IIRC, there was a law passed during the Johnson administration to prevent this sort of thing…
Absolutely true. The GOP’s problem isn’t racism per se so much as their blinders to the different realities of black and white life in America.
I’ll certainly defer to your professional expertise here.
I disagree. I don’t think Dubya will do anything as blatant as nominating his brother as his VP, no matter what the circumstances. Let me bounce this off of what John Mace asked:
I think the Bushes and the GOP would handle this straightforwardly (and appropriately, IMHO) by raising the issue themselves, and Jeb saying something like, “Sure, you know I’m the President’s brother, but we’ve had very separate political careers. Judge me as my own man, on my own record. Don’t vote for me because I’m the President’s brother, but don’t vote against me on that account either.”
But I think that’s the way Jeb has to handle it - by a straightforward assumption of an appropriate distance. I think becoming his brother’s veep would turn off a lot of people who could swing either way in your average election, and would significantly harm his chances in 2008.
Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice are two very different people. Thomas is as reliably conservative a vote on the Supreme Court as any right-winger could possibly hope for; his ideological purity is unquestioned.
Condi Rice’s ideological purity, however, is nonexistent. This will become clear about fifteen minutes after she declares her candidacy for any elective office. And this would be a problem for her, since no Republican presidential candidate will do well without at least giving pro forma obeisance to the Christian right.
And while Bush I could sell his soul to the religious right with reasonable success (he made a career out of selling his political soul, after all), in Condi’s case, this would kill any black support she might draw: a black woman kowtowing to the white southerners of the Christian right? Yes, massa! That would leave her worse off than she started with women, too, IMHO.
Not to mention, my impression is that Condi has too much pride to even consider the idea. Thank goodness.
RTF:
I agree with pretty much all you’ve said about Condi, except I think you’re ignoring the fact that she’s pretty new to politics and still has plenty of time to “triangulate” herself into a tenable GOP position. And I use the “triangulate” phrase in not too cynical a way. All politicians do it, it’s just that some are so blatant about it that it’s pathetic.
You’re right about Daddy Bush selling his soul. That’s what really turned me off to that guy.
I’d almost want to see Hillary run. It sure would make things interesting. Could we see the following string of presidents:
Bush->Clinton->Clinton->Bush->Bush->Clinton->(J.) Bush
We’ll never know which President we’re talking about…
I think it’s amusing enough that, in the history books, Clinton will always be surrounded by Bush.
I agree with several previous posters: it’s not that Republicans are too racist to vote for Colin and or Condi. Most aren’t. But the far right holds a ton of sway in the party (more than extreme liberals do on the Democrats by far), and they might not buy it. Regardless of race, they wouldn’t go for a candidate as moderate as either of those two. Especially considerating that they (far right) consider themselves to be on a roll now - they’ll want to push ‘ahead,’ not get more moderate. And let’s not forget Powell has been discussed as a Presidential or VP candidate for a good while already.
Then there’s the “assault weapons” ban which is due to sunset in September '04.
A lot of repubs are saying they won’t vote repub if either it goes to Dubya or he signs it – which he’s said he will.
(small hijack: FWIW, it’s a totally useless piece of legislation which has done nothing to reduce the use of guns in crime, but instead served to raise the prices of “pre-ban” weapons and large-capacity mags. /small hijack)
Many gun owners are straight repub ticket voters. If enough of them get hacked off enough, they might vote Libertarian or Constitution party out of pure cussedness.
I’m not sure Dubya has the support that the polls say he has. The questions seem to me often to be crafted so that unless you want to be seen as a total traitor or dork you have to say you approve of his policies.
Unless he does something to improve the economy his support is going to erode, despite the war. He stands a good chance of being a 1-termer like his dad.
I agree with your assessment of political triangulation, John. But I’m just not sure you can triangulate very well with the religious right. They really want to know, “Are you one of us, or if not, will you pretend real hard to be?” Condi’s not ‘one of them’, just by virtue of being pro-choice. And the other choice wouldn’t work for her.
This Doonesbury strip was actually about Richard Schweiker, a liberal Republican (back when they existed), who in 1976 agreed to be Reagan’s running mate if he won the GOP nomination. But it could just as well apply to Daddy Bush.
*Noooooo!!!
Won’t somebody think of the future high-school history teachers?? * 
That’s quite an interesting point, Mostly Harmless. Generally, I’m told, polls tend to skew conservative, and in any case the simple questions eliminate a lot of the ‘maybes.’ I know that’s what they’re supposed to do, but real life is more complicated. Eventually, he’s going to HAVE to do something economically. They’ve found a lot of distractions, but I think it’ll be hard to try and get people to forget about money until November of 2004.
He can always do what his dad did - make a brief trip to a department store and buya pair of socks, pretend to be amazed at the scanner as it reads the price, and make sure that there are cameras there to record the event. I can still hear him now, “Well, gee, would you get a load of that?”
Hey, let’s keep this clean!
planr: “He can always do what his dad did - make a brief trip to a department store and buya pair of socks, pretend to be amazed at the scanner as it reads the price, and make sure that there are cameras there to record the event. I can still hear him now, “Well, gee, would you get a load of that?””
Yeah, that was pretty dumb. But “W” is not like that. Daddy was an Northeast Intellectual. “W” is a good ol’ boy. He actually appeals to Joe Sixpack whereas Dad had to struggle on that point.
And don’t rule out where the administration is going to turn it’s attention next-- Israel. With Iraq out of the way, I really do think we can put some real pressure on Israel to get cracking on a viable peace process. Granted, it’s a gamble, but assuming Powell can at least get something going, and if Iraq doesn’t completely blow up, that’s going to look pretty darn good come Nov '04.
Put pressure on Israel? Powell get something going?
Just what type of administration do you think you’re talking about, John?
Elvis:
Powell is headed over there in a few days. A post-Iraq Middle East could be a whole new ballgame. I think this administration is interested in dealing with threats to peace. One may disagree with their tactics, and may even believe their tactics will have the opposite effect, but 9/11 did change everything. Hopefully Bush et al will not let blind support of Israel get in the way of addressing this issue head on.
I still think you guys are overestimating the power of the Christian Right. There’s a saying that generals always fight the last war - well, pundits always analyze the last election.
The political landscape is changing drastically. The youngest voters now are trending Republican. And not because they are evangelical Christians, but because they find the Democrats to be too tied to special interests, and appeals to social justice are losing their power, because there just isn’t as much social injustice as there used to be.
So there’s a whole new, HUGE demographic - call them “McCain Republicans”. Most of them used to be “Clinton Democrats” - centrists who trended towards the Democratic party. Or rather, they were split down the middle. It’s that big 40% chunk of America that’s ‘independent’. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
The thing is, 9/11 pushed many of them over to the Republican’s corner, because the Democrats are deservedly considered to be soft on defense. A lot of them are still sitting on the fence, and could tilt either way.
By and large, this demographic LOVES Colin Powell. And they like Condi Rice just fine as well. Both of those people help Republicans with independents, because a lot of what keeps people away from the Republicans is a lingering mistrust of their motives on racial and equality grounds. A black candidate goes a long way towards eliminating that.
The Christian right marginalized itself after 9/11 by saying a lot of boneheaded things about immigrants. And I’m just not sure that the Christian right’s form of social conservatism resonates with the public anymore. They were HUGE with the WWII generation. That generation is rapidly losing influence (and citizens). The boomers and Gen X aren’t under their spell to the same degree.
And we’re talking 6 years from now, when all these trends are going to be even stronger.
Sam, I am one of those young voters trending Republican. I agree with what you say, but I still think you have to look at the voting demographics. It doesn’t matter how many young voters swing vote if none of them vote.
The Christian Right has been making boneheaded statements (about immigrants and MANY other topics) since time immemorial. They still exert tremendous influence on the Republican Party, and the Bush administration in particular. The groups the Christian Right targets are pretty much never going to vote Republican anyway, so I don’t know that they can marginalize themselves further.
I have to agree with Elvis. Pressure on Israel, if it was going to happen, would have LONG ago. A number of prominent people in the Bush administration - Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz - are incredibly pro-Israel, and I don’t see things suddenly flip-flopping. The US has already had opportunities to pressure Israel over a lot of issues like killing peacekeepers, UN people, etc., and doesn’t seem interested to me.
Sam (or anyone):
I agree with pretty much all you said, except that the “Christian Right” is shrinking. There are a LOT of young folks feeding into that demographic. They’re a lot more open minded than the old foggies, but still pretty hard line on abortion, gay rights, prayer in school, etc.
And you are spot on concerning Colin Powell. So I ask you again, or anyone who has the answer, what are his presidential asperations? I can’t figure it out, myself.
He apparently doesn’t have any. Remember the pressure on him to run in the last election? For two years leading up to the election, everyone kept asking him, “Are you going to run for President”?
He was a shoo-in for the nomination. His poll numbers were stratospheric (still are). But he came out and said he had no interest in being President, and that was that.
Thanks for saying “hopefully” - we disagree on whether there’s any basis for such a hope, given the dominance of the Likudniks like “Wolfowitz of Arabia” in this administration’s foreign policy.
Yes, this could have been a turning point for an administration truly bent on peace and not neoimperialism, but I can’t see it being taken advantage of in that way.