No, not me, silly!
John McCain!
And Vice-President? Rudy Guiliani!
It’s not an endorsement (nor is it a condemnation; we’re still WAY too far out for either), just a prediction.
Here’s how I see it:
Basically, everyone else who is running so far has a major Achilles’ heal. Hillary is divisive, Obama is inexperienced, Richardson is low-profile, Edwards just doesn’t feel like a winner to me, Romney is Mormon, Brownback can’t capture the public’s attention, etc.
I’m not saying this means they wouldn’t be a good President; I’m just not sure it makes them electable.
McCain is the most traditional candidate (i.e., an old white dude with a strong military and congressional record who has been gearing up for this for years), and he doesn’t really have that one, glaring, Achilles’ heal.
I think he’ll win the GOP nomination easily, and I have a feeling one of the Dems that I mentioned before will win theirs. But, like I said, they have their weaknesses.
Running Guiliani with McCain leans the GOP pretty sharply to the left and poises the Republicans to capture A LOT of cross-over votes from Democrats who are skeptical about their candidates’ perceived weaknesses. Even considering the unpopularity of the Republicans at the moment, I think a lot of folks (myself included) would be fairly comfortable with a non-neocon, left-leaning Republican president/VP balanced out by a Democratic senate.
I don’t know yet if it’s the best ticket, but it seems the most win-able to me as of February 2007.
Caveats:
1) Neo-cons. I’m 95% sure that their time in the spotlight is done. However, with a left-leaning GOP ticket and 8 strong years under their belts, a third party or independent run on social and religious issues could look appealing. But it could hand the race to the Dems.
2) I don’t think Gore* will run, but if he does and wins the nomination, then this is a whole new ballgame.
This is just my mostly-uneducated educated guess. I know a handful of people who follow American politics like I follow Swiss hockey (Allez, Gottéron !!!), and who could probably debunk this easily. But my theory seems reasonable to me.
All in all, I’m excited about the 2008 campaign. I might be naieve, but it feels like we really can’t lose. 
*I’ll use this mention of Gore for a tangent on global warming/climate change.
I used to be a skeptic; now I’m mostly a believer, although I’d kill to see a jury trial between both camps.
Regardless, even if humans aren’t causing a thing, we should still throw our full weight behind green technologies, and Washington should take the lead. Why?
- It’s supposed to be the government’s job to protect the long-term territorial integrity of the country. Most people accept this as grounds for a strong military. Why doesn’t the same hold true in protecting our country from itself? It should. And the health of our country’s environment should be given the benefit of the doubt.
- We have Velcro because of the space program. Massive research into green technology could bring us advances in other areas that we can’t even imagine.
It could also bring… - JOBS!
First, there was the agricultural age. Then industrial. Now, service-sector is big. But what’s next?
A public commitment to research in Green energy could differentiate the US economy from the rest of the world. As more and more service-sector jobs are offshored, we should really be thinking ahead and finding a way to make the US economy stand out in the future. Thinking ahead, research and development of green technology could become a backbone of the US economy. And even if you’d rather think behind than ahead, there might be some benefit for you as well. We could even build a green manufacturing sector! “Made Green in the USA.” - Education. I feel like a hypocrite saying this, considering that I moronically turrned down the option for advanced math and science classes during my freshman year of high school, but we need to stress the value of math and science in our educational system. This could be a way to do that.
That’s all for now!
Filed under: Current Events, Politics
I like your theory– I just don’t know if it’ll work.
First of all it’s unlikely that a Republican will win, short of the Dems fielding someone unwinnable like Hillary.
Second, it’s hard to predict this far ahead and to know who’ll survive or even thrive in the next two years. Six months ago, it looked like McCain had sealed the deal. Now there’s pro-torture-and-opportunist Mitt Romney, theocon Sam Brownback and assorted other crazies.
Plus, catch the Republicans being so rational as to vote for Rudy or McCain. The base wants someone who’s a proven Christian conservative (anti-gay, anti-abortion etc etc) and who is “tough” on security (pro-torture, pro-wiretapping etc). Anyway, I can see the appeal of McCain and Guiliani to the middle .. but I’m not sure how good their chances are of winning the nomination. It’ll depend on whether the Republicans can move away from that wing of their party and seek out a different vision for the future. And I don’t know if that will happen in time for the 2008 elections. (Btw: McCain has done badly lately with independents and moderates, who used to see him as a good choice. I think it’s his support of the defacto torture bill that sealed that, but I could be wrong).
Yea, I know what you mean. I admit I’m probably wrong. But everyone seems “unelectable,” McCain the least so.
But there’s still a LONG way to go. Keep your eyes on the road. –BNL
[...] while ago, I wrote this post on the 2008 presidential race and global warming (yes, I should have made it two posts instead of [...]