Saturday, November 06, 2004
Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?
Cooler heads in the Democratic Party are urging a return to the center.
Leftist outriggers are demanding that they keep saying what they’ve been saying, but louder. And that even this election was “stolen” by Bush.
If I look into my crystal ball, I see a major internal fistfight coming.
The Left now has its hands on the controls of one of the two major American political parties. And they are not going to willingly let go. The Democratic centrists are shaking their heads in misery, saying, “See? I told you this would happen.”
I don’t see how these two camps would be able to reconcile their differences. Either one side will “win” or the other.
This was Michael Moore’s election. With his croc-umentary, his sitting next to former President Jimmy Carter at the DNC, and his swapping spit with Terry McAuliffe in Washington DC, I don’t think this election cycle could truly be called anything other than Michael Moore’s.
And that’s not the only problem the Democrats have. More than likely, in four years Iraq will no longer be a drag on the Republicans. And those who voted against Bush won’t have him to hate next time around. Whoever ends up at the Republican nominee, it isn’t likely to be someone directly associated with the Bush administration (though I’d like Condi Rice to give it a shot). And it’s quite possible that the economy will be doing well.
In short, 2008 is likely to be a less favorable environment for the Democrats then 2004 was. Some of those states that barely went for Kerry will likely go to the Republican.
The Democrats also have a distressingly shallow bench. As it stands, election addicts are predicting that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the single most polarizing figure in American politics, will be the Democratic nominee.
If America was unwilling to elect Jane Fonda as president, even against a vulnerable incumbent, why would they elect Fidel Castro? You know what I’m thinking right now: What are you people thinking?! Sure, she is to the right of John Kerry (and who isn’t?), but she’s Hillary. And she comes with a huge amount of baggage and history.
Personally, I’d like to avoid another round of the Rose Law Firm, Travelgate, the White House Map Room, Cattlegate, etc., etc., etc. And Hilary never had the personal charm, excellent political skills, and the confidence of her husband. Sure, he’ll be there to advise and support, but it will be her making the stump speeches and standing on stage during the debates.
Former Clinton pollster, Dick Morris, who nowadays leans to the right, is practically drooling over the prospect of HRC running. And he’s in a position to know her vulnerabilities.
So, if not HRC, who? What potential candidate could successfully gain the nomination when the party hardliners are in a Michael Moore mindset? How many “potentials” are there anyway?
Cooler heads in the Democratic Party are urging a return to the center.
Leftist outriggers are demanding that they keep saying what they’ve been saying, but louder. And that even this election was “stolen” by Bush.
If I look into my crystal ball, I see a major internal fistfight coming.
The Left now has its hands on the controls of one of the two major American political parties. And they are not going to willingly let go. The Democratic centrists are shaking their heads in misery, saying, “See? I told you this would happen.”
I don’t see how these two camps would be able to reconcile their differences. Either one side will “win” or the other.
This was Michael Moore’s election. With his croc-umentary, his sitting next to former President Jimmy Carter at the DNC, and his swapping spit with Terry McAuliffe in Washington DC, I don’t think this election cycle could truly be called anything other than Michael Moore’s.
And that’s not the only problem the Democrats have. More than likely, in four years Iraq will no longer be a drag on the Republicans. And those who voted against Bush won’t have him to hate next time around. Whoever ends up at the Republican nominee, it isn’t likely to be someone directly associated with the Bush administration (though I’d like Condi Rice to give it a shot). And it’s quite possible that the economy will be doing well.
In short, 2008 is likely to be a less favorable environment for the Democrats then 2004 was. Some of those states that barely went for Kerry will likely go to the Republican.
The Democrats also have a distressingly shallow bench. As it stands, election addicts are predicting that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the single most polarizing figure in American politics, will be the Democratic nominee.
If America was unwilling to elect Jane Fonda as president, even against a vulnerable incumbent, why would they elect Fidel Castro? You know what I’m thinking right now: What are you people thinking?! Sure, she is to the right of John Kerry (and who isn’t?), but she’s Hillary. And she comes with a huge amount of baggage and history.
Personally, I’d like to avoid another round of the Rose Law Firm, Travelgate, the White House Map Room, Cattlegate, etc., etc., etc. And Hilary never had the personal charm, excellent political skills, and the confidence of her husband. Sure, he’ll be there to advise and support, but it will be her making the stump speeches and standing on stage during the debates.
Former Clinton pollster, Dick Morris, who nowadays leans to the right, is practically drooling over the prospect of HRC running. And he’s in a position to know her vulnerabilities.
So, if not HRC, who? What potential candidate could successfully gain the nomination when the party hardliners are in a Michael Moore mindset? How many “potentials” are there anyway?
Comments:
Maybe you should forward this post as an answer to Horsey's Saturday Question, "What will it be like in 2008?"
Post a Comment
