Replies

No such thing as "Unelectable" sorry but the political world is in flux. We have not had an election where there was NO obvious torch bearer in either party running since the 1950s.

Kennedy beat Eisenhower's chosen successor Nixon. Kennedy is killed and the torch passed to LBJ. LBJ's obvious successor Humphrey lost to Nixon. Nixon resigns and passes the torch to Ford, Cater beat Ford, Reagan beat Carter. Reagan passes the Torch to Bush 1, Bush one loses to Clinton. Clinton passes it to Gore who loses to Bush 2. After Bush two....wide open.

This is a once in a life time election. Probably the only wide open election campaign we will see in our life time.All the old assumptions and political folk wisdom go right out the door for 2008. Being ONLY a Congresscritter and having no name recognition actually HELPS Hunter since the winners in National elections usually are the once who run AGAINST the DC Machine. Reagan won by being an outsider. Clinton won the same way. Bush was the outsider and the Democrats in 2006, as unbelievable as this is to people who actually follow politics, won by running against Republican dominated DC. Hunter can win. But he will have to let it all hang out.

Most insightful. Some other outsider, no name recognition, eventually winning candidates come to mind including Lincoln (basically a railroad lawyer), T. Roosevelt and Truman (both first succeeded to the office, then were elected, but would have been highly unlikely nominees) and, of course, Eisenhower who was hardly a Washington insider, never having held elected office.

Barring another 9/11-type attack here or in Europe, Hunter and other conservatives who may join the fray in 2008 face the 'short memory' syndrome of Americans generally and really poorly educated post boomer generations who view life as a reality show or a video game.

My fear is that as history typically telescopes at sonic speeds, we will substitute our remaining vestiges of judgment and common sense for a ticket of the brainless and spineless whose only attribute is making moronic talk show hosts look brilliant.

Everyone knows that Old Joe paid for his Son to win the election by making deals in Chicago Mob Circles. If Nixon had contested that election he would have been President, and maybe JFK would have not been assassinated. Politics can turn on a dime today, unlike even 10 years ago, with the 24-7 DBM anything goes. Executive leadership is what the Voters want, they prefer former Governors as in Clinton, Carter, GWB, Reagan. Reagan had lots of leadership background in the SAG, and the Governor of the most populous State, California. He had lots of name recognition not just as the Governor, but with GE Theater, Death Valley Days, the Old Movies. I believe Richardson was counting on his Governor's role to run for President, and I would not be surprised if that was exactly why he ran. A very Conservative Nominee cannot win Nationwide despite what we hear about Reagan and GWB. Neither were really as Conservative as we might have wanted, and that is why they could win Nationwide. For that same reason Clinton moderated some of the wild eye leftist ideas when he ran, and when he listened to the radicals once he was elected he lost the House and Senate. I really do not like it, but the electorate will not elect a socially Conservative, fiscally moderate Hunter, they only would if those views were turned around. What we want and what we can have are two different things. I would not support Hunter at this juncture, he has almost no experience except being a Congressman, IMHO not good enough to run a White House and all of it's Agencies, employees with the enemy both foreign and domestic ready to get you.