Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rembrandt_fan
Remember:

1975: Jimmy who?

1991: Bill who?

70 posted on 08/10/2005 3:04:04 PM PDT by Clemenza (Intelligent Design Isn't Very Intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: Clemenza

Great point...except they were both Democrats!!!!

You could talk about Reagan in 1976? or in 1964 giving that speech. But then he was all over the radio.


90 posted on 08/10/2005 8:07:36 PM PDT by joyspring777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: Clemenza
You wrote, "1975: Jimmy who? 1991: Bill who?"

Jimmy Carter's election was a fluke of history, a reaction to what was perceived as Republican malfeasance and ineptitude: Watergate overall, Ford's pardon of Nixon, Spiro Agnew's disgraceful resignation, little Whip Inflation Now buttons, the helicopters scurrying from the embassy roof in Saigon...

Truly, anyone could've beaten Ford. It just happened to be Jimmy Carter. The senior Bush, on the other hand, alienated the base of his own party by breaking his no-new-tax pledge and 'realpolitik' bungling of what should've been total military victory in Iraq, rather than the first round in a damaging, drawn-out ordeal.

Both Ford and Bush were damaged goods, electoral pushovers. A conclusion one can draw from their respective defeats is that relative political unknowns can win major elections if the incumbent has a seriously compromised candidacy from the beginning: Ford had Nixon, Bush the Elder had Saddam.

Hillary, on the other hand, does not have Bill. She has carefully divorced herself from her role in the more unsavory and unsuccessful aspects of her husband's administration, and has done a masterful job of repositioning herself as a centrist and establishing an identity distinct from her role as former first lady; i.e., the Junior Senator from New York. Is this repositioning of hers a blatantly transparent, cynical ploy? Of course it is. She banks on the notoriously short-attention span of the voting public, and knows that in a largely evenly split election, she can conceivably peel off enough easily swayed votes to win.

So yeah, the GOP needs a known quantity likely to draw the middle. In my view, a Guiliani candidacy would be a good move strategically, especially if Guiliani re-thinks his views on issues--like abortion--that energize the conservative base, and chooses a solid conservative as a running mate, one ideally with strong foreign policy credentials to counter Rudy's lack of expertise in that regard. I personally adore Condoleeza Rice, but doubt she wants to wade in the muck of a presidential campaign.
93 posted on 08/11/2005 10:10:39 AM PDT by Rembrandt_fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson