Posted on 03/22/2005 7:18:40 AM PST by The Great Yazoo
My thinking was not so much that the eventual GOP candiate would run a campaign in a manner that was "outside the box".
My thinking is that most current potential candidates are caught up in the minutia of current events and staking their future positions on their responses to all that current minutia.
My thinking is that the minutia hides as well as represents the undercurrents of larger trends.
My thinking is that it is the trends, not the minutia, that is going to lead to new decision-time events in 2006 and 2007.
My thinking is that if some GOPer is sitting back, looking at the trends, not the details, has an idea of events (yet to come) in the making, and is already thinking "outside the box" on policy responses to those possible events, and if they stand up in 2006 and 2007, they will stand out as "fresh" in a crowd of the usual and familiar.
The country likes a change every eight years or so. That comes from our cultural side, regardless of our political allegiences.
The GOP will need someone who is "fresh" in 2006 and 2007. A truly fresh conservative face can squash the media loving McCain's and RINOs, who will have very well established faces, and positions on todays events; events that will not be the drivers of tomorrow's election. Some of those positions will make them flip-flop with their responses to possible coming events. That's one of the ways they will lose some of what currently may seem their edge.
I think the trends to watch involve foreign policy more than domestic matters.
Edwards has southern charm?
Absolutely he has said this many times that he is not willing to do the things that is needed to be President. He decided this back in the mid 1990s and is unlikely to change his mind over 10 years later.
Wuli has an excellent point here.
Whenever leadership skips a level, as in the USSR when it got Gorby, good things happen. Fresh thinking illuminates the issues.
Cheney will turn out to be a pivotal figure in the future of the Freedom Trail, doing what's necessary to win elections, manage public affairs, and step aside when necessary.
Cinncinnatus and Washingtom come to mind.
Great men and selfless.
May the good Lord watch over him and give him peace.
I like Cheny alot, and if he were the GOP candidate in 2008, I'd vote for him. I just do not think he will be, I do not think the eventual GOP candidate has much public visibility now. I think that events, in 2006 and 2007 will drive the deciding issues of the 2008 elections. The GOP candidate that will have the best chance will be a fresh face, with some fresh ideas, simply because every eight to twelve years, Americans like that better than not. On the other hand, if we are at war with ??????? at the time, all bets are off.
...but he could run for VP again!
The thing that soldified me for W was his choice of Cheney in 2000. In fact I was so thrilled that Cheney was chosen that I signed up with FR the very day the selection was announced. [I hadf been a lurker only prior to that.] I was dissapointed when in 1996 Cheney dropped out of the race.
Hmmm..."willing to bulsh*t" is too strong a term...I'd rather say able to hand the retail side of politics, sell himself and his policies to the largest audience. This doesn't have to be BS, just saying 'the right things' with sincerity [real or otherwise].
I think Cheney, like Rumsfield, would prefer to speak his mind, and his mind is not necessarily as TV friendly to the voters as Bush's is. For example, think he'd be a lot more conflicted over this Terri case if cornered. He does better work left unmolested.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.