Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Will Condi run?
All of that may well be true. But will Condi run? Morris: "She does not run so much as audition. But it could still happen." He envisions a vast grass roots effort within the Republican Party to draft her, in effect, by pushing her into running for the nomination. And he notes that she has never said "what General Sherman said."
Morris does not answer the question on my mind: Will the Bush family throw its support, and massive capacity to raise money, behind a Rice candidacy? That, it seems, could be crucial, even if George W. Bush limps into the end of his presidency.
20 Comments:
By 
Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue Oct 11, 10:16:00 AM:
I find it interesting that the few Republicans I do like, McCain for instance, get slammed by their own party. Is there an agenda to make me never vote for a Republican?
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Oct 11, 11:00:00 AM:
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue Oct 11, 11:19:00 AM:
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Oct 11, 03:18:00 PM:
McCain is a traitorous media whore. Take a look at how he and Kerry whitewashed the MIA issue for Clinton so he could give Vietnam MFN status.
You think Kerry got "swiftboated"? McCain will get 10X that attention if he gets close, and he won't be able to pass muster.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue Oct 11, 03:23:00 PM:
See there's one right there! That's amazing. Limbaugh called, he wants his talking points back.
By Final Historian, at
Tue Oct 11, 04:52:00 PM:
No politician out there is perfect, but McCain is clearly one of the better out there. As for his winning the nomination, or impossibility thereof, things may be different than in 2000. For one, there will probably be more competition for the nomination this time around, which means he has a good chance of being top dog this time around, especially if more "traditional" GOP candidates fight among themselves. Don't write him off.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Tue Oct 11, 05:28:00 PM:
The media loves McCain because he gets in front of microphones and criticizes other Republicans (which is probably why Catchy Sue likes him too). If he ever got the nomination the MSM would turn on him and crucify him with two words: Keating Five.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Oct 12, 09:15:00 AM:
You Republicans are always such the MSM victims. And thanks for speaking for me, but no I like McCain because I find myself agreeing with him on the issues he tackles. Yea, he's not afraid to take on his own party. I admire that. I don't want some party suck-up toady being president. But I guess just like the current president, the Republican party doesn't want anyone pointing out their errors or disagreeing with them. So go ahead nominate some spineless Republican shell. I'll once again not vote for him.
By cakreiz, at
Wed Oct 12, 09:59:00 AM:
I like McCain a lot, Catch. It just scares me that we can agree on that. But I like Russ Feingold too- largely for the same reason- because he's an independent thinker. I'm still holding out for Colin Powell in 08- but realize it's as probably as the Royals winning the 08 World Series.
Wait a minute... isn't McCain a media whore?!? I thought so....
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Oct 12, 10:28:00 AM:
I like Powell too, but I can't see him running. After his four years in the White House, I think he's probably burnt on politics, but who knows. I'd seriously consider voting for him depending on who the Democrats ran. Who knows who that will be. I don't know much about Feingold. I like the independent thinkers, but they tend to take a lot more abuse than the party suck ups.
By cakreiz, at
Wed Oct 12, 11:04:00 AM:
I was kidding about Powell (unfortunately). Watched a PBS show Monday night about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Powell's steady, tempered involvement was reassuring. But he wasn't a Bush synchophant. And you're absolutely right about party suck-ups. It's easier to march in lockstep. And the contributions from the faithful are probably much better.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Wed Oct 12, 05:17:00 PM:
I wasn't advocating party line suckup in any way. I simply explained why I think the MSM loves him. However I stand by my prediction that should he win the nomination, he will not get an endorsement from the New York Times. My guess is Catchy won't vote for him either.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Oct 12, 05:46:00 PM:
McCain is the darling of the "moderates" because he's a thorn in the side of the Bush administration. When they realize that he is both an unreconstructed hawk and a pro-lifer they will drop him like the dog's breakfast.
For my part, I admire McCain for his lifetime of public service, and I think he is very valuable in the Senate. But I am not certain that he would be a good president.
As for Colin Powell, I am certain that he would not be. He is, I do not doubt, a good man, and he is superb at bureaucratic in-fighting. But I agree with Christopher Hitchens that he is perhaps the most overrated person in American politics. Condoleezza Rice, however, is an extraordinary person. She is inexperienced as a politician, but immensely capable and talented.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Oct 12, 09:25:00 PM:
You guys sorely misunderstand "moderates" if that's what you're calling me. I know McCain is a pro-lifer. I can live with that. And I think his Hawkish tendancies will be tempered by actual combat experience unlike Texas National Guard boy we have as a president now.
I'm also confused as to how Colin Powell is the most over-rated person in American politics. The theme I see in your comments is that no matter how nicely you guys try to put it, you don't like people who don't tow the party line or who have or had conflicts with the president.
Also, my guess... Charlottesvillian is going to vote Democrat all the while pretending he's a Republican. He has a thing for Hillary.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Oct 12, 09:41:00 PM:
I guess I shouldn't say "you guys don't like people who don't tow the party", that's not not quite what I meant. It's more like you seem to find a weakness or fault in those who are Republican yet speak out against Republicans, and that what makes me suspicious that "you don't like people who don't tow the party".
By cakreiz, at
Thu Oct 13, 07:42:00 AM:
Powell's a fave of mine because he comports himself with dignity, calm and poise. If Hitchens thinks he's overrated, I'll have to think about that, since I'm a hell of a fan of Chris' contrarianism. Besides, Powell is a dead issue; he's not running. Thought he made a very solid Sec of State; wish he had had the President's ear.
Condi? Love her. McCain? Same. Will Catch vote Mac? Doubtful.. Mac's more of a Republican than Republicans care to acknowledge. I can't see independent-minded liberals rejecting the Donk nominee.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Oct 13, 09:17:00 AM:
Well, like I said, it all depends on who the Dems pick. But there is a large group of people who look more at the person than the party. I'm pretty skeptical and often annoyed by both parties. I'd love to have a third party come in and stomp both of them.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Oct 13, 01:19:00 PM:
Two cents on Powell: he's smart, has proven leadership, and has a strong sense of integrity and accountability. Much of his political stature was erroded by his dramatic speech with the vial of white powder on the UN floor, but even so: he's one of about 9 Republicans I would vote for.
Two cents on McCain: he's really not that moderate. He's more of an old-school conservative, and just toes the party-line less. Don't confuse that with moderate. Like Powell, he's worthy of respect for his integrity. That resonates with people who don't have a Left/Right political agenda but want a good government. (or people whose interests aren't served by either the Left or the Right, but want a good government)
And finally 2 cents on Rice: At the moment, I don't see Rice having a solid chance in 2008. Not if Bush's approval doesn't top 50%. She's smart and has a good chance for the future, but not if she wastes it early. Clinton didn't run in 2004, because the time wasn't right. She didn't have the independent experience, was too coupled to Bill, and frankly Bush was too strong. I think Rice in 2008 would be too soon and too coupled to this presidency. It would become a referendum on Bush. No doubt, she is kryptonite to many of the Democrats advantages, but she's going to need a nice run-up to the campaign, and she's not going to get one now. Things may be better in 3 years, but we'll still be at war in Iraq, and they'll still not have WMDs.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Thu Oct 13, 03:22:00 PM:
Catchy, I think we have more in common than you might think. And don't think I wouldn't vote democratic for the right candidate. I would vote for McCain under many circumstances, possibly even in a Republican primary (assuming independents are allowed to cast votes). But he's still a member of the Keating Five, regardless.
Condi? Please. I am sure she would be a fine executive, but she's never run for office and the campaign would eat her alive.
By cakreiz, at
Thu Oct 13, 04:26:00 PM:
Condi did a surprisingly good job at the 9/11 hearings- thought she handled herself quite ably. I can't imagine her giving a big convention speech nor can I imagine her working a crowd. But you never know. It's not like Hillary's filled with Bill's gifts in this arena either. She gives a flat, drowning stump speech.
McCain's just alright. But I think he's pissed off the Right. Which still rules the GOP. I look for someone like Sen. Allen- a conservative nobody- rather than a more moderate choice like McCain. In other words, here's the gun, Mr. GOP... shoot yourself in the foot.
