking up electoral votes in the last 3 censuses and will get at least 7 more in 2010. NY, Il and MI have been among the losers. Tx, FL and GA have been among the winners. Each of the 1st three will probably lose at least one house seat in 2010 and each of the 2nd three will gain AT LEAST one house seat.

In 2008 Hillary could pick up Ohio and win. In 2012 Ohio won't be enough. If she loses in 2008 there won't be another Presidential candidate from the North for a generation or more. It'll be a case of liberals need not apply.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Health and age definitely could be issues with McCain -- but, short of death or seriously debilitating illness they are unlikely to count him out. He has strength with independent voters, and even conservative Democrats, that no other Republican comes, or is likely to come, close to replicating.

As for Hillary -- right now the entire cheerleading section for her candidacy is made up of Republicans (and members of the media who take their cues from them). And the Republicans are touting her candidacy for their own purposes with their own base. (She makes a good bogeyman for scaring that base into acceptance of a candidate more moderate (or moderate seeming) than they might honestly wish for.)

The Democrats right now have no clear leader -- and polling on their side reflects little more than name recognition (of the three Democrats with the greatest name recognition, Hillary's biggest -- but ultimately unimportant -- advantage is that she is the only one who hasn't, yet, run for President and lost.)

What happens in the mid-terms will have, I think, a huge impact on what happens in 2008, for both parties but most of all for the Democrats. If Democrats make real gains, new leaders may emerge and familiar players may be seen in a new (positive or negative) light. The same holds true, but in a different way, if, despite the unpopularity of the administration and the Republican congress, they fail to make any real gains at all.

It's quite possible that the person who ends up with the Democratic nomination in 2008 will be someone that no one is giving much thought to right now.

Posted by: esmense on March 12, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

In 2008 Hillary could pick up Ohio and win. In 2012 Ohio won't be enough. If she loses in 2008 there won't be another Presidential candidate from the North for a generation or more. It'll be a case of liberals need not apply.

That's assuming that voting patterns remain constant in the growing states, which doesn't seem like a very safe assumption since a lot of population shift is due to internal migration. Who knows which states will be red and which will be blue in 2012? Changes in urban/rural balances seem to affect voting patterns as well.

Posted by: Hubris on March 12, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

One more reason the Republicans are touting Hillary: she's about the best fundraiser they've ever had.

Posted by: esmense on March 12, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Internal migration isn't the only reason to wonder whether political makeup will remain constant within a state as its population increases or decreases. The "red states are growing" argument also assumes that people now reaching voting age agree 100% with their parents, which seems unlikely -- consider how attitudes about homosexuality vary with age, for example. And it's also assuming that immigrants who are becoming citizens vote exactly the same way as everyone else in their states.

Posted by: KCinDC on March 12, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Good point, KC. It also assumes that new growth is replicating the old, but if you look at the counties that are fueling the growth in these states, it's largely in swing suburban districts and not in the hardcore Republican strongholds in rural areas.

Exurban counties have the largest percentage increase, but again when the numbers are small to begin with, that's to be expected. The real numbers are in tech-savvy, socially-moderate, race and class mixed areas that served as the predictive basis of The Emerging Democratic Majority.

So, yeah, some smaller Red States are growing, but they're growing in ways that are making them bluer.

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

A five-year old isn't going to pick up 7 electoral votes in 2010 either you twit.

Thanks for showing us you're as civil as you are smart.

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

The Red states have been picking up electoral votes in the last 3 censuses and will get at least 7 more in 2010.

And can you explain how those electoral shifts are going to benefit the Republicans in the 2008 presidential election? Is Diebold perfecting a time travel device?

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

As long as we dems are on our way to nominating Hillary, it really doesn't make any difference who the repugs run. Even Cheney on life support could win.

I think the above statement is nonsense. Yes, the Senator will have some baggage, and there will be challenges to overcome. But on the other hand, her advantages are likely to be formidable. The situation depends to an extent on her ability to grow as a candidate.

Thing is, though, there's a fair chance 2008 could see a weak economy. If there's a strong growth in 2008, it will be a tough fight. But if the economy's in recession (due to, say, another petroleum spike, or a real estate decline) I don't see why Hillary Clinton wouldn't be favored to defeat whoever the Republicans put up. One things for sure, she won't let herself be b-slapped by the GOP slime machine, and she's already proven that her political machine is an effective and agressive winner of political contests.

Posted by: greenie on March 12, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

The reaction to the draconian new restrictions on women's reproductive rights in South Dakota tells us a lot about the coming contest for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Virginia Senator George Allen wholeheartedly endorsed South Dakota's direct challenge to Roe. In his run to the right, John McCain tried to have it both ways. Most predictable, Mitt Romney confirmed the 2005 assessment of his advisor Michael Murphy that "he's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."

For the full story, see:
"Mitt Romney's Abortion Flip-Flop"

Posted by: AvengingAngel on March 12, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Man, rdw, you were really committed to those Repub smears, aren't you. Still, for all your committment to attacking one hero, you seem to forget all of the attacks on another war hero, John McCain. The suggestion that he'll be swift boated isn't because it happened to Kerry. Its because McCain was victim to the original swift boating. There was a major whispering campaign in place in 2000 to suggest he was unstable due to his POW experience and some Republican eager to win will gladly drag that back out. I don't think McCain is completely out, but people seem to forget that for all his popularity, he still lost by a wide margin to Bush when all was said and done. His only chance is that no one steps up as the popular choice of the "base" and he comes out ahead as two or more candidates split the rest of the votes. This scenario could give him the momentum to move past 50% in the late primaries.

Posted by: BStu on March 12, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

So, yeah, some smaller Red States are growing, but they're growing in ways that are making them bluer.

Not even close. The three fastest growing are Texas, Arizona and Florida. Each has been getting redder every year. Jeb won by 14% after Gore carried the state and Kerry hardly bothered to campaign there. We all know about Texas. GA went GOP in 2002 after over 100 years as a blue state.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

OK I just remembered why I avoid Drum's blog like poison. It's a sewer infested with little Limbaugh-addicted GOP talking point spewers like rdw.

Posted by: Mike Still on March 12, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

It'll be McCain.

They'll pick him even though he'll lose, because it won't matter, because we'll still be in Iraq.

Posted by: BC on March 12, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

rdw

Your logic fails you.

Yes a north-eastern president looks increasingly unlikely in electoral college terms.

BUT

not all liberals are from the North East. For example we have 2 Texans: GWB and LBJ. Each increased real government spending in double digits during their terms of office.

What you will not get is someone who looks clearly part of the NE intellectual elite (never mind Bush I, GWB, Gore, Kerry etc. all went to Harvard or Yale)-- JFK was probably the last president who could get away with that. You'll get a populist from the south or the midwest. Probably also with a marked environmentalist streak (very popular both in the west and east coasts-- it should be remembered one of Ronald Reagan's most popular actions as governor was to bring an end to Pat Brown's 'pave everything' policy).

So 'liberal' no. But national healthcare, action on global warming, etc. may well be delivered by a populist. Including one John McCain.

Posted by: John on March 12, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Not even close. The three fastest growing are Texas, Arizona and Florida.

Where are you getting this? This Dec. 2005 article lists Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho as the top three.

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

forget all of the attacks on another war hero, John McCain

There were no SBV type attacks on McCain or any attack from another candidate. That whisper campaign is nonsense although his reaction to it might deny him the nomination in 2008.

Because McCain went along with the suggestion it did impact the voters he in effect smeared the entire state. It's a northern sentiment that southeners are so stupid they'd fall for such a moronic campaign. Apparently McCain thinks so as well. Bad, bad move on his part. You don't insult your base.

but people seem to forget that for all his popularity, he still lost by a wide margin to Bush when all was said and done.

No one is forgetting anything. His popularity among democrats and indepentents is useless in a GOP primary and his popularity with the press is a severe disadvantage. McCain was NEVER popular with the conservative base. He NEVER had a prayer against GWB and the result shows it.

You forget the reason he's popular with the press is because he often will go against his own party. Is it really that hard to figure out this made him unpopular with the party? Duh!!

McCain has two really big things going his way, maybe three.

1)Hillary. He beats her easily. The base will vote for him if he's the surest bet among GOP candidates to beat her.

2)timing/luck - the issues that marked hin as a maverick and thus unpopular were Kyoto, Campaign finance reform and tax cuts.

Kyoto is dead.

He's supporting extending the tax cuts and he's been an ace on spending. Conservatives will accept holding the tax cuts and cutting spending to reduce the deficit. That's where McCain sits.

Campaign finance reform is no longer an issue and thanks to McCains support for Robert and Alito it will almost certainly be tossed out.

With the GWOT McCain has the best resume.

3) wisdom that comes with age. He got an ass-kicking in 2002 by GWB and time to reflect. He can have every reporter, every independent and every Democrat on his side but it means absolutely NOTHING in the GOP primaries. He now understands this. He now knows what he needs to do to get the nomination. That's get the base. If he wants to be President that's what he'll do. His support for the tax cuts strongly suggests he wants to be President. We'll know by how consistent he is with the conservative base.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

His popularity among democrats and indepentents is useless in a GOP primary

Except in the 29 states where the GOP allows all voters to take part in their primaries.

Other than that, sure, they'll have no impact.

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Roxanne,

As I wrote in the post above, McCain has nicely patched fences with the GOP social conservatives. McCain's actually been one of the biggest supporters of Bush's right-leaning judicial nominees, including Roberts and Alito, and he's also been going conservative on gay marriage and other issues. He's also out campaigning heavily for Republicans for Congress in 2006, which is bringing him crucial support from the insiders.

Remember that McCain will emerge strong in the primaries in 2008 because of New Hampshire, and he's also lining up support in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. McCain is also very popular out in the west, and among business and foreign policy conservatives-- along with, newly, the social conservatives-- McCain has solid support.

If McCain is indeed the GOP nominee in 2008, then the Democrats would be inviting unprecedented disaster, even worse than McGovern, if they were to nominate Hillary. McCain wouldn't even have to campaign-- the very presence of Hillary on the Democratic ticket would send Republican fundraising into overdrive. Maybe some like Mark Warner beats McCain in 2008, or perhaps Clark or someone like Bayh. But not Hillary. I just hope that the Dems come to their senses beforehand.

Posted by: Chazz on March 12, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

"and he's also lining up support in places like Iowa and New Hampshire."

should read, "Iowa and South Carolina." He knows where he has to focus.

Posted by: Chazz on March 12, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

not all liberals are from the North East. For example we have 2 Texans: GWB and LBJ. Each increased real government spending in double digits during their terms of office.

The NE is not the critical factor. Liberal is the problem. GWB is a big spender but he's not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Roberts and Alito are as far from liberal as it gets. His actions to aggressively disengage from Western Europe, Kyoto, UN, ABM treaty, etc., are all as far from liberal as it gets.
He has been a disaster on spending but he never ran as a small govt conservative. He ran on increasing education spending as part of his package.


None of us get the perfect candidate. Clinton is the liberal who beefed up prison construction, police spending and mandatory sentencing. We always get a mixed bag. That said, GWB is conservative.

Point well taken with LBJ. There are many southern liberals. But as a generality southerners 'tend' to be more socially conservative, more religious and less trustful of big government, northern elitists, academia, unions etc.

I don't recall the atmosphere in the nid-60s as well but I suspect Northers were just as consdescending in 1965 as in 2005. The problem is the post-68 left just became too radical. There's little question in my mind the SBVs killed Kerry by using his testimony attacking his fellow vets AND that Michael Moore was a total disaster. This nonsense of attacking America is just insane.

Liberals have gone off the track. Conservatives will never accept liberals. We breed. You don't. I have every census result since 1980 to prove it.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

It will be Jeb vs. Hillary in 2008, with Jeb pulling it out through treachery, deceit and manipulated ballots and exit polls.

Never, ever underestimate the criminality of the Bushes and Karl Rove or the gullibility of 80% of the American electorate.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 12, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

Allen is as dumb as a fucking fork. McCain is just plain stupid if he thinks he won't be fucked again by the Bushies. Whoever it is will "win" because of Diebold and the dumber Dems won't ever raise a stink about electoral fraud.

We are fucked.

Have been ever since December 12, 2000.

The Republic is toast, America is over.

It is a Mad Max future we're looking at.

Posted by: angryspittle on March 12, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

"OK I just remembered why I avoid Drum's blog like poison. It's a sewer infested with little Limbaugh-addicted GOP talking point spewers like rdw.
Posted by: Mike Still"

so, go away, then.

Posted by: Brian on March 12, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

One thing to think about in the McCain:Hillary tossup; the election can't be won without a good campaign. McCain could get overconfident, and Hillary is a very good campaigner.

I still think the GOP candidate will be Jeb in '08. The GOP will go for the tried and true name from a big electoral state. McCain's time has passed.

Posted by: coldhotel on March 12, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

The Iranian oil bourse opens for business March 20th.

Be afraid.

Posted by: angryspittle on March 12, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

"We breed. You don't."

You'd better hope that the GOP can somehow start attracting a hell of a lot more non-white voters, because the non-whites breed, the whites don't. I live in California, which used to be pretty heavily Republican. You do the math.

Posted by: Mott on March 12, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

The SBVs did serve with Lurch but they didn't end his candidacy.

Every living one who served with him stood on the stage at the Democratic Convention and supported him. Every one who has first hand knowledge of his medals verifies that he earned them.
Compared the GWBush the cowardly pussy, Kerry is the greatest war hero of all time. Anyone who denies this this is a filthy liar.
Did the military revoke a single one of Kerry's medals or awards? No, they didn't. If you think that they should, then take it up with the military. Why do you hate the United States Military? Are you a traitor?

Posted by: Ringo on March 12, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Allen is as dumb as a fucking fork.

Hey, I resent that remark.

Posted by: fork on March 12, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Word to the wise:

rdw is mentally ill.

Posted by: onus Bungee on March 12, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

You'd better hope that the GOP can somehow start attracting a hell of a lot more non-white voters, because the non-whites breed, the whites don't. I live in California, which used to be pretty heavily Republican. You do the math.

The math is easy.

Religious affiliation is a much stronger indicator of family size than race. Secularists DO NOT REPRODUCE. Those practicing a religion reproduce at high rates. Religious whites breed. Catholics do not have 8 to 10 kids anymore but 3 to 4 is still common. Secularists are much less likely to get married and if married more likely to have no kids or one kid.

Moreover, society is well into the 2nd generation of this effect when componding begins. We should be grateful for the zero population movement. 100% liberal, they volunteered to do their part to clean up the gene pool. Fortunately there are many like them who think it wrong to bring kids into this world or certainly no more than one or two. Also cool is they'll be lucky to have 2 or 3 grandchildren. Meanwhile religious conservatives are more likely to have 3 or 4 kids and 10 or more grandchildren.

You can see what happens to secularists by looking at Western Europe. Birthrates continue to fall. Many countries are starting to see falling populations and birthrates still haven't bottomed. The USA still has high birthrates and white birth rates are just as high as black birth rates. In fact blacks are 3x's as likely to have an abortion.

Liberals are breeding themselves out of existance. The facts are clear.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Kerry is the greatest war hero of all time. Anyone who denies this this is a filthy liar.

Whatever! The people have spoken on this man. He is not and will never be President.

Posted by: rdw on March 12, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

Word to the wise:
rdw is mentally ill.

point taken

Posted by: yep on March 12, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals are breeding themselves out of existance. The facts are clear.

Says the person who doesn't post a single fact, only his own biased and stupid opinions. Weak rdw, almost as limp as your dick.

Posted by: NOT! on March 12, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hagel and graham would be a tough duo to beat; solid conservatives, but more practical then ideological, and independent enough to earn the ire of the Bush administration, which will surely serve them well in a general election (and maybe even the primary) with bush's poll numbers as low as they are (and only likely to get lower).

Posted by: cramer on March 12, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Word to the wise:
rdw is mentally ill.

Yeah, I'm suddenly realizing that.

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go check on my children now. Since I'm a secularist, I've been told they don't exist.

Posted by: TR on March 12, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Owens, Colorado. Tabor hurts in the short-term but in long-term helps if he decides to run.

Posted by: Charlie on March 12, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

It's nice to see the right's traditional paranoia over the birth rates of their enemies (mongrels, minorities, immigrants, etc.) has now been inverted.

Now they're the ones screwing for global domination! Bwah-hah-hah-hah!!

Posted by: Otto Man on March 12, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Kennedy and one other congressman are the ONLY Presidents to come directly from congress. Too long of a public record to defend, especially with Repug character assasination a standard campaign theme. To the REPUGS, there is no such thing as "the gutter"

The winning candidate will not come from congress!

Posted by: oc democrat on March 12, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

I beg your pardon!

I was alive (ok, only just, but still) when Senator John Kennedy was elected president, and I am way less than one eon old, thank you very much!

Posted by: pjcamp on March 12, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

GOP Kingmakers are not stupid. They will take one look at McCain's high favorables with independents and the general electorate (besides he has a sizeable GOP base) and determine that he is the guy. Given current political dynamics, he is the only Republican who can beat even a remotely strong Dem candidate (except for perhaps Guiliani) and they are smart enough to know it. Besides, he has done enough (hugging Bush etc) to convince them he won't stray far. They will back him, he will win the GOP nomination,and he will be hard to beat by any Democrat (except for perhaps B. Obama, who won't run). I hate to say it, but it's true.

Posted by: John Bentley on March 13, 2006 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

It's Vice-President Jeb vs. Hillary and, unfortunately, the main campaign issue will be who loves Jesus more.

Posted by: Rick Alber on March 13, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

"OK I just remembered why I avoid Drum's blog like poison. It's a sewer infested with little Limbaugh-addicted GOP talking point spewers like rdw.
Posted by: Mike Still"

so, go away, then.
Posted by: Brian

You just don't get it do you, ditto-head? Brian, do you believe that our frequent exhortations, addressed to you and the other brain dead zombies of your ilk, to 'STFU and go away' is some perverse form of endearment?

You debase the very idea of rational discourse.

Go away! STay away. And STFU.

Posted by: CFShep on March 13, 2006 at 7:29 AM | PERMALINK

> GOP Kingmakers are not stupid. They will take one
> look at McCain's high favorables with
> independents and the general electorate (besides
> he has a sizeable GOP base)
> [...]
> far. They will back him, [...]

No, they won't. Because they know darn well his first act will be to wreck unspeakable vengence on said GOP kingmakers, the Bush family and its retainers in particular.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 13, 2006 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go check on my children now. Since I'm a secularist, I've been told they don't exist.


You don't have enough to make up for the many who don't have kids or have only one or two. Families must average 2.1 kids to maintain the population. Anything less and eventually the population starts to shrink. European rates are as low as 1.3 and still dropping. In most of Europe polulations will start to shrink this decade and the rate will accelerate thoughout the century.

Even more ominous for Europe is the rates for white Europe are dramatically different than for their Islamic minorities. Thus the rate for France, as low as it is, overstates the birthrates for the ethnic French.

This is why many now call it Eurabia.

The safe effect is happening here.

Posted by: rdw on March 13, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

The safe effect is happening here.
Posted by: rdw

"safe effect'??? You've been staying up late watching 'The Italian Job' again, right?

Aren't you supposed to be working on that pirate picture? Stumped by the requirement that it not be traced?

rdw: The Fruit Loops Effect.

Posted by: CFShep on March 13, 2006 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

I wanna see Condi VS Hillary.

Ding, Ding, Ding.
Ladies and Gentlemen!!!! In this corner, weighing in at 90lbs soaking wet and attempting to be the first Black AND Female president! CONDI RICE!!!!!! *HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!*

etc. etc. You get the picture. LOL

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 13, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

rdw

Careful on the European birth rate. The highest birth rates are in *northern* Europe-- Scandinavia. The lowest in (nominally Catholic) Spain and Italy.

It's another logical error to assume that the children of conservatives are always conservative. And the highest birth rates in the US are amongst immigrant groups, who are not natural Republican voters by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not natural population increase in the US that is driving the 'red states', it is migration.

The Democrats will eventually run another Southern populist. And they will win with him (or her). As they did in 1964, and 1976, and 1992, and 1996.

Whilst I think McCain is a no-brainer for the Republicans to win with in 2008, I can't see them, as yet, making that choice in the primaries.

If the housing bust happens and/or Iraq worstens and GWB keeps going on his downward spiral they might well do so.

Posted by: John on March 13, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

cfshep,


Just read and weep and pray Hillary can develop a personality in the next 2 years. Democrats lose in 2008 liberalism joins socialism as a dead religion.

Posted by: rdw on March 13, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

The stuff on Allen is old and hard to prove.

1. He got physical with wifey #1
2. Broke his brother's arm while said brother was protecting their sister from Allen's anger.

Posted by: Just saying on March 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Careful on the European birth rate. The highest birth rates are in *northern* Europe-- Scandinavia. The lowest in (nominally Catholic) Spain and Italy.

ALL European birth rates are well below replacement level and have been for decade. Swedens is very low with Denmark and The Netherlands a bit higher but still lower than France. All three are distorted by very high islamic birth rates. German, Italy and Spain are all lower and probably have already started to experience negative population growth.

It's another logical error to assume that the children of conservatives are always conservative.

I make no such assumption but there is a clear correlation. I do not assume the children of liberals will be liberal either. It is very clear the new media has had a dramatic effect here especially regarding the internet. Few people unde the age of 35 watched Dan Rather or network news. Thanks to Dan they have a radically different view of the old media. They read of his comically inept fraud from bloggers and places like Drudge. They didn't get the whitewashed versions

The clearest sign of a new generation gap is the atmosphere on any college campus. It's almost universal for the student body to be much less liberal than the faculty. What's a war without demonstrations?

And the highest birth rates in the US are amongst immigrant groups, who are not natural Republican voters by any stretch of the imagination.

That's partially true but they are trending away from the Democratic party rapidly. GWB has done amazingly well with the hispanic population, now the largest minority. Hispanics are no different than any other immigrant group. As they assimilate they blend in politially as well as socially and hispanics are doing so quite rapidly.

You may be confused with Black minorities who vote 90% Democratic. Gore got 92% and lost while Kerry got 89% and lost by 3M. Black birth rates have fallen as low as whites. Blacks are now 3x's more likely to have an abortion. They are now the 2nd largest minority and have peaked as a percentage of the population.


It's not natural population increase in the US that is driving the 'red states', it is migration.

It is BOTH. The 10 states with the highest BIRTH RATES are red. These states are also seeing migration increases as the North loses jobs and population but the fact is the South is more religious and more prolific.

Posted by: rdw on March 13, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats will eventually run another Southern populist. And they will win with him (or her). As they did in 1964, and 1976, and 1992, and 1996.

I've never heard of any of these called populists aside from LBJ who was most certainly the most liberal of the bunch. Jimmy and Billy avoided the liberal tag with slick willie running away from it as a tough on crime, no tax-increasing NEW democrat.

Posted by: rdw on March 13, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Whilst I think McCain is a no-brainer for the Republicans to win with in 2008, I can't see them, as yet, making that choice in the primaries.

McCain is so beloved in the press because he'll often poke his finger in the conservative eye. They don't like him. In a GOP primary that's a problem. He's got to make them happy. Supporting the tax cuts extension is a start. He tried to enact some kyoto-lite bill he's toast. I think he has the fever and knows he can't piss on conservatives. We'll see.

If the housing bust happens and/or Iraq worstens and GWB keeps going on his downward spiral they might well do so.

Neither will have much of an impact on him any more than any other candidate. There will be a housing slowdown but no bust. The eocnomy is terrific. The construction industry can afford a small retreat in residential becasue the commercial segment is coming to life.

There isn't anything that can happen in Iraq McCain can't blame on Bush. So far in march the casualty rate is less than 1/2 the prior year. "IF" this holds it's a major break for the GOP and helps McCain.

Posted by: rdw on March 13, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

It's funny how so many Republicans have anointed Hilary as the Democratic nominee. I hear that talk way more from Republicans than Democrats. It's way too early to declare someone the presumptive nominee. Bill Clinton wasn't even on the radar screen at a similar point, and I don't believe GWB had any air of inevitability in 1999.

I'm also not clear when Florida became a red state. Voting Republican in one election hardly makes it a red state (and before you correct me, the Miami Herald found that if all votes had been recounted in 2000, Gore would have won.)

I think the Democratic urge to retake the White House is so strong that Hilary's negtives will scare people away. The actual candidate may be yet to emerge.

As for Jeb, I think people are underestimating just how much George has trashed the Bush name. And naming him VP would not only run into a lot of opposition (the President naming his brother comes across as more than a little dynastic) but it would also not be much of a boost. VP has been more of a sinkhole for Presidential aspirants than the Senate.

Posted by: Chris on March 13, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Clinton wasn't even on the radar screen at a similar point, and I don't believe GWB had any air of inevitability in 1999.

Bill Clinton wasn't married to the president for 8 years or a Senator from NY. Hillary is the easy and obvious pick based on name recognition, a massive fund-raising advantage and huge edge with all of the critical special interest groups led by the feminists, minorities and all pro-abortion types. She'll also own the press.

She is also facing an incredibly weak bench with the top 3 challengers all proven losers in Gore, Kerry and Edwards. There isn't a single charismatic democratic politician aside from Bill Clinton.

Posted by: rdw on March 13, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

VP has been more of a sinkhole for Presidential aspirants than the Senate.

That would explain Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and GHWB.

Posted by: rdw on March 13, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly