For 2008, do we want a moderate or conservative

[Big Blue Machine]

I think it's time for a moderate leader in the Republican Party. After 8 years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the party should move to the left. I bet the country is moving that way anyway. Either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain would make fine presidental candidates. A Guliani-McCain or vice-versa would be formiable to anything the Democrats can muster. The polls show it for Rudy and John.

Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 26%, Newt Gingrich 9%, George Allen 3%, Bill Frist 3%, Mitt Romney 2%

Rudy Giuliani 27%, John McCain 20%, Jeb Bush 10%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Bill Frist 3%, Rick Santorum 3%, George Pataki 2%, Mitt Romney 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Haley Barbour 1%

Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 29%, Jeb Bush 12%, Bill Frist 6%, Other 7%

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._p..._election,_2008

[Advocat]

As far as I can see, both the Republicans and the Democrats have gone so far into fringe territory in an attempt to "mobilize their base" that their base is now the fringe 10-15% on each side of the extreme of the left/right.

According to sources, "42.45% of the U.S. population voted in the 2004 election using the 2000 Census number of 286,196,812 people in America". This means almost 60% of the population was so disaffected and left apathetic by what that candidates offered, they couldn't be bothered to vote in what the media was promoting as one of the most important votes on America's future in decades.

The only way the parties are going to motivate the non-voting majority is to return to a more moderate/centrist position within their party's platform and basic tenets.

[Big Blue Machine]

Trying to convince hard line right-wingers that a moderate republican is needed for 08 is impossible.

[BHS]

Giuliani is less of a moderate than you think. True, he's not a born-again Christian, but he is a religious Catholic and will be more of a friend to the religious right than you're giving him credit for. He's very pro law-and-order and as far as I know he wouldn't make changes to the current administration's foreign policy.

However, I don't know that any POTUS has ever been elected after only having been elected to municipal government. I would look for Giuliani to make a run at New York's governorship before the presidency.

As for John McCain, no matter what the polls say, there is just no way the Republican party is ever going to nominate him. He's despised by the libertarian (free speech) wing of the party for the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance laws, and a large swathe of the Republican party will never forgive him for the filibuster compromise. He's seen by most as an untrustworthy renegade, which makes for good news copy (and hence good general population poll numbers) but not for nuts-and-bolts coalition building.

Further to your posts:

Jeb Bush is too smart to try to follow his brother in 2008, knowing that Bush fatigue has already set in. Look for him to run after the next round of Democratic presidencies. Time is on his side.

Condi Rice is an intriguing possibility, but like Giuliani she lacks big-leagues electoral success. If she's serious about running for office, I'd expect her to start at a lower level. She would probably make a good Vice Presidencial candidate.

Colin Powell has the same electoral draw-backs as Condi, with the added problem that he appears to be uninterested in electoral politics. Another possible VP candidate, but that's a big stretch.

Schwarzenegger has his place of birth working against him. While there was some talk after his election of attempting a Constitutional amendment, this option has more or less died. There are rumours he intends to quit after his first term.

Cheney suffers from two major problems: his heart condition makes him a risky proposition, and he's been largely invisible since 911. But since there aren't any other ranking members of the current administration who even come close to his stature, look for him to run for the nomination as the current administration's flag-bearer. (Barring his death.)

Newt Gingrich is well loved for nostalgic reasons, but he's been out of office for way too long. He might make a good VP candidate for whoever gets nominated.

The other candidates you mentioned will probably run against Cheney. They're all weak prospects, Cheney included. I'd look for one of them to get the nod and then lose to Hillary, barring some lesser known Republican governor coming from out of the blue to steal the nomination a la Clinton in 1992. But he'll still lose.

The only thing that could lead to another Republican presidency at this point would be another war. (Even then it's a long shot.) Unless the terrorists strike again, Bush isn't going to start another war, and Congress wouldn't approve funding for another war even if he did. My personal belief is that if the terrorists could strike the US again they would, but they don't have that capability any more, and won't for a long time.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

An excellent post. One of the few things I disagreed with were

Colin Powell has the same electoral draw-backs as Condi, with the added problem that he appears to be uninterested in electoral politics. Another possible VP candidate, but that's a big stretch.

Powell is a long-shot because he is 'not a team player' when it comes to advocating the military as foreign policy.

and

My personal belief is that if the terrorists could strike the US again they would, but they don't have that capability any more, and won't for a long time.

That is something I would never bet on. Nobody expected or could reasonably have forseen '9/11' either.

[August1991]

Interesting, BHS.

The other candidates you mentioned will probably run against Cheney. They're all weak prospects, Cheney included. I'd look for one of them to get the nod and then lose to Hillary, barring some lesser known Republican governor coming from out of the blue to steal the nomination a la Clinton in 1992. But he'll still lose.

Cheney has clearly stated on the record on numerous occasions that he won't run. If the Dems choose Hillary, they'll lose for sure.

I think it is just too early to say who will be nominated, but I doubt if it would be a Rockefeller/Schweiker/East coast Republican - if there's any left of that sort. I think we'll have to wait until after the 2006 Congressionals, and it may well be a broad pack at the outset with no clear front runner. I would look at current governors for names - Sanford, Owens.

I am more interested to know whether the person chosen is willing to stand up to the various lobbyists or not.

[Riverwind]

Cheney has clearly stated on the record on numerous occasions that he won't run.  If the Dems choose Hillary, they'll lose for sure.

I am surprised so many of you think Hillary has a chance of winning. I thought she was so reviled by moderate right wingers that she would not have a chance.

[August1991]

Cheney has clearly stated on the record on numerous occasions that he won't run.  If the Dems choose Hillary, they'll lose for sure.

I am surprised so many of you think Hillary has a chance of winning. I thought she was so reviled by moderate right wingers that she would not have a chance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I should have said: If the Dems choose Hillary, the Dems will lose for sure.

[i don't know what time it is where you are but it feels like it's 87 past -8 where I am.]

[BHS]

My personal belief is that if the terrorists could strike the US again they would, but they don't have that capability any more, and won't for a long time.

That is something I would never bet on. Nobody expected or could reasonably have forseen '9/11' either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A key difference between then and now is the degree of preparedness among ordinary citizens. Americans will never again accept a hostage situation, so big explosions using hijacked vehicles are out, and reporting things that look suspicious are in. And unlike the Brits and Spanish, Americans are often armed, and are much more willing (as a rule) to get involved in suspicious or dangerous situations. The American penchant for vigilantism is often a problem, but in this case it acts in favour of preventing terrorism.

True, terrorists might be capable of a London/Madrid style bombing with small conventional explosives, but that wouldn't be enough to push the country back onto a war footing. Trying to stop individual crazies or groups of wannabes is nearly impossible, but the amount of damage they can inflict is not of the scale of terrorism that I was speaking of in my post. I should have been clearer.

It is also possible that a terrorist cell (or cells) have suitcase sized WMD (nuclear or biological) and are holding back for a signal, but that would take extraordinary cool-headedness on their part given the level of scrutiny the FBI etc. are giving potential terrorist cells. I'd say it's a long shot.

[BHS]

Cheney has clearly stated on the record on numerous occasions that he won't run.  If the Dems choose Hillary, they'll lose for sure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Every politician says he isn't going to run, right up until he announces his intention to run. Even so, as I've said, his heart condition is a serious problem.

I predicted in 1999 that Bush would win the presidency based on nothing more than him being the son of a former president. Americans have a serious love/hate relationship with the notion of royalty and dynasty. I've never seen a serious study done on the topic (indeed, I don't know how it could accurately be done) but I believe a small but significant advantage goes to a candidate who is directly related to a former president.

Hillary has a lot of things going for her, aside from being a former first lady. Since her election to the Senate, she has made a serious effort to distance herself from the hard Left of her party. She's one of the few Democrats who is openly in favour of keeping American troops in Iraq. She's nominally pro choice, but not enthusiastically. There's no indication she would be less fiscally conservative than her husband. The Hillary Health Plan is dead and she takes great pains to avoid the issue (though it will definitely be a thorn in her side). She stays away from the loopier elements within the Democrats whenever possible. She has made great efforts to improve her public speaking skills, and they've paid off.

The final element, that goes hand in glove with her relation to a former president, is that she is a woman. Since the 1980's both parties have floated trial balloons nearly every election as to whether it was "time" for woman to hold the highest office. I feel that the "time" is now upon us. Hillary represents the perfect storm that will carry a woman into the presidency for the first time: she's the least distasteful Democratic candidate, related to a former (and still much loved) president, running against a testosterone-laden Republican party that has spent it's political capital on the war effort, and on deflecting the non-stop torrent of criticism directed at Bush. I think Hillary's biggest fight will be for the nomination within her own party, which is just loaded with crazies these days. If she manages to make it through the primaries, she's in.

But then again, I was wrong about the Michael Jackson trial verdict.

[mirror]

Interesting comments all of them.

I believe that the Republicans will choose McCain, to try and moderate their image, and he probably would be their best bet. If he does run and get the nomination, it will be very close between him and Hilary, and it could go either way. I agree however that she will win, but by a very small margin.

[Big Blue Machine]

The Republicans will never nominate McCain, he's too moderate (liberal in wolf's clothing).

[Toro]

McCain would be great but I don't think he'll survive the primaries. The hard right does not like him at all. But he'd pretty much crush any Democrat. Guiliani would also be a good candidate except he's never run for anything except mayor of New York. Plus he left his wife for another woman, which isn't kosher with the right.

Hillary would lose. The Dems shouldn't nominate her. They should look at Gov. Warner of Virginia, a moderate who has been successful in a very Republican southern state.

[Big Blue Machine]

They should also look at Bill Richardson. Edwards would be a good candidate second time round.

[Black Dog]

If Americans want a moderate Republican for president in '08, they can just vote Democrat.

[mirror]

[PocketRocket]

Dear BHS,

My personal belief is that if the terrorists could strike the US again they would, but they don't have that capability any more, and won't for a long time.

That is something I would never bet on. Nobody expected or could reasonably have forseen '9/11' either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find I must agree with FLEABAG.

It doesn't take exhorbitant amounts of money.

All it takes is one bag of the proper grade fertilizer, a few other household ingredients, and a spark, and you have quite an explosion.

Alternatively, while planes may be somewhat more difficult to hijack now that they were 5 years ago, think what one stolen gasoline tanker could do if detonated in the downtown area of any major city.

If I can, in just a minute or so, think of two ways to cause major chaos , then these guys can think of many more.

Judging from what's happening in London, it's only a matter of time before the USA takes more hits.