Funny, I thought it was pre-wiring of the nomination by the RNC, resulting in far-superior funding from the usual contributors to any other GOP candidate (the ones who weren’t deterred from running by the RNC, that is), combined with Rove’s marketing campaign that included simply stalling any serious inquiry into his man’s background by the lapdog media.
Name recognition? Sure, that helped, but it wasn’t crucial.
You think, if he wasn’t a President’s son, Rove and the RNC would have looked at him twice? You think if he wasn’t a President’s son would he have become the governor of Texas?
I didn’t think so.
Rove has actually been involved with Bush and his father since the early 70’s. I don’t disagree that he is a boy of privilege, and that circumstance has favored him well, but don’t rule out orchestration helping circumstance along for quite some time.
Any Dem but Lieberman beats Bush. Lieberman is just too fucking conservative. The Dems might as well nominate Bush as well, if they’re going to nominate LIeberman. A difference which imakes no difference, is no difference.
I don’t really like or dislike any of the Dem nominees from the winnability standpoint, except Lieberman. My best thought would be to find some squeaky-clean progressive who hasn’t done much and vet him or her for the Presidency. I don’t think name recognition means squat – the way Bush is going, anyone the Dems put forth is gonna be looked on as a saviour by 2004. So give the Repub spin machine as little to work with as possible and let 'er rip.
No, he got into the White House by being rich! And having the right father!
Don’t feel bad, my head of state, Queen Elizabeth II was born into power as well.
Commenting on Hillary:
It’s probably too late for her to enter the 2004 campaign, especially if none of the “top-tier” candidates drop out (Lieberman, Gephardt, et al.).
With 2008, there are two obstacles in the way:
The 2006 Democratic primary in New York, and
The 2006 general election in New York.
Some of you have been proposing that she’ll move to the center. Even if she does (and I find it unlikely, inasmuch as she’s been rated by non-partisan commentators (such as Ron Gunzberg of Politics1.com) as one of the most, if not the most, liberal members of the Senate), there is the issue of the Democratic primary in New York. If she were to move to the right, she’d get strong primary oppostion (remember, it took pretty much all of her husband’s political chits to get the locals out of the race, and there are still people grumbling about her carpetbagging), and might lose. Then, of course, comes the general election, at which there’s a good chance she could lose (especially if Governor Pataki runs).
Just remember this while making predictions.
So by having name recognition and money, someone has a lock on the Whitehouse? I still don’t think Hillary should hold her breath or Ted should put down his drink.
First flaw: All plans for war with Iraq have it start in a couple of weeks.
Second flaw: Most plans I’ve seen for the war are vaguely similar to Desert Strom, which means that there will be weeks of bombing before a land invasion.
Third flaw: As I recall, the stock market was continualy declining throughout 2001.
Fourth flaw: While I agree that Cheney will retire, my prediction is that he will be replaced by Tom Ridge, who I see (contrary to those who see Jeb Bush in this role) being in position to run as the Republican nominee in 2008.
I agree with most of this, except the McCain part. Bush values loyalty. Hell will freeze over before he selects John McCain as his running mate.
As I stated earlier, I expect Ridge to get the VP slot. Odds are, Bush is going to pick a moderate for VP in order to help him with votes, and he’ll pick the one that’s a friend (Ridge) before he picks the one that he’s had a feud with (McCain).
What if Cheney won’t (or can’t) run? Would Bush try to tempt McCain then? I doubt McCain would go for it. How could an honorable man like McCain run with a man who essentially slandered him?
Would Bush choose his brother out of loyalty?
No, IMHO. Bush has a number of othger attractive conceivable VP choices: John Engler, Tom Ridge, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, George Pataki, and Bill Frist come to mind. My best guess would be Frist, who would then have the possibility of running for President in 2008.
The problem with 2000: Not enough people payed attention to GWB and really examined this person before voting. Many people just voted blindly for whatever reason, with Lewinsky scandle weighing heavily on some of their minds. There was incredible lack of public attention given to the presidential debates. People generally had a strong economy, and things in the world were going good for them. So they were like, who cares who wins? They didn’t realize that everything they had to enjoy including the economy really did hang on NOT voting for Bush. Whatever…
But now that GWB has been in office, it’s impossible for people to overlook GWB and his behavior. No diplomacy skills. He can’t speak without sounding like a retard. He doesn’t really care to run anything based on the will of the people. He’s got an administration loaded down with oil CEO’s and guys who are all about Cold War diplomacy. All of the things that people might have realized BEFORE the election if they were paying attention. Because he spoke like a moron even back then, and said as much as he would pull out of treaties and turn against our allies during pre-election debates with Gore. He announced who certain members of his cabinet would be if he were elected. It was totally obvious to those of us who were paying attention that right now we would be in the same spot we are in right now if GWB got in.
GWB will be out of office in 2004, there is no question. I can only hope that the candidate Dems put up in 2004 isn’t another loser like GWB and just gets in because he ran against a bigger loser. That is the sad consequences of a 2 party US political system. There are no candidates to get people interested. People only stand up and pay attention when things go wrong and we are already in a hole. Like GWB today and like his dad back when we threw him out for Clinton. It took our economy in the dumps and a host of other problems to get voters to wake up and vote. Then even when we do vote, we have to hope and pray that other “only choice” is better than what we had…
I agree with your analysis of why so many people voted for Bush, but even under THOSE idyllic circumstances, most people voted for Gore, not Bush. It took a bought and paid for decision by a corrupt Supreme Court to get Bush into office. Let’s never forget that. Gore made some campaign errors, but it was still a stolen election. My worry is that some other form of theft will be engineered in 2004 if the votes don’t materialize for Bush. Hey, they did it once…
What I’ve heard is that Karl Rove and other insiders in the Bush administration plan to continue starting wars throughout this term and then campaign on the war in 2004. We may be through with Iraq by then, but the Bush “diplomatic” team will see to it that some other hot spot flares up. In short, Bush is a warmonger. The Dems would be wise to plan for this.
Lest anewthought’s statement…
…be whisked away by the usual hand-wavers around here, I remind you of the Onion’s depressing prescience, from January, 2000:
Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’
Oops. That’s January, 2001.
You know what the problem with this whole theory that the only reason Bush was elected was because the people didn’t know him, is?
It’s that they now know him extremely well. And even though the economy is in the dumper and divisive war with Iraq is looming, his approval ratings are still well over 50% - higher than they were before the 2000 election.
The public may have some misgivings about Bush’s Iraq policy, but the majority of them clearly like George Bush.
In order: Engler is in some trouble due to his inability to carry his state for Bush in either the primary or general election of 2000 (though he may end up in the Cabinet), Ridge is my suspected pick, Rice is too interested in a statewide run in 2006 in my home state for her to be a likely VP pick, they would have picked Powell in 2000 if he had the interest, Pataki isn’t likely in my book (though he will run for the Senate in 2006, and Bill Weld for Governor of NY), and Frist wants to stay Majority Leader.
My guess is that Cheney will be there again, but if he isn’t, I wouldn’t count out Colin Powell. He may not have been interested in the presidency in 2000 when it looked like he’d be presiding over a fairly boring period in history, and one which didn’t really suit his inclinations.
But I think we’re about to see a major change in the world order over the next four years, and Colin Powell would be right in the middle of it. I think if he were asked, he’d serve. And Bush is canny enough to ask him if he doesn’t believe he has other candidates.
I don’t think Tom Ridge is it. He’s taken too much heat over his handling of the Department of Homeland Security. If there’s another major terrorist attack, he’s going to be under tremendous heat. Plus, he just doesn’t strike me as being all that charismatic.
My two picks would be Rice or Powell. ESPECIALLY if Bush is in trouble in 2004. Because while Cheney is an outstanding asset in terms of actually running the government, he’s probably a liability in a campaign because of his connections to big oil and the associations people make with him and corporate scandal.
If the war goes well, Bush can win with anyone, and he’ll pick a running mate who either brings needed skills to the administration, or who can be groomed for presidency in 2008, or who doesn’t want to run in 2008 at all. Rice and Powell fit all those categories.
9/11