May 6, 2006

Let's talk about the 2008 election.

Political analyst Charlie Cook has pithy analysis of the 2008 presidential possibilities: 11 Republicans and 11 Democrats. How pithy is it? Check out the analysis of Bill Frist:
Has the national platform and exposure to launch a strong campaign, but lacks the communication skills and political instincts to capitalize on it. Going nowhere.
Ow.

I'm glad to get a chance to think about 22 individuals instead of the 8 or so that usually cross my mind. (Hey, Condi's not on his list.) But I must say looking at 22 doesn't make me feel any better. I don't really like anyone. I never do. It's nice to have 22, but I'm still feeling bad that this is all we have -- the usual collection of governors and senators. I'll need to see real campaigns and get used to the characters that actually manage to go forward before I can tolerate the image of any of them as President.

The piece is titled "Circling the White House." Is he calling them vultures (and Bush dead)?

29 comments:

Billiam said...

As I see it, most of the pessemism comes from seeing too many candidates from either party say one thing, then, when elected, do another. It's a low trust factor. I no longer trust any politician. Especially those who've been in office as long as some of these yahoo's have.

dick said...

Billiam,

I can see your point but then there are certain things that need to be known in order to do the office. Just what is the balance to be struck? How much is been in office too long vs not enough experience?

I can see that there is nobody on that list that really excites me except Rudy and that is because I have seen what he was able to accomplish in a city that was supposedly ungovernable. Who was left off besides Condi? How many of these are even factors? I cannot imagine supporting Tom Tancredo or Sam Brownback at all and have never seen anything to tell me they are even in the running.

DBrooks said...

Right off the bat, he promotes McCain, dismisses Guiliani, and calls Hagel "impressive," and "a real comer in the party," which sounds suspiciously like a Democrats idea of the Republican Party. I am aware of Cook's reputation, but he was way off on a lot of his predictions in the last election. Some of these profiles seem accurate to me. Others seem like wishful thinking.

Joe said...

I was also surprised at the dismissal of Rudy, saying he probably would not even run - he was in Iowa this week.
Surprising that Lieberman was not listed among the Democrats - the only hawk in that party, that I know of anyway.
I am a one issue voter, and that is the war, which is why I support Giuliani. His views on abortion, gay rights etc. do not matter to me. Lieberman would be the only Democrat I would consider voting for, if the Republicans nominate someone weak.
Not that anyone cares what I think!

Simon said...

Said it before and will say it again...McCain/Gingrich '08 might be the way to go.

Elizabeth said...

We just had 23 people run for mayor, but in the end, it came down to the two entirely predictable candidates, the incumbent and the lieutenant governor. The benefit of the crowded field, minus the cranks (my favorite: Manny "Chevrolet" Bruno, "A Troubled Man for Troubled Times"), was that we had a few robust debates, with credible people throwing out ideas and challenging status quo policies. I don't recall a time in my town where politics has been so widely discussed in public meeting areas, with such interest and vitality.

dave said...

my biggest concern after reading that is that I have no inclination to like ANY of the democrats on the list.

Wade_Garrett said...

This is a weird article. In New York, everybody assumes that Guiliani is running, and nobody thinks that Pataki is running. I think that everybody agrees that Guiliani has the best leadership skills of anybody in the field; I can really see him being president. However, beyond his liberal social positions, he also had that recent messy divorce/adultery thing that was a non-scandal in New York, but might create electibility issues in the red states. Warner is a joke -- he's a straight-up racist. If he runs, he'll hand the Democrats Florida on a silver platter.

Far too often, Republicans pronounce the words "pro-gun control" and "pro gay rights" as if they rhyme with "huge pussy." I'd like to think that, if Rudy ran, they wouldn't be able to get away with that garbage. Then again, I never thought they'd be able to make W. look like more of a war hero than the silver star, bronze star, and purple heart-winning John Kerry, but they somehow tricked the public into believing it.

Seven Machos said...

A triangulating candidate will win this election. By that I mean, a candidate who can finesse positions and come up with some new ways to tackle current domestic problems.

Bill Clinton did that in 1992. Hillary! will try but I personally predict she will be unsuccessful.

I think the biggest issues on the table today are the war and immigration. A candidate who makes those the centerpiece of his or her campaign can win.

As far as Rudy on gun control and abortion and gay rights, a simple statement that he would leave it to the states, or even localities to decide them all would go over well. There's no reason why Tupelo, MS cannot have lots of guns, no abortions, and no gay marriages while New York City can have no guns, plenty of abortions, and plenty of gay marriages.

One last thing, Professor Althouse: what do you expect? The usual collection of governors and senators is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's when iconoclastic businesspeople and preening plaintiffs' attorneys who won asbestos lawsuits and bought a Senate seat four years before start running that you should get concerned.

Wade_Garrett said...

Saying that Gingrich is untainted by the current mess in Washington is true, but disingenuous. There were a lot of ethics charges brought against him and his Tom DeLay, JC Watts and Ron Livingston were among his top lieutenants. While he was the Speaker of the House, his promotion of the Lewinsky investigation as a major campaign theme in 1998 resulted in the biggest political victory for a sixth-year president in US history. I think the Republicans would make a big mistake if they nominated him.

Seven Machos said...

Gingrich would make a great member of a cabinet. He would have made a great Speaker. He could have been Tip O'Neill, but he let hubris get the best of him.

Human frailty, man. It sucks.

SippicanCottage said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

Seven: "what do you expect? The usual collection of governors and senators is a good thing, not a bad thing."

It's what I expect. I have gotten used to it over the years. It's just dreary. Not that I want excitement. That would probably be worse.

(Written before I read Sippican's comment, which I agree with.)

MadisonMan said...

Why are more of the democratic likelys senators? Senators are inherently inelectible as President. Of the 11 on the list, I'd say Vilsack is the best candidate.

I like Gingrich as a politician: he is entertaining, and fairly consistent in his platform (which I disagree with). But he has the morals of a horny hermaphroditic slug. Do I really want to see attack commercials with him forcing his ailing wife to sign divorce papers? No. Thank. You. He would make a great Cabinet member, I agree. HHS, or something like that. The absence of Condi on the list is odd.

Where's Colin Powell on the lists?

vw: zozoz

Elizabeth said...

Sippican, you are onto something. It was exactly the ordinariness of most of the people in the field that made this a good experience. Some had public recognition from previous endeavors, and others were simply decent folks who said "I'd like to serve." They did the job of putting issues on the table, basically. And it was the case as well in most of our council races. Boring, but decent, folks. The mayor's run-off was, as I said, predictable. But some of our council seats changed hands, and the people elected, or now in a run-off, may offer a little relief from the politics of personalities and political machines. Time will tell.

Elizabeth said...

Sippican, by the way: I thought about you yesterday at the Jazz and Heritage Festival. You would have passed a good time! We started with Native American dancing and drumming, then to Cuban dance music, and later to Long Tall Marcia Ball (funky, roadhouse piano diva). Much food later, we spent 5 minutes watching Chris Owens, who defies description. Can you imagine a 70-year-old Madonna/Tina Turner cross, with drag queen style? After her, some Mardi Gras Indians reminding us that we won't kneel down, not on the ground. The best ended the day, Angelique Kidjo, an African jazz/fusion singer with a fantastic band made up of players from all over Africa, Brazil and the Caribbean. Sunday, we're going back. Fats Domino is closing the festival.

SippicanCottage said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Johnny Nucleo said...

SippicanCottage said: "'Exciting' candidates are a sign of a kind of breakdown I think."

Twice now in these forums have you made points that are so blindingly true that I'm embarrassed they never occurred to me before. Good show.

(For the record, the other was a point Sippican made on another thread about protesters. I'd never thought about it like that before. Had you? If you read it, you know what I'm talking about. If you didn't, get with the program!)

Elizabeth said...

Sippican, how'd you know? Those are the two top priorities. There is talk of filling potholes, too. Oh, and coming up with a good evacuation plan. That's on the list there somewhere. Maybe that's the fancy part?

Marcia had her red beans cookin', that's all I need to say about that.

Walt said...

Am I the only one that finds the still pictures of Colbert hysterical. Seriously, he looks so vehement. Precious, it just gets funnier.

stealthlawprof said...

I suspect at this stage, the question in the GOP will be whether a not-McCain candidate on his right can clear out the rest and turn it into a two horse race fast enough to draw on the significant anti-McCain feeling out there. If a bunch of people stay viable for a while, it will be McCain and the Seven Dwarfs. If one dwarf can off the rest, McCain could be in for a big battle.

Cook's point that ability to win counts is true, but anyone who can clear the decks for a mano a mano with McCain will look very capable of winning to the conservative wing of the GOP.

The GOP candidates perceived to be left of McCain (Giuliani, Pataki, Rice) have no chance because conservatives will take McCain ahead of them. (Giuliani and Rice would be very interesting Veep considerations, although Lindsay Graham may already have that wrapped up with McCain.)

Of the ones to the right of McCain, do I see anyone in that bunch that looks likely to emerge from the pack? Not yet. Frist and Allen are too dull; Gingrich has way too much baggage for either spot on the ticket (Cabinet is a grand idea for him). Romney is very interesting, but can he get enough traction? Huckabee and Hegel are even more obscure, and Brownback looks too much like a one note symphony. (I'm not sure that is fair; I just believe the perception will hurt Brownback a lot).

LoafingOaf said...

I like Rudy best out of all those names, and he is indeed a terrific speaker. And I'm glad he's not anti-gay and doesn't wanna make abortion illegal. For some of us that's a plus, although granted it could be a minus in GOP primaries.

Terry wrote: he also had that recent messy divorce/adultery thing that was a non-scandal in New York, but might create electibility issues in the red states.

Was it a non-scandal in New York? It seemed to be a big deal in NY's media at the time, although I guess it didn't damage him much in the end. As far as in a 2008 campaign, I don't think it would be that big a deal. It's old news and there's nothing about it that makes it rise to a public matter (no perjury, etc), and it would probably make the media or a political opponant look worse than Rudy if they were trying to beat him up over it. It could end up working in his favor if others tried to make it a major issue. (Although I guess they sometimes prefer to do whisper campaigns...so I dunno....)

Marital troubles are common, people have lots of empathy as long as they're not lied to, and because it's old news it mostly serves to make him seem more human. Touchy issues in someone's backround don' always end up hurting someone like people assume. It all depends on how they're handled. You have to make people like you and relate to youin a presidential campaign, and people often like flawed people more because of their flaws. But I could be wrong..... :)

SippicanCottage said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Elizabeth said...

Sippican, she's still kinda hot. If you recall, she has her own style. She's got legs for days, and plays with one slung over the other at the knee, leaning front toward the audience. I have no idea how she does the pedals, but she's moving the whole time, so it must work! I'm back out there tomorrow, for the closing day. I'll enjoy a beer in your name. If you're not busy, tune in to some streaming audio at wwoz.org; they broadcast from the festival throughout the day. By the way, my friends from Dorchester are in for the week. They think the politics here are mighty familiar.

SippicanCottage said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SippicanCottage said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris said...

Charlie Cook makes a mistake in leaving Condi out, which is probably okay by the Secretary for the time being.

stealthlawprof makes a mistake in assuming that Rice is substantially to the left of McCain. Giuliani is, but Rice is actually much closer to Bush than Rudy is. McCain has trust problems on free speech, as well.

JT said...

Cook makes a big mistake leaving out Condi -- smells of some sort of agenda. She has been in the top three Republicans for some time, and frequently ON TOP!!! The American Polling Research Institute's March 26-28 poll had Condi on top 29% to McCain's and Rudy's 20% each. They also had her beating Hillary 52% to 47%. When Dr. Rice is included in a poll, she does exceedingly well. It mystifies me why serious pollsters leave her out so frequently.

Some pollsters have explained that her exclusion is because she's said that she's not interested, but so have many of those that are listed in the polls.

Other polls are listed on CondiBlog

Charlie said...

I'd like to see Chuck Hagel get the Republican nomination for President in 2008. He's strong on foreign policy and has some distance from President Bush on the troublesome issues.