Saturday, November 25, 2006

More Speculation on 2008

There's been some talk, (here and here), about the possibility of a McCain/Lieberman 2008 presidential ticket. This idea is resurgent mostly because of Lieberman's new communication director, Marshall Wittman, having strong ties to McCain. The timing of a McCain/Lieberman ticket in 2008 is just wrong. We needed it in 2004, when the role of American Deomcracy idealism was not devalued around the globe. For 2008, we need a presidential candidate who needs to reset the direction of American foreign policy in a bold engaged direction, and not succumb to an isolationist domestic agenda.

The GOP contenders offer up the concept of building walls, literally, on our borders. Rasmussen says Giuliani, Rice and McCain. All three are comfortable with the bunker mentality that looks inwards.

On the Dems side, at least according to a CNN poll, you have Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and Gore, we get Domestic policy wonks and little in the way of global anything, with the exception of Gore.

And then there is Dodd. Today's Courant reiterates, he's not on the radar, as a presidential candidate yet. But his focus on America's standing in the world is the right one. The real issue for 2008 is not going to be on the failed policies of Bush, but on the fundamental issue of whether we Americans see the world as it is, or as we'd like to see it. Whether Dodd will rise above the popularity contests that have become the presidential aspirant races will remain to be seen. The direction of the 2008 race will turn on what happens in Iraq. Bush may still control the military, but the debate about America's role in the world is now in the hands of Congress.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

"All three are comfortable with the bunker mentality that looks inwards."

*chortle*

So are a good deal of other Americans who are tired of the endless number of ILLEGAL immigrants streaming accross our borders.

You are aware that Mexico has a boarder fence manned with armed forces on it's southern border? Why is it wrong for the US to have the same?

Anonymous said...

Oh and Turfgrrl?

A McCain/Lieberman 2008 presidential ticket would sink faster than an rock.

McCain is a self-serving fool that talks out of both sides of his mouth...

Avant-garde said...

• Usually presidents do not emerge from Congress
• President Dodd? Please, give me a break…

turfgrrl said...

anonymous 10:23: I think Bloomberg said it best:
There is only one practical solution, and it is a solution that respects the history of our nation: Offer those already here the opportunity to earn permanent status and keep their families together, provided they pay appropriate penalties. For decades, the federal government has tacitly welcomed them into the workforce and collected their income and Social Security taxes, which two-thirds of undocumented workers pay. Now, instead of pointing fingers about the past, let's accept the present for what it is by bringing people out of the shadows, and focus on the future by casting those shadows aside, permanently.

As the debate continues in Washington, it is essential that Congress recognize the need for an immigration policy that is enforceable, sustainable and compassionate--and that enables the American economy to thrive in the 21st century. But if one principle is abandoned, we will be no better off than we were after passage of the 1986 law. A successful solution to our border problems cannot rest on a wall alone; it must be built on a foundation strong enough to support it, and to support our continued economic growth and prosperity
Wall Street Journal

Shadow said...

Good analysis, except your assertion that the Democrats listed have nothing in the way of global anything, as that's just not rooted in fact; Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have all articulated their foreign policy positions to everyone who take the time to find and read them.

Your assertion is a particularly unfair statement regarding Obama; he has the most reasonable Iraq policy out of all the leading Democratic contenders which happens to echo my thoughts exactly, and he has been consistently against the idea of the war from the outset, a position which inherantly speaks to "reseting the direction of American foreign policy" more than any other attribute. Plus Obama has been so engaged with Africa, and co-sponsored a bill earlier this year with Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar to destroy weapons stockpiles and reduce the number of weapons available to our enemies, with a focus on the artillery shells used to create the IED's which have killed and injured so many of our troops.

I have to say, more generally speaking, it's so odd how conventional political analyses regarding the Presidency in recent years always elevate the foreign policy experience argument above all others, and then turn around and say only Governors get elected.

By 2008, Hillary will have had eight years in the Senate and eight years of being a policy minded person who just happened to be at the heart of the White House.

Edwards will have had six years in the Senate by 2008.

Obama will have had four years in the Senate by 2008.

Our last two sitting Presidents had ZERO days in federal office and no foreign policy experience when they were elected. The difference between Clinton and GWB in the success they've had with their foreign policy is thus clearly not a matter of office foreign policy experience, as they both had none, but a matter of intellectual curiosity and being well-traveled. Hillary is both, particularly the latter, and Edwards is both, particularly the former; however, I am starting to think that it may be Obama who looks the best when you take into account both qualities in tandem.

Anonymous said...

turf...

A Mccain/Liberman ticket is EXACTLY what this country needs. We have to get away from the extrememists like yourself and look for people in the middle who will promote moderate social issues and strong fiscal responsibility along with having foriegn policy experience.

I would never work harder than for a Mccain/Lieberman ticket.

It would get this country on the right track. No extreme right wing conservatives and no liberals who want nothing but more government handouts. Experienced, civic minded people like Mccain/Lieberman makes sense!

steve said...

"McCain is a self-serving fool that talks out of both sides of his mouth..."

so is lieberman.

Anonymous said...

Dodd is a dud. No chance for the White House. Maybe Govenor, if he wants it. No Senator has been elected to the White House since JFK (the real JFK). That was 50 years ago and he stole the election.

Anonymous said...

Dodd has nothing to offer. The mommy party (and most of the US) is self-interested. All they want is cheap gas and electricty.

Anonymous said...

A ticket of McCain and Lieberman has broad appeal. Both the hardcore GOP and Dems would hate it, but the ticket would appeal to the centrists and those disenchanted with the major parties. Another 700 votes in Palm Beach in 2000 and Smokin' Joe would now be readying his Presidential campaign. The ticket would force Hillary and whoever she runs with (Nancy P.?) to the left and out of the race.

turfgrrl said...

anonymous 10:31: McCain/Lieberman 2008 presidential ticket would sink faster than an rock. I basically agree that the ticket is pointless, but I can think of quite a few rocks that would sink faster.

shadow: I disagree about my Dems assessment. My point is not that any of the candidates lack a "foreign policy" position. It's rather that the focus of their interests, gauged by the preponderance of what they are talking about or getting quoted about, is about domestic issues. While Obama may have something thoughtful to say about the African continent, and I've read it, his more dominant vision is not about America's role in the world, it's about our government's role in our lives.

(Edwards is no longer a senator btw.) George W. Bush, not only had no federal experience, he had no executive experience, (Texas is a weak governor state) and no personal experience beyond our borders. So agreed there. Bill Clinton on the other hand, lived aboard, studied abroad and his major at Georgetown (undergrad) was International Affairs. His interests, I think I can safely say, were that of an internationalist. Hillary's undergrad was political science, same as Obama's although he specialized in Internal Affairs. So I'll say sure, Obama has better than Hillary foreign policy leanings. But I question whether a Democratic candidate can break out of the primary system where domestic focus is more evident than global issues.

I think all of our domestic issues pale in comparison to what our global issues are. America has ceased to be a manufacturing country and we have ceased to be engaged with the world, both our enemies and our allies. The EU and China, for financial reasons, are the biggest threat/opportunities we as a national face, yet look at how they focus on things like universal healthcare. It's always a domestic "fairness" issue rather than a global "competitiveness" issue.

turfgrrl said...

anonymous 12:00: Your analysis is right, the ticket is wrong. McCain/Lieberman is not my idea of a centrist ticket, but a Bloomberg/Christine Todd Whitman would be.

Anonymous said...

"Offer those already here the opportunity to earn permanent status and keep their families together, provided they pay appropriate penalties."

I call BS- It has been tried before and all it did was INCREASE the number of people streaming over the border.

What incentive is there? We don't punish people now nor will we get any help from Mexico since their number two cash cow is money sent home from the US.

What I would do-

1) A fence with troops, just like Mexico.

2) Huge fines and jail time for any individual or company that hires people without proper legal proof of citizenship. Make it VERY unprofitable to hire people that are not here legally.

My last job here in CT I had to provide proof (birth cert & SS and drivers licence) what is so hard about that? No proof, no job.

bluecoat said...

Healthcare is killing our competitiveness in the United States. Getta grip turffy. It's a major issue and it's high time both sides dealt with it and came to some kind of agreement what's driving the out of control costs - and I am not talking about insurance. After that everybody can come from the rigth, left center and outer space on what to do in an honest debate.

Anonymous said...

"Bloomberg/Christine Todd Whitman would be."

Speaking of sinking faster then a rock...

Bloomberg? Whitman?

Talk about nanny-state nightmare.

Sorry, the last thing we need are more RINO's.

Anonymous said...

Annon 12:46 – RINOs = Republicans In Name Only?

Anonymous said...

"Republicans In Name Only?"

Yes of which there is no shortage in current office.

Where have all fiscally conservative, small government Republicans gone?

Nothing but wild spenders in office now, disgusting.

Avant-Garde said...

Bluecoat 12:41 –
• Employment-base Healthcare System exists only in the US! (to the best of my knowledge)
• Do not reinvent the wheel – improve/ reform ours. Look around and see what other countries do to improve/reform theirs. Example the Swiss Healthcare Model, UK, Canada…etc.

Suggested reading:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/index.php

Anonymous said...

"his focus on America's standing in the world is the right one. "

Oh yes, our standing in the world was so much better when we had the killing fields of Cambodia, the boat people of Vietnam, and the 1980s version Ortega in Nicarargua

Chris better get used to chasing the girls around East Haddam

bluecoat said...

Our healthcare system is not employer based at all. Like I said - don't talk about insurance, avant garde, which is employer based for some.

Mirror said...

McClain is seventy years old - 72 in 08 - 76 at the end of his first term.

Anonymous said...

Edwards/Obama in 08..this ticket will win both Ohio and Florida....

the best looking politicain (he did win this award by people magazine)in america and the superstar in the democratic ticket running together..

LitchfieldAngelina said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AB said...

A New Englander is not going ot win the Presidency in 2008. Not Hillary, Not Guliani,not Romney. The rest of American most notably the midwest and south do not trust em nor do they believe that share the same values. The guy that scares the rest of the GOP candidates and the Dems is Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. he has a great success story as a Governor, great personal story and is as personable and well spoken as any other candidate. He has a message and impresses everyone who sees and hears him speak. I dont vote for President based upon party, I vote for a candidate based upon their ability, personality and trustworthiness. Huckabee has em all beat. The only other republican who really impresses me is Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Well spoken, articulate, personable and he has ideas. Those are the kinds of people we need in the White House....

Anonymous said...

Thank God for bluecoat, who has given the winning slogan for 2008: It's the health care, stupid. Not the war or the economy or budget deficit ... Bluecoat makes it all clear for us again - what would we do without his expertise in everything?

Anonymous said...

"the best looking politicain (he did win this award by people magazine)in america and the superstar in the democratic ticket running together.."

1) I don't care a wit for how a elected offical looks.

This is the same idiot who stated that if he and Kerry were in charge Reeves would walk again right? No thanks.

2) Obama has done *nothing* since being elected, he has no experiance.

"I might have respect for Dodd if he would support John Bolton for the UN."

Agreed- Bolton is the right man for the job in that cesspool. John does a great job in representing the U.S.

GMR said...

AB: Vilsack is a Democrat not a Republican. I would think a formidable Democratic candidate would be Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He's part Hispanic, he is from a nominally Red state, and he lowered taxes in New Mexico. He's also got solid foreign relations experience.

Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. That's not why I'd vote against the guy, but that middle name just can't help.

Hillary Clinton would be a huge get out the vote getter, for the Republicans. She'd get more Republicans to get to the polls than any other Democrat, even Al Gore. I think many Democrats realize this, and the Democrat's primary season may quickly be whittled down to Hillary and an anti-Hillary candidate.

Republicans may go the same way about McCain: quickly becoming McCain and an anti-McCain, whom I would be would be Mitt Romney. However, if there are still four or five major candidates that bounce around in the primaries, then McCain could amass enough votes to get the nomination.

AB said...

GMR, I know Vilsack is Democrat. I was pointing out that Huckabee and Vilsack are the kind of people we need in the white house. Read their bio's and their history and you will see what I mean. I am a republican, yes, but I dotn vote along party lines. I would have no trouble voting for a good democrat over a weak republican. In 2000, I easily voted Bush over that lunatic Gore, but in 2004, I would have voted for someone other than Bush. No way I was voting for Kerry. All those years in the Senate with no major accomplishment. His fellow Senators think he is a blowhard......not a chance he was getting my vote. Had the Democratic party nominated someone I could have supported, I woudl have voted against Bush.

Matt said...

I might have respect for Dodd if he would support John Bolton for the UN. So far, his attitude with regard to Bolton makes me think that he's no better than Ted Kennedy (i.e. close to worthless).

I suspect you would not give Dodd much consideration either way. Bolton is clearly unqualified for the job, and while I appreciate Dodd's willingness to call B.S. on such a nominee, it's still surprising that such a stand can be classified as political courage in 2006.

Your rousing defense of Bolton, as well as your completely unrelated fixation on Ted Kennedy, illustrates you pretty clearly as one of Bush's dead-enders: the 30% who would support him regardless of the revealed depths of his moral degeneracy.

bluecoat said...

healthcare has something to do with the economy, the deficit and the budget; as for Iraq, I have no idea what will be in the runup to 2008.

Matt said...

Hillary Clinton would be a huge get out the vote getter, for the Republicans. She'd get more Republicans to get to the polls than any other Democrat, even Al Gore. I think many Democrats realize this, and the Democrat's primary season may quickly be whittled down to Hillary and an anti-Hillary candidate.

Coming into 2004, George W Bush had more passionate and dedicated opponents than Hillary has ever had, or likely ever will. Somehow, it did not prevent him from getting elected. I don't understand why you would apply different standards to a Democratic candidate.

I would have no trouble voting for a good democrat over a weak republican. In 2000, I easily voted Bush over that lunatic Gore, but in 2004, I would have voted for someone other than Bush.

If you seriously watched the two candidates in 2000, and came away thinking that Al Gore was a lunatic, you have seriously flawed judgement. There may have been some sane and sober reasons for supporting Bush over Gore, but if you think Gore came off as off-the-wall in some dramatic way, you need to pay a little more attention.

bluecoat said...

McCain has campaigned for Romney. And so i don't get accused of being irrelevant just because I engage in a little discouse here, Dodd is proposing sound changes to the Military Commissions Act that will actually ensure that the terrorists will be prosecuted but no link to the CT Post story here becuase it's Sunday and I am lazy, not to mention unappreciated by 10:45 PM Saturday night.

AB said...

Matt, if you have paid attention to Al Gore post 2000 elections he is clearly nuts. His ranting and raving about Bush is nearly insane. His bizarre preaching/pandering behavior on visits to black churches makes it clear he is unsuitable to be President and unstable as well. During the 2000 campaign he behaved as the robot he truly is, no real thoughts or vision. His behavior since makes it apparent that his election loss sent him over the edge. And let us not forget his "no controlling legal authority" defense during the Clinton Administration. If you believe Al Gore was qualified and mentally stable enough to serve as President than you clearly have not paid enough to the guy.

Parties often choose the wrong candidates. In the case of Gore, no one in he Dem party was going to defeat the incumbent VP for the nomination. Did I think Bush was the best GOP candidate? No, I thought as I did in 1996, that Lamar Alexander was a better candidate. In fact in 1995, there were numerous articles and democratic pollsters who feared Alexander and thought he would give Clinton the bets run for his money. what did the GOP do? They nominated Bob Dole who like John Kerry, was a combat veteran, long time Senator, but like Kerry no personality. The Dems did Bush a great favor in nominating Kerry over Edwards. John Edwards, though short on experience is well spoken, personable and very likeable. Problem is, it is usually the extremes of the party that nominate candidates. Exception would be Bill Clinton. In 2008, I suspect the Dems may make the same old mistake and go for someone like Hillary over Edwards or Vilsack. Likewise the gOP would be making a mistake in choosing McCain over better candidates like Mike Huckabee.

Anonymous said...

Is there any way CT can start some kind of 'recall movement' to remove the problematic Lieberman from causing further damage to our fair state?