This Wikipedia article indicates that Jesse Ventura has Presidential ambitions. It seems to me that any Republican candidate will be tainted by Iraq, so could they decide to not run at all? Or run, ‘attack’ JV alot, then withdraw? Why? Because JV could, in their eyes, be better than a Democrat. After all, just like Minnesota, he’d have no political base in the Senate or Congress.
Why would the Pubs want Ventura for prez, even in preference to a Dem? His political roots are in the Independence Party of Minnesota – “fiscally conservative, socially liberal,” and essentially derived from the “Progressive” (as opposed to Buchanan’s “Populist”) wing of the old Reform Party. IOW, not good for established business interests. No more reckless foreign wars! No more government welfare to corporations! No more pandering to the religious right! No more Republican Party!
You haven’t been paying attention. I’ve been saying the Republicans suck for a long time. I’m sure the Democrats will suck even more, but I hope they win so that the Republicans learn that running on a platform of small government and then selling out to every special interest they can find is a one-way ticket to the ex-politicians club.
But the Republicans will run, and they’ll pull every trick they can to win. It’s all about power. Principle no longer matters. It’s all about who can stay in a position of control. The Democrats will do the same thing. And if they win, people like you will be ecstatic for a few months or a year, then you’ll start getting pissed off when the Democrats do the same thing the Republicans are doing. THe hardcore partisans will never admit it, and find an excuse for everything the Democrats do, just like the hardcore Republican partisans manage to excuse everything the Republicans do.
I think historians will look back on the Bush years and note the best thing he did for the Republican party was to make Nixon look like a great president and statesman by comparison.
I sincerely hope that, whoever is elected, Republican or Democrat, he or she is not the same as the boss we’ve got now.
You know, before Bush was elected, both John Kerry and Al Gore were hawks on Iraq. They were to the right of the Republicans on the issue. When Bush first started pushing for an Iraq war, both Bill Clinton and Al Gore agreed with him.
I firmly believe that had the Democrats won in 2000, they would have been pushing for an Iraq war. And the (non-peacenik) left probably would have supported it, just as they supported Clinton’s adventures in the Balkans. And the primary opposition would have come from isolationist Republicans, probably including George Bush.
I’m in a particularly cynical mood these days. My big hope now is that the U.S. winds up with a split government - a Democrat or Republican in the White House, with the other party controlling both houses of Congress. Then neither side will manage to get a damned thing done, which is probably the best thing you could hope for.
We’ll never know if you’re right about the other stuff, but I’m afraid I agree with this statement completely. Presently the Republicans stand for all the wrong things, and the Democrats for the polls. I see little reason to think this will improve in the near future. I said here not long ago I was hoping for the Dems. to win at least one house so as to produce gridlock, as that would be an improvement over Republican-crafted results. However, I find it difficult to imagine any results will rival the stunning incompetence of the current administration for a very long time to come. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking
Like I said - you haven’t been paying attention. You’re always too busy composing your latest drive-by tirade to actually read what other people are saying.