Just heard from a conservative who I've debated in the past. She has had some trouble getting her post up, so she emailed it to me. EFT always has interesting things to say, so I've decided to go ahead and post this on the main page of the blog. It was written before the NH vote, so keep that in mind. If anyone else is having trouble posting, let me know via email. I assume all the readers of this blog have my address.
I'll have some thoughts on New Hampshire later today.
Here's the email:
Izzy...it seems we are finally in agreement about several major points. Scary, isn't it?
Though I have the advantage of knowing how the Iowa Caucuses turned out (simply because I didn't have time to post before them), there are still 49 primaries to go and a lot of things could change. My helpmate pointed out this evening that only two Iowa winners have gone on to be president: Carter and Dubya, and that doesn't bode well for anyone or either party.
Let’s begin with the Republicans . . .
Giuliani certainly has name recognition as you say, but he has it in the same way that Ike did after the war and for much the same reason. He also reminds me of Chirac, a man who thought running a major metropolis would translate into national and international expertise-it didn’t and it nearly drove France and their role in the EU into the ground. They both have corruption issues and Giuliani’s personal issues make me think that something Craig-ish could happen. I mean, come on, a family-values conservative who’s been married 3 TIMES?!?! If he wanted to hold national office, he should have taken a page from the Clinton book and married for political strategery purposes.
Huckabee is a puzzle. I’m wondering if his late arrival to the race earned him the Iowa crown only because the media and his opponents haven’t had sufficient time to pick him apart yet. I am suspicious of anyone or anything that leans towards religious zealotry and he’s a minister and a Southern Baptist one at that. I have concluded that fundamentalists of any faith (Islam, Christianity, etc.) are to be carefully monitored and the Southern Baptists are one of the most fundamental Christian groups, coming just shy of qualifying as a cult on a good day. He doesn’t even know there is separation of church and state.
McCain is great but I think he peaked about 8 years ago. Unfortunately for him and us, the Republican powers at the time were bent on having another Bush, so McCain got screwed by his own party in much the same way that Dean did a la the NY Times and scream fiascoes. Maybe he’d make a good VP candidate?
Paul has great grassroots support, as you say. But he’s not going far, which is a shame. He reminds me of Keyes in this way-great ideas but not enough backing to make a national impression.
Romney is a study in contrasts. His background is much more down to earth than almost all of the other candidates combined. Despite the Mormon cult issue, he’s had real jobs and dealt with some serious personal issues (i.e. recovering from a near fatal car accident) that prove he’s a fighter. I’m also impressed that his resume includes a stint as governor of Massachusetts. How do you figure that he got MA, arguably one of the most liberal states in the country, to elect him as a Republican governor? It’s intriguing.
Thompson is a waste of time. He came on as the heir apparent to the Reagan dynasty-another actor turned politician, but he’s LAZY! Presidential candidate is just another role, and he’s not gonna get an Oscar.
And now on to the Democrats . . .
Biden is nuts. He’s been around forever, and yet he can’t translate that into anything that will help him make a splash in a national race. Most days he seems as divisive as Sen. Rodham and he has no appeal beyond his very liberal base, which is eroding fast in the blue party.
Clinton , oh my, what to say…there are days I think she’s the antichrist. Not because she’s so liberal, which she is despite her moderate rantings to appear more centrist, and not because she has her speech writers compose her talks based on the latest polls, which she does to an even greater degree than the rest of the political brat pack, but mainly because I have never, ever seen any politician make such bold grabs at power and get away with it! Only someone in league with the devil or the devil herself could pick a state that she’s “electable” in and then get enough voters to go for it or claim her experience as First Lady qualifies her over some other candidate. I mean, come on, the role of FL is largely ceremonial, much like her role as wife is to Bill, and it’s a little scary that she couldn’t even see her home state of IL as a possibility. Then again, Obama has that locked up, serving in the state legislature and all. Heck, even Elizabeth Dole chose her momma’s home state and was generally accepted. But if the people of Chicago won’t have you back, you’ve got issues.
Dodd and Kucinich are both going nowhere fast. Dodd reminds me of a Democrat Quayle, and Kucinich…he’s just not getting his ideas out there somehow.
Edwards is interesting. In 2004, I spent a good bit of time listening to his speeches and my conclusion was that if he’d been the Dems’ candidate rather than Kerry then things might have played out very differently in that election. He’s a smooth talker and he appeals to a wide range of voters. The consensus in his home state is that he jumped into the national spotlight too soon. If he’d finished at least one senate term, there are a lot who think he’d be President Edwards now. Hard to say and now he’s in a tough position, having been on the losing team just like poor old Lieberman, who I always liked.
Obama is the most interesting candidate in the race and he’s the real deal. He’s young and somewhat inexperienced, but he plays that to his advantage. (Frankly, he’s not any less experienced than his current close competition.) People seem to love him, including Oprah. He’s a good speaker and he clearly shows he’s human. He inhaled, after all, and did a bit more, yet was candid about it years ago. (I would be shocked to see some of the others be this up front with voters.) I think it would be cool to see him as the candidate with a VP of Richardson, Edwards, or even McCain, but I don’t think the Dem power structure is going to let that happen, at least not in 2008.
Richardson was stronger in the race about six months ago. Interestingly enough, I took an online quiz a while back where you answer questions about your political beliefs and it matches you with the closest candidate and Richardson was the guy! When I looked at his website, I had to admit that his stated views were ones I could support, but I think Izzy’s right…he won’t last much longer.
Prediction for New Hampshire
Republicans: 1. Romney (he’s close to MA…it’s going to be like going home), 2. McCain (NH loves a renegade), 3. Huckabee (not enough time still for his opponents to launch an attack)
Democrats: 1. Obama (he’s on a roll), 2. Edwards (always a bridesmaid, never a bride), 3. Clinton (the Clinton political machine and money grind on)
No comments:
Post a Comment