And he’s got to be smart, and he’s got to be reasonably ethical, and he’s got to be charismatic.
We’ve seen the future of the Democratic party. Edwards, Obama. Who do we have to look forward to seeing in the Republican Party? There’s a southwestern govenor that Geraldine Ferraro thinks might be the first female president. I think she’s republican, but I’m not sure. There’s Guliani in '08. But… who are our up and coming lights?
We’re going to be seeing some people this convention. Some may actually be decent. Pay attention.
Yep. Remember how quickly Edwards and Obama, just the two that you mentioned, came to national prominence. Obama is still just a state senator, for instance. The talent base just might be there in the minor leagues. One other characteristic you didn’t mention as a prerequisite for future national Republican leadership is “moderate” - there doesn’t seem to be much stomach nationally for another hard-righter after the Bush years, especially not one who only feigns moderation to get elected.
Speaking as a gibbering liberal, I would be thrilled to see the moderates take back the Republican Party, so I would have some decent choices when I don’t like the Dems’ candidate. (And no, I’m not about to vote for a third-party candidate when that’s as likely of success as herding cats.) But how likely is it that the steering wheel can be wrested from the extremists currently in control of the party?
However, in the meantime, we have another republican who has managed to get elected governor in one of the most liberal states in the country: Mitt Romney.
That’s the start, recognizing that power isn’t given, it’s taken. The next step is the discrediting of the extremists as a sufficiently large base to hold power themselves, without moderation. That will take either an electoral loss of McGovernesque dimensions or a massive, simultaneous loss of Congressional seats, though, and that isn’t likely to happen this time.
Or simply a candidate of sufficient personal magnetism might be enough to pull the party along with him toward the center, IOW a Republican Clinton. debaser, “liberal Massachusetts” is a myth, like “Taxachusetts”, albeit a cherished one among your faction (Reagan won it both times, FYI). The division here at state level is insider/outsider. Romney got elected as an outsider with a clean image, not because of or in spite of his party affiliation, and remember that Kennedy cleaned the floor with him in his Senate campaign. If he wants to go national, he needs some accomplishments to point to other than the Salt Lake Olympics, and those aren’t in evidence - which is due to the office having little real power, but he knew that coming in. We’re on our 4th consecutive Republican governor, “outsiders who will clean up the mess”, incidentally, the last 3 having quit in frustration after trying to buck the system instead of work with it. Romney’s making similar noises after a similar tenure in office.
Weld? You can’t be that desperate. His last display of political ambition was in Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre. His is not the face of the future.
Except, of course, Romney is an evil right-wing religious nutjob. It’s really disappointing that a state that elected a decent man like William Weld so quickly followed him up with a total douchebag gay-bashing fanatic.
FWIW, I am registered democrat but could easily see myself voting for candidates who are moderate republicans, that is, fiscally conservative but socially moderate or even better a bit liberal. But I will never vote for the current batch of Bushes (Jed, GW) or anybody wholeheartedly endorsed by any group that thinks the end of the world is near.
Erika Harold (State Rep, Ill), arguably the most attractive RNC speaker ever.
Senator Bill Frist (TN)
Senator Elizabeth Dole (NC)
Senator Rick Santorum (PA)
Senator Sam Brownback (KS)
Rep Dennis Hastert (IL)
Lt. Gov Michael Steele (MD)
Rep Heather Wilson (NM)
Rep Anne Northup (KY)
Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Senator John McCain (AZ)
First Lady Laura Bush
Secretary of Education Rod Paige
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA)
Vice President and Mrs. Cheney
Senator Zell Miller (D-GA)
Governor George Pataki (NY)
President George W. Bush
How about the Governator? He’s got Krisma (bags and bags of it!), they’ve already dredge out everything they can on him, and he’s doing fairly well in California and he can point to precedent for making him President! All we need is that pesky Constitutional Amendment…
Members like me and others we all know and love are the future of the GOP.
Dems need to ready themselves for this. But, they can’t. We’re smart and we’re tough. We train harder and will beat them in every fair competition. Besides, you can’t help but like us. Dems led by reason will be assimilated and those who are motivated by lessor things will be sidelined.
So, does this mean you’ll be accepting your party’s nomination for US senate in 2008?
My GOD! The elephants have sprouted wings and learned to fly!
Further marginalization of the moderate wing seems more likely.
Is the Republican mainstream oblivious to Olympia Snowe?
C’mon, show of hands, right now, and identify party affiliation if you’ve got one — who’d vote for Snowe if the choice were Snowe or Kerry? Snowe or Edwards? Snowe or Obama?
I’d be leery of leaving the Republican Party chieftains even nominally in charge of things at this point, but if I could get past that I’d vote for her.
Snowe voted against the Gay Bashing Amendment, so I would consider voting for her. I would probably support a McCain/Snowe ticket. But the right wing fanatics would never let either of them get nominated.
One party makes us weak. Give us something to measure ourselves against. SimonX, you’re begging for the 1970s all over again. You really want that? You think we can handle another set of Japanese running up our tails, doing our jobs better than we can, while we sit, fat and happy?
Of those listed as speakers, barring these:
Senator Sam Brownback (KS)
Lt. Gov Michael Steele (MD)
Rep Heather Wilson (NM)
Rep Anne Northup (KY)
we have the established lot.
Some nice sonsofbitches, too. Santorum and Hastur… Hastert.
Those abovementioned, some are familiar (Northup), but I don’t recall why.
I think I knee jerked again. I really hate that slogan. It’s almost as bad as “America, love it or leave it.” I keep reading it as a personal imperative, not a categorical one.
If there’s only one party, it becomes harder to demonize the opposition- they is us.
With the demonization removed as a mode of political ‘debate’ more important, meaningful and useful tactics such as discussion of issues based on their merits would still be available. Hopefully, once all we have are these hammers we can finally begin smacking some nails.
However, if this were to come to pass, I suspect that the party would eventually just split along some lines.
As a goal, and an ideal I think that one party dominance is acceptable and desirable as long as that party is sufficienty mutable.
As a thinking liberal, I agree with the sentiment, but I’d phrase it slightly differently: “Give us somebody to keep us honest.” I’m a big fan of balance; I think an unchecked swing to the far left would be as damaging to the country as the current unchecked swing to the right has been. So yeah, I’m with the OP: For the health of the country, we need honorable conservatives (instead of the gang of craven whores now running the show) to keep the important issues in focus and prevent us liberals from making a mess with our well-intentioned fuzzy-headedness.
But in the current climate, I just don’t see them. Some interesting names have been proposed, but I can’t believe they’ll get any traction as long as the blue-noses continue holding the party hostage.
(well, if they ever allow foriegn born to become president that is, so probably not).