I also think its a calculated ploy to energize the so-far lackadaisical involvement and interest in the announced 2008 Republican candidates, versus the Hollywood blockbuster meets the Super Bowl excitement over Obama and Hillary! etc.
this from RCP Blog:
At the end of this clip from ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos and George Will have this interesting exchange:Stephanopoulos: If this now declared deadline of Gen. Petraeus of September, if the political goals haven’t been met by then, do you see large scale Republican defections at that point?
Will: Absolutely. They do not want to have, as they had in 2006, another election on Iraq. George, it took 30, 40 years for the Republican Party to get out from under Herbert Hoover. People would say, “Are you going to vote for Nixon in ’60?” “No, I don’t like Hoover.” The Depression haunted the Republican Party. This could be a foreign policy equivalent of the Depression, forfeiting the Republican advantage they’ve had since the ’68 convention of the Democratic Party and the nomination of [George] McGovern. The advantage Republicans have had on national security matters may be forfeited.
Well for one thing, the thesis that the Depression killed the Republicans until, what is he saying, at least 1960? The Republicans lost big in the early 30’s, when the Depression was on, but the GOP gained 75 House seats in 1938. The Dem’s had to run FDR 4 friggin’ times to make sure they held the presidency, and Truman nearly lost it. They did lose it for 8 years following and Nixon may have actually defeated Kennedy if rampant fraud hadn’t handed him Illinois, at least. So that “depression killed the R’s for decades” is pretty shaky, factwise. It did take a while to regain Congressional majorities, but incumbants are hard to unseat once seated, and there’s other reasons like party affiliation, which did help the D’s during the Depression, when some of those geezers died off sure it helped the R’s take Congress, finally, in ’94.
The other point is all this “get ready for president Hillary”, and columns about how a Democrat president is inevitable, seems weak in the face of the face McCain and Guiliani have been beating all Dem comers head to head for years now. There’s some movement back and forth but its sure not a Hillary! landslide. Reporters seem to veer between calling Hillary RC unelectable and a shoo-in.
Obama will not be elected president, probably ever, because he’ll never be hotter than now, but certainly not this cycle. He’s too young and inexperienced, and I have a sneaking suspicion that most Americans are, well not to say racist, but uncomfortable with blacks enough that they are not yet enlightened enough to elect a black person chief executive. I don’t even think he can get nominated. Edwards is an empty suit with a pantload of demogoguery and he’s becoming a punch-line over his inept publicity team. And why would anyone want either of them for Veep? Edwards can’t even deliver NC and blacks will vote for the Dem candidate anyway, why have a black VP? He adds nothing but a neophyte a heartbeat from the presidency.
Hillary, what can you add. No one likes her, never have, never will, and now that there are alternatives to get behind just to spite her, many Dems are doing just that. They won’t vote Republican, but I’d guess they’d sit it out if a centrist like Guiliani gets nominated.
Hillary will probably win the nomination, not-with-standing the magic negro, and will get thumped in the general. This is her one shot, the next generation of politicians will leave her irrelevant in 2012 (I’m willing to concede Guiliani might be a one-termer) and she’ll lose and end up a bitter life-long senator, like Teddy Kennedy, and will be an over-the-top partisan and thorn in the side of every Republican prez until she dies. She’ll get to continue being a liberal darling, the far left will like her better as an “old lion” of the Senate than an actual prez candidate, she and Willy (before he dies of a heart attack in the next decade or so) will rake in millions on speaking fees and etc. and she’ll continue to be a celeb and continue to have her grating voice and opinions forced on the public, which is her main aim anyway.
The country doesn’t love the war, but I think a majority think its necessary, it needs to be finished properly, and they don’t blame the Republicans for it, or 9/11. President Bush has (knock wood) thus far kept any other terrorist attacks from occuring on his watch, things are improving on the ground in Iraq, and someone is going to have to take on Iran sooner or later. I still think the Republicans have the advantage here. The short ‘vacation from history’ is over and not likely to recur.
If Fred Thompson does throw his hat in, he’s going to win hands down. He’s personable, he’s not gaffe prone, he has no skeletons (well, so far anyway, things look good, I’m sure Hillary and Co. are digging) and he seems presidential and seems like a nice guy. I forget who said it, but usually, and especially in the TV era when everyone in the country gets a close-up look at the candidates, the most likable person wins. Both Nixon candidacies and Bush/Clinton ’92 are too close to objectively call in ‘niceness’, but other factors were in play. But when someone undeniably dour (Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Mondale, Carter 2nd election, Kerry) runs against someone sunny but tough (Reagan, Bush I&II) then the sunny guy is going to win.
I think it has something to do with “I gotta look at this guy and listen to his speechifying for the next 4 years”. I think Teresa lost Kerry millions of votes because people didn’t want to listen to her shit for the next four years. Same with Hillary. Find me a single person who wants to be hectored and lectured for four years. She can’t talk without nagging. Now, Obama could give Thompson a run for the money in the sunniness dept. but Thompson is typecast as president. People can see him as presidential. Obama reminds me of that guy in The Gods Must Be Crazy. Likeable, but a little daffy and doofy. And there’s the name problem too. President Obama? And the whole Hussein middle name thing. I don’t think Alf Hilter could have won post WWII either, to be fair, its just bad timing on his part.
Anyway, the demise of the R’s is way over-exaggerated, and number two I don’t see a Dem that can be reasonably imagined as winning. I see at least 3 R’s who could almost win in a walk if nominated, McCain is borderline, but conservatives aren’t going to vote for Hillary, I don’t care if the actual Osama were running against her, and in fact its going to fire them up, a lot more than she’s going to energize Dems who don’t even like her in the first place.
The Republicans will win the presidency in 2008, period. In order of probability, I’d call it Guiliani, Thompson, McCain, but only because Thompson has not yet declared, and possibly may not run at all. If he does, it will be a battle between those 2 and McCain will drop out after the first few primaries (when he comes in 3rd consistantly). I don’t see Thompson as a Veep (why would he be veep instead of a Senator? Its a step down) and a one-time frontrunner isn’t going to accept the 2nd slot, so Thompson/Guiliani is a non-starter, although geographically it sure is a nice fit.
I think Guiliani is a gaffe waiting to happen, his personal stuff is problematic and he’s not ideologically pure enough. He’d win, but conservatives would be holding their noses, and he’d never be loved, as GWB _is_ among Republicans, whether Democrats and the MSM believe it or not, and no matter how much they hate him. Thompson would be an easy 2 termer with coat-tails and the base would love him. And they’d love him more for crushing Hillary (I don’t think a landslide, at least electorally, is out of the question.)
Anyway, that’s what I think.