My Photo

Photo Albums

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2004
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« Word of the Day | Main | The Patriotic Thing to Do »

Thursday, 01 September 2005



"On September 11, 2001, The Vacationing and un-elected President ..."
*yawn* bored now.

He was elected, even if on a technicality, get over it.

If Gore had won (based on the same results)it would almost certainly have been less valid than Bush's victory (though obviously this depends a little on how things are sliced).

He was re-elected, 3.5 million more people voted for him than for Kerry, get over it.

c.f. 1992 UK general election, the anti-Tory (Republican) sentiment was so great that there should have been no way that Major (Bush) could win the 1992 (2004) election; but when everyone's focusing on being anti-incumbent rather than pro-opposition this happens.

I'll agree that the Tories didn't deserve to win in 92 (and I'm a Tory), neither did Bush in 2004, but in both cases the fault lay with the opposition (or with the general populace for not figuring out something better than FPP political democracy as a way of governing the country) in failing to provide a credible alternative (Labour recognised and fixed that in time for 1997, and had reformed pre-Blair enough that they would have won with John Smith at the helm -- it didn't need Blair).

As for 2008 it's a very different landscape as it will be a completely fresh Republican ticket, but at present I'm not seeing much credible from the Democrats in terms of a ticket -- if they do Clinton/somebody they'll lose, though somebody/Clinton would be quite strong -- indeed I'm hearing more reforming talk from the Republicans re 08 as they focus on making over their image post-Bush.


The Tories have never beaten the anti-Tory vote, it's a minor fact which many like to gloss over particularly when harping back to the glory days of Margaret Thatcher.

If the anti-Tory vote had been as consolidated in 1983 or '87 she'd have really struggled.

IIRC her top share of the vote was 44%, typically the Tory share is much lower.

To have 2 shady US elections where at least one of the state wide votes _looks_ rigged, makes it feel like the early 1960's and I wasn't even alive then.

More serious is the utter incompetence of the adminstration of the richest and most powerful nation on Earth to deal with, an albeit, huge natural disaster.

Screw sending a message through things like Iraq, having the US look this incapable on global TV to terrorists is a disaster and heads should roll.


I suspect that Michael Brown (FEMA Director) will be "counselled out" as soon as an appropriate career challenge can be found for him in the world of equestrian competition, which he does know so well. Not sure if Chertoff will go. He ought to, but might be too close to Bush. I fear that by next November, this will all be so much ancient history to the typical middle, white born-again Christian voters in the heartland and that the Republican majority in the House won't be seriously challenged, but I am prepared to stand corrected (and be pleasantly surprised) on this prediction. NO has been a truly *monumental* foul-up. In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister would be gone, end of story (which is why Chertoff *could* have to take the fall for Bush). My feeling is that the Bushies are really not controlling events at the moment. If there were to be an al-Qaeda attack on the mainland US now, it would be interesting to see what the reaction would be (rallying tio the flag and the President, I suspect).


"I fear that by next November, this will all be so much ancient history to the typical middle, white born-again Christian voters in the heartland"

I expect it'll hurt the republicans in 2006, particularly in the south where there will still likely be 1000s of displaced Louisianans in neighbouring states -- there are currently a quarter of a million LA refugees in Texas, another 70,000 in Alabama -- and could certainly net the Dems several House seats, perhaps Lott's senate seat in Mississippi, and possibly even governorship of Texas if Rick Perry drops the ball.

When it comes to 2008 however I think the impact will be greatly dimished, not least because 08 represents a change of administration -- if Bush2 were running again it would be very different, and it has likely squished the suggestion that, contrary to his previous comments, Cheney may stand in 08.

In 07/08, although there will still be many thousands of people pissed off with the present administration because of their handling of Katrina, the affected areas of Louisiana and Mississippi will be undergoing significant growth and investment and the money that will be pumped into the region (through aid, investment, and insurance) will start to generate results -- irrespective of what happens elsewhere the LA economy will grow significantly from 06 to 07, and 07 to 08; even if it's basically at 0 in 2006 the relative growth will lessen the "pain".

And lets not forget that there's still 3 years until the 08 elections -- plenty of time for something else to go wrong!

Lastly I think it's now more likely than ever that the Reps'll go for a relatively populist ticket in 08 with Giuliani or McCain up front and Condi Rice in second spot.


Check out this interesting Wikipedia article on the '08 race: The last two Democratic Presidents have been governors from Southern states, and, indeed, two of the last three Republican Presidents have been Southern or Western governors. So, it makes sense to run a Southern/Western governor. But, of course, it's more complicated than that... and Hillary's husband was... a Southern governor (and she's gots of face recognition). I don't think she's a shoo-in.

Cheney, too old, too sick. McCain is way too old and... way too individualistic. Not sure about Condie for veep. Too many wingnuts still have major issues about women and/or blacks. He might be an honorary man, but she's still a black women in a white boys club. Bizarrely, George F. Allen ( is the "official" frontrunner. (Who he?)

But in 1989, no-one would seriously have fingered WJC for the White House, would they?


"George F. Allen is the "official" frontrunner"

"Who?" indeed.

White, male, mid-fifties. So neither too-black, too-female, nor too-old.

Senator and former Governor & Rep, prominent in both the Senate and the party, pretty wife. Hasn't served in the military, but other than ticks most of the right boxes.

As for the rest, I certainly wouldn't expect Cheney to stand, and suspect that if he did he'd fail in the primaries; McCain's certainly toward the top end of the age range, but he could squeeze in; Condi could get second spot -- the primary decides top spot, VP gets chosen by the dead white male at #1, so there isn't quite as much need for her to be acceptable to the more extreme wings of the GOP.

As for Clinton, I'd agree that she's not a shoo-in, far too many people despise her, even (perhaps especially) within the DNC. But if it looks like Giuliani might appear on the GOP ticket then she'll have to at least do the primaries -- NY's been Dem for 2 decades, but the vote's sliding back towards the Republicans 1996:60%/30% 2000:60%/35% 2004:60%/40% and if anyone can deliver NY's 31 electoral college votes it's going to be Giuliani, and Clinton's the Dems best chance of stopping him.


Allen certainly ticks all the right boxes and he's certainly got enough loony views to appeal to the wingnuts.

I feel that Giuliani is something of a Nelson Rockefeller figure. Very veepable certainly, but probably not going to be able to win a primary. Being Mayor of New York won't do himself many favours in (say) Texas, despite 911. But he is already a prominent figure. But so then was Rockefeller. He'd give balance to an Allen ticket.

Condi is also very veepable and would soften the ticket for someone like Allen. But the main task (ironically in the case of Cheney) of the veep is to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And could the wingnuts really stomach the prospect of a black women President, even one like Rice?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Books We are Reading