Don’t worry - I can predict that the next Democrat presidential candidate will also be “The Most Liberal [INSERT OFFICE HERE] in the [INSERT COLLECTIVE OFFICE GROUPING HERE].”
Do you disagree? And do you disagree that certain people will eat it up? I’ll bet you could even list them without much difficulty, too.
-Joe
Either current party could accomplish this by working to attract as many moderates as possible while paying just enough lip service to their base to keep them in line. I lean to the right, so I’m less tolerant of the excesses of the far left, but there are aspects of the far right that I disagree with as well. A socially moderate, fiscally conservative hawk would be my dream candidate.
Not many. They seem to me to be the closest to the middle in their respective parties. I would vote for either one of them…and I’ve never voted for a Democratic candidate for president in my life. Lieberman would have made a great president, but he is too moderate to get through the Democratic primary process. McCain could well be elected president in 2008 if he decides to run.
I don’t know if he could even get the nomination. He’s got an age problem. A few weelks ago I heard John McCain interviewed on the radio. The interviewer pointed out that in 2008 McCain will be 72. Reagan was elected in 1980 at the age of 70 – the oldest elected president ever. McCain said he still has not decided whether to run, but if he does he will bring his 93-year-old mother with him wherever he goes (to show he has good genes for longevity).
He also has a problem with being on the outs with the current Republican leadership. As in, out in the wilderness. This article from The Nation – http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051212/berman – is about some recent efforts he’s made to mend fences and restore his Pubcred. Personally, I think he’s beating his head against a wall. Better he should do a Zell Miller and jump parties.
I don’t think he’s far enough left to consider switching parties. Besides, what would be the benefit for him even if he did it purely for political reasons? He represents a heavily Republican state and he would be the odd man out in a new party.
Besides the party switching tide in recent history (1975 to present )is heavily in the other direction. The following is from Wikipedia
Democrat to Republican
1975 - John Jarman, while U.S. Representative from Oklahoma. He had served for 24 years in the House and said he was fed up with the Democratic party, which had been “taken over by liberals”. He retired in 1976.
1979 - Jim Gerlach, During the Carter Adminastration. He is a United States Rep. from Pennsylvania
1981 - Bob Stump, while U.S. Representative from Arizona
1981 - Eugene Atkinson, while U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania
1983 - Bob Martinez, while mayor of Tampa, Florida
1983 - Phil Gramm, while U.S. Representative from Texas (resigned before switching parties and re-won his seat in a special election)
1984 - Andy Ireland, while U.S. Representative from Florida
1985 - Kent Hance, after losing the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination in Texas
1988 - Jim McCrery, while running for U.S. Representative from Louisiana. He had been a staff member for Buddy Roemer, but switched parties before the special election after Roemer was elected governor.
1989 - Bill Grant, while U.S. Representative from Florida
1989 - Tommy Robinson, while U.S. Representative from Arkansas
1990 - Rick Perry, while running for Agriculture Commissioner of Texas
1991 - Buddy Roemer, governor of Louisiana switched parties shortly before the beginning of his reelection campaign, which was not successful.
1994 - Walter Jones, while running for U.S. Representative from North Carolina
1994 - Mike Bowers, while Attorney General of Georgia
1994 - Fob James, while running for Governor of Alabama
1994 - Dick Shelby, while U.S. Senator from Alabama
1995 - Jimmy Hayes, while U.S. Representative from Louisiana
1995 - Greg Laughlin, while U.S. Representative from Texas
1995 - Ben Nighthorse Campbell, while U.S. Senator from Colorado
1995 - Billy Tauzin, while U.S. Representative from Louisiana
1995 - Nathan Deal, while U.S. Representative from Georgia
1995 - Mike Parker, while U.S. Representative from Mississippi
1996 - Norm Coleman, while mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota
1998 - Sonny Perdue, while a Georgia State Senator
2000 - Matthew G. Martinez, while U.S. Representative from California
2001 - Michael Bloomberg, before running for mayor of New York City
2002 - Amy Tuck, while Lieutenant Governor of Mississippi
2004 - Ralph Hall, while U.S. Representative from Texas
2004 - Rodney Alexander, while U.S. Representative from Louisiana (his switch just before the filing deadline prevented the Democrats from fielding a viable replacement candidate)
Though he never formally changed his affiliation, former U.S. Senator Zell B. Miller (D-Georgia), caucused with the Senate Republicans and spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Former Democratic New York City mayor Ed Koch also announced his support for Bush.
Republican to Democrat
1977 - Peter Peyser, after three terms in the House as a New York Republican, vacated his seat to run for nomination for the Senate in 1976. After his unsuccessful attempt, he switched to the Democratic party and regained his House seat in 1978.
1991 - Mike Doyle, now U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania
1992 - Loretta Sanchez, now U.S. Representative from California
1996 - Carolyn McCarthy, to challenge Dan Frisa (she was still a registered Republican at the time, but changed her registration to Democratic in 2002)
1996 - Russell Peterson, former Governor of Delaware
1999 - Michael Forbes, while U.S. representative from New York
2002 - Ray Nagin, days before filing for the mayoral race in New Orleans
2003 - Teresa Heinz Kerry, in protest of the campaign tactics used by Saxby Chambliss in the Georgia U.S. Senate race of 2002
2003 - Barbara Hafer, while State Treasurer of Pennsylvania
2005 - Andy Warren, former Bucks County, Pennsylvania Commissioner and well-known local politician (now running for Congress)
2005 - Paul Morrison, Overland Park, Kansas Attorney; now running for State Attorney General
The numbers work out to 31 switches from Democrat to Republican and 11 from Republican to Democrat since 1975. The difference is even more stark when you focus just on the US House and Senate. In that case the difference is 22 to 6.
I agree. He really isn’t a Democrat, and I don’t see much benefit for him.
“Not Far Enough Left” - John McCain is a conservative Republican. I’m baffled by this constant depiction of him as a liberal Republican. He’s pro-life, he’s a hawk on the war, he’s for the death penalty, he opposes gay marriage, etc. He’s one of the more conservative members of the Republican party. Joe Lieberman is a raving socialist compared to John McCain, and the Democrats want Lieberman gone because he’s too far right for them.
John McCain will never, ever, flip to the Democrats.
If he was a pro-life, anti-war, pro-gay-marriage, pro national health care Republican, then I can see him switching parties.
But John McCain is really very very conservative. Why would he switch? Zell Miller is conservative, it would make sense for him to become a Republican like Phil Graham and Strom Thurmond did. So McCain isn’t anti-immigrant or crypto-racist, that doesn’t make him an outcast in the Republican party, neither is George Bush.
So George Bush doesn’t like McCain, so what? Bush and his cronies aren’t running for President in 2008, and they certainly aren’t threatening McCain’s Senate seat. I think the Nation article makes a big mistake when it assumes that McCain is only pretending to embrace conservative policies: “There have always been two sides to McCain: the conservative loyalist and the unpredictable maverick so often featured in the media” I disagree. He IS conservative. The fallacy is assuming that only a mind-numbed zombie would be conservative, that you can’t be a conservative without blindly obeying the party line. Ever consider the idea that he occasionally spouts the party line because those are the parts of the party line he agrees with?
. . . Doesn’t Lieberman have the same positions?
My prediction (a low percentage one, given how far out we are), is that if John McCain runs for president, he’ll get the support of George Bush.
Bush knows that his legacy is completely dependent on how the war in Iraq turns out. Therefore, he is going to support someone who is the staunchest defender of his Iraq policy, and someone who he believes has the guts to stick it out even in the face of weak public support. John McCain is that guy. He has been the staunchest supporter of the war in the Republican party. While sometimes criticising the way it was carried out, he has never wavered in his support of it, and in fact most of his criticism is that the Bush administration wasn’t being aggressive enough, wasn’t spending enough money or sending enough troops.
Also, McCain campaigned for Bush in the last election. Given their personal dislike for each other, I’m guessing there was some quid-pro-quo going on there behind the scenes. And Bush has refused to criticise McCain at all, so far as I can tell.
McCain’s support among conservatives has been growing recently, primarily because he’s attacking the administration from the right now instead of from the left, primarily on spending. McCain’s always been a fiscal conservative, but now that that issue is coming to the forefront this is playing back to the conservative base.
By the time the 2008 election heats up, I expect McCain will be positioned very well - he’s got credibility from moderates and independents for his refusal to always toe the administration line, and by then he’ll be popular with conservatives again. His age will be the main issue against him, but I think he can make that work. After all, Reagan was 70, and medical technology is much better now than it was 25 years ago. McCain will play the, “70 is the new 60” card.
Lieberman has a perfect rating from NARAL.
Wow that is a really shocking statement.
I consider myself a libertarian and would say that there is very little difference in either party, either both are extreme or niether are extreme.
Wasn’t the subject about third parties and the Presidency? Why are we focused on John McCain and Joe Lieberman? Do you really think they would “jump” ship and form a third party?
In modern times, outside of John Anderson and the election of 1948 with Wallace and Thurmond, all major third party attempts were done by people outside the Washington Beltway. Debs, George Wallace, Perot, and even Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 all were not active politicians in Washington when they ran.
The Beltway wasn’t built until the 1950’s, but you’re right. I do think the more meaningful distinction is between issue-based and personality-based campaigns - balancing the budget (i.e. Perot) has a resonance and an level of support that have made it last into the major-party co-optation phase of the process, and so has racial discrimination (G. Wallace). “They both suck” (i.e. Nader, Anderson, Bull Moose TR), a personality-based approach, generally gets only the “none of the above” voters who wouldn’t vote at all otherwise, and has no lasting effect on anything.
Defining “success” as winning a significant number of seats? Probably not.
Defining “success” as convincing one or both major parties to coopt libertarian issues? Damn straight.