I came across this post in the Great Debates and wanted to post the following response there. On second thought, maybe it is more appropriate for IMHO as it would have probably pissed-off too many people there. (On third thought, maybe I should have gone to the Pits) But I am here now… let’s go with it until the Mods throw it into the Pits.
Amazing… Simply amazing that a post like that is not thrown into the Pits.
If any European (even a moron one) participated in that “debate”, the existing participants would hopefully realize that they are engaged in a mere soap opera about the American “politics” – a fiasco and a mere puppet show for the worldwide Internet audience who wants to eradicate ignorance.
Since U.S. has a single political party “The Capitalist Party” – The Republicans and Democrats being two wings of the same party – then trying to distinguish between the two is like trying to analyze the difference between dog sh** and cat sh**. At the end of the day, you are talking about sh**.
Now comes the OP trying to further analyze the intricate differences and preferences within the world of dog stuff. Since the St. Bernard’s is the incumbent, the OP is wondering whether some Golden Retriever’s stuff or a Shetland Sheepdog’s stuff could possibly challenge the incumbent’s stuff.
Hey, For those of you who are into the cats’ stuff, this is not a post for you to participate in. These guys are wallowing in the dog stuff, not your stuff.
Incumbant presidents do get challenges from members of their own party. Reagan ran against the incumbant Nixon in '72. I’m sure there are other examples.
But WTF’s with the dog and cat shit analogy? I don’t really understand why this is in IMHO, other than to allow yourself the opportunity to give your shit opinion about American politics before asking a question that for all intents and purposes belongs in GQ.
Rep. Pete McCloskey ran against Nixon in 1972. Reagan ran against Ford in 1976. (And seriously damaged Ford’s chances for, um, non-re-election ?)
A lot of incumbents have had at least one non-trivial challenger: McCarthy against Johnson in 1968, Kennedy against Carter in 1970, Buchanan against Bush in 1992. I am amazed that there is no challenger this year. (Although if this were December instead of Feb., someone would do at least an “example run”. E.g., run in selected in primaries like Oregon. McCain would stomp Bush into the ground if he were on the Oregon Primary ballot this year.)
Oops! You’re right. I think Reagan wanted to run in 72, but was advised against it, as he should’ve been in 76 (from a party standpoint).
I’m not really surprised no one’s challenging Bush this year tho. I think it’s because the Republican party is just really disciplined right now; their message is tight, their platform is tight, they’ve got a really good gameface, and some of the most powerful Republicans in the nation are already serving in the Bush administration. I think any other Republicans that might have a chance at the White House are afraid running against Bush would permanantly destroy their policital career. A lot of Republican voters really love Bush, and if any GOPer stepped up to question Bush’s actions over the past 3 1/2 years, they would be crucified by the loyalists (as has anyone who’s stepped forward to question Bush’s actions over the past 3 1/2 years).
On the other hand, someone like McCain could’ve easily stepped forward and won the votes of the disillusioned Republican voters, as well as the Democratic voters who really have no spectacular candidates of their own this year.
Ooh! How bout this: Kerry/McCain 2004!