E.J. Dionne really paints an optimistic picture for the Democrats in the upcoming elections. Most of the stuff I've seen on to this point has painted the Democrats as being in too much of a mess themselves to fully take advantage of the Republicans' woes. Dionne, however, does not rule out the Dems capturing a majority in the House, or even the Senate. I don't know Dionne too well, and imagine, because he writes for the Washington Post, he has liberal leanings, but nonetheless, this is the first I've seen from even a liberal that was this optimistic. I think a lot of the state race stuff surrounding Bebko-Jones and Good and other incumbents being put on the on hot seat is a positive sign as well. Finally, people are getting fed up with the status quo in government and seem to be doing something about it.
The only troubling thing mentioned in this article, and it's probably water under the bridge now, is that Bush's approval ratings are so low less than two years following he re-election. My question is, what has changed between now and the 2004 elections? Of course, personally, I'll go back to the 2000 Republican primaries when Bush's win drove me to switch parties - to Democrat. But for those who didn't recognize Bush as a fool right away, how could you not see it in 2004? There was never any believable justification for the war, and it was going badly at that time too. How could you approve of him then and not now? Or was it just a lesser of two evils choice, and when Kerry was involved, I can't say I can fully blame you... so, does that mean today that you vote for Bush again if the 2004 elections were held tomorrow?
Out.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Elections should be interesting. I'd like to be more supportive about the Dems but I still don't see them standing for anything in particular. But then again consider the alternative....
Anyway, to speak of the presidential election in 2008, do you think that the Dems will put H. Clinton on the ticket? I do not have personal feelings against her and I believe that she has put together a fairly decent track record as a senator. But I will make this prediction: if the Dems put her anywhere on the ticket (and I doubt she would allow herself to run as VP) the Dems will surely lose the presidential race in 2008. I am not be anti-feminist or sexist, i just think that the Dems will ensure defeat if Hillary runs for pres.
Any thoughts?
I think it would be a mistake for the Dems to steer away from Hilliary just to make a "safer" choice. I think this is what happened when Humphrey was given the nomination over McCarthy in '68 and again in 2004 when Dean was railroaded out in favor of Kerry. Billy Clinton was kind of a radical choice when he was elected, as I think was Jimmy Carter. When we throw all our cards on the table, at least right now, Hilliary looks like the best choice, and I don't think we should be scared of that.
Ralph
I respect that opinion Ralph. But I will give you five dollars (I know, big money) if Hillary wins (assuming that she is nominated). I truly think that the dems will lose big time if they go with Hillary. America might sometime accept a woman as president, but I seriously doubt Hillary would be accepted.
However, this opinion is subject to change if the repubs continue to totally screw over and screw up everyone and everything as they have been since they took over all branches (including the SC).
As for other contenders on the Dem side, my early prediction is Bill Richardson from NM.
I don't know Bill, but I'll keep my eye out for him.
Also, we need to break down the electoral votes and figure even if Hilliary gets not votes in the mid-West, if she carries New York and Cali, where does that leave her.
Ralph
Post a Comment