« Afghan Parliament Demands the Arrest of US Soldiers Involved in Truck Accident | Main | The inevitable victory »

A historic election?

It occurred to me earlier tonight that in our next presidential election, something remarkable will happen. For the first time since 1952, every single election has featured either the sitting president or sitting vice-president on the ballot.

But not this time. Bush can't run, and while technically he could, let's be honest -- Dick Cheney won't be running, either.

It will truly be an open election, on both sides.

It's going to be a lot more fun than I thought...


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A historic election?:

» Mudville Gazette linked with Dawn Patrol

» bRight & Early linked with First Post 06.01.06

Comments (17)

Is there any likely candida... (Below threshold)

Is there any likely candidate on either side that really exictes anyone, yet?

I'm not excited about anyon... (Below threshold)

I'm not excited about anyone yet. I was keeping an eye on my senator, Sam Brownback, who is supposed to be thinking about running for president, but after his vote for the Senate immigration bill, he's out. The other one I'm watching is George Allen--I'm just not sure he's a strong enough personality to bring everyone together. The one who could do that, I think, is Rudy Guiliani. I know the reasons conxervatives aren't supposed to be for him, and I know he has some pre 9/11 baggae, but there are a lot of things in his favor, too. One thing I remember is his refusing a donation from that Saudi guy after 9/11. Seems like there was some kind of string attached, and Rudy wasn't having any of it. Can't remember now what it was. There are probably some out there under the radar who could come on strong, maybe after this year's elections are over.

The main problem will be th... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

The main problem will be that many voters will listen to the MSM, when they tell us who the front runners are, thereby selecting the candidates for us. If the MSM doesn't give you any coverage, then you aren't even running.

The main problem will be... (Below threshold)

The main problem will be that many voters will listen to the MSM, when they tell us who the front runners are, thereby selecting the candidates for us. If the MSM doesn't give you any coverage, then you aren't even running.

Remember how Tim Russert deliberately overlooked six of eight candidates on the stage at the Democratic presidential debate, becuase they weren't "front runner material"? Terrible. I don't understand why that guy has a job, much less a following.

We've been talking about th... (Below threshold)

We've been talking about this for a long time. Too bad there are no apparent candidates worthy of having.

Name one politician that DO... (Below threshold)

Name one politician that DOESN'T have some kind of baggage, or suspected baggage, in his past, and I'll show you someone who hasn't been a politician before.

IIRC, Guiliani refused the Saudi donation because he had made statements in the media just before donating that damned the US with faint praise, while not so subtly suggesting that "past actions" by the US Government were at least partly responsible for the 9/11 attack. Guiliani called bullsh*t on it, and sent the guy his check for $10 million back.

That being said, I can't think of anyone who has a strong political following, supports the general conservative stance regarding immigration and GWoT (and yes, I think GWoT should be renamed "the long war against islamofascism" or something similar), more or less fiscally conservative, and holds to other established planks of the Republican Party's platform. Cheney's heart problems will torpedo any run by him, and Zell Miller has retired from politics.

And the day McPain gets the nomination is the day that the Party ceases to be Republican anymore.

Once upon a time, Bob Livingston might have made a good candidate, but the MSM backlash to Bill's impeachment skewered Livingston's political career in 1998.

And Ahhhhnuld is not eligible to run for Prez, without a Constitutional Amendment. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

That leaves Guiliani and perhaps a small handful of regionally-known candidates.

On the Dems side, there seems to be a tug-of-war in the MSM between Hillary, Gore, and Kerry. Hillary was the heir apparent for quite some time, until the MSM recently jumped on the Gore Rehabilitation Program (touting their "inconvenient truth" that Hillary is too polarizing to voters to be electable?). Meanwhile, Kerry is back after a long press hiatus, lobbing accusations back at the Swift Vets (proof incontrivertable of the old legal maxim, "when your case is strong, argue the case; when your case is weak, argue the law; and when the law doesn't support you...bluster"). Thanks to Dean, the Democratic Party has moved markedly to the left over the past couple years. What was once the "Kos wing" of the Party now IS the Party.

And W isn't helping his party by his slow transmogrification into his father, Bush 41 (anyone remember how well GHWB handled foreign affairs, only to get creamed at home, on the economy and other domestic issues?).

I didn't agree with the way Kennedy (the real one, not the drunken one) got elected in 1960. But at least, having won, JFK tried to govern decently. I'll suggest that he was the last Democratic president to do so. Johnson got us into Vietnam and lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Carter set the wheels of Islamofascism in motion when he failed to attack Iran for invading US territory when it took our embassy in 1979, and screwed the economy (yes, I remember in 1981 when people lined up all the way down the block for bond programs that backed 30-year home mortgage loans at 11%). Clinton rode the Internet investment bubble while committing US forces to "humanitarian" brush fires that had no strategic interest to the US, and small deployments on the ground virtually guaranteed mediocre results, further embolding our enemies. His response to terror attacks on US soil and assets was to pretend that they were criminal acts instead of acts of war.

Yes, I know Republican presidents certainly weren't perfect. Nixon's hubris brought him down for no apparent reason (he'd already had huge feathers in his cap of opening up China, turning around the war in Vietnam, and passing the landmark Clean Air Act of 1970). Reagan did well in his first term, but I suspect his Alzheimer's began affecting his presidency by 1985. GHWB broke a major campaign promise, and his failure to "finish what he started" in Iraq set up ten years of No-Fly, Oil for Food, and WMD shennanigans by Saddam. W is inexplicably soft on border enforcement and immigration, after claiming to want to protect us from terrorist infiltration.

On the balance, though, I'd take a Nixon or a JFK before most of the others, and before any of the Democratic presidents since 1963.

Anyone know of potential presidential contenders that might be recognizable on a national level, for either party, that I haven't mentioned above?

Wanderlust,What ab... (Below threshold)


What about Newt Gingrich? He's been out of power long enough to avoid the negatives that our current crop of Republicans have, and probably out long enough that people will have forgotten some of his tawdry divorce details. At the very least, if "values voters" are faced with Rudy or Newt, Newt's got less baggage than Rudy.

Oh Obi Wan Guiliani...you'r... (Below threshold)

Oh Obi Wan Guiliani...you're our only hope!

Wanderlust, you neglected M... (Below threshold)

Wanderlust, you neglected Mitt Romney, the only politician on the planet who one can comfortably say hasn't got a closet, much less a skeleton in one. Almost too squeaky clean, if that's possible. He's got some national recognition due to his Olympic performance. He's exceedingly attractive, very smart, and has a ton of money.

All of that said, I think he sometimes has rather a tin ear for politics and is heavily over-handled. His every move choreographed to an insane degree. And he is rather wooden off-the-cuff, and can either be utterly charming or painfully obsequious. And he is liable to put his foot in his mouth more than once or twice.

But he is getting a very good response so far in the hustings.

Brad, I really really like ... (Below threshold)

Brad, I really really like Newt, but I think you're dreaming when you say he has less baggage than Rudy.

The one who could do tha... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

The one who could do that, I think, is Rudy Guiliani. I know the reasons conxervatives aren't supposed to be for him, and I know he has some pre 9/11 baggae, but there are a lot of things in his favor, too.

Some??!! Wow, maybe being from NY I know this a little better than most, but Rudy has got a lot more than some. Remember how Bernie Kerik went down in flames, those two are great buddies.

As far as others not mentioned, Feingold is definitely up there. Repubs might not like him for trying to censure the Prez, but independents and Dems do cause he's the only one in DC standing up to this Administration. He's been consistent on following the rule of law, oversight, and open gov't, all this which are greatly lacking. He voted against Iraq which will be big in '08 as we'll be looking to get out. If he's not a Prez candidate, he's certainly VP material. And then Dems have their regional contenders as well, there's Mark Warner, former gov of VA, and Bill Richardson gov of NM.

Romney is unelectable, whic... (Below threshold)

Romney is unelectable, which is good, because he has turned out to be the worst sort of vile RINO politician. You want to take a McCain nomination and raise it to an even greater level of horror? McCain/Romney. Romney is like a McCain Jr. Romney is a Republican Dukakis.

Hillary is a better choice than either or both, partly because she's a hard edged, practical politician. And she's a better choice than Gore, who - along with most of the population - is a better choice than Kerry.

If Romney runs, as MA residents we will do all we can to help him fail.

For the first time since... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

For the first time since 1952, every single election has featured either the sitting president or sitting vice-president on the ballot.

A point that I made back in April:


I also noted a couple of other trends which don't bode well for the Republicans in 2008.

There's Condi Rice, who's p... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

There's Condi Rice, who's privately states with a smile that "Running isn't currently on my agenda"...

Sean, there is no way Feing... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

Sean, there is no way Feingold so much as wins a primary, much less the Democratic nomination. If there's one single issue that the left and right blogosphere agree on, it's what an unmitigated disaster campaign finance reform has been... and Feingold's fingerprints are all over it. No matter what kind of leftist positions he takes on other issues, as long as he refuses to renounce McCain-Feingold, the Dem fundraisers and blogs won't work for him. To sum it up, he has cut himself off from any possible sources of money.

Dave, You may be rig... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

You may be right, I had forgotten about the campaign finance reform. But I would venture to say that this will not be a big issue in '08 and a lot of people don't know/don't care about it. Plus, McCain's name is on that too and he still is a top contender.

IMHO, Newt skewered his run... (Below threshold)

IMHO, Newt skewered his run when he began bleating in sync with the Iraq War baaaaaaaaad crowd, and AFAIK, he has been silent on the FBI congressional investigation dustup (with William Jefferson, D-bribery).

And I don't see Romney as yet having the traction to go national, but that could change, as it did for Clinton in early 1992 and Kerry in early 2004 as those two proved their electibility to Democrats.

Oh, and I almost spewed coffee over the monitor when I read moseby's post re Guiliani above...too freakin' funny :)






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy