| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| A Rare, Intriguing Race |
| 2006-09-05 |
| By Michael Barone The 2008 presidential race looks to be quite different from all recent contests. Many have noted that this is the first presidential race since 1928 -- 80 years! -- in which neither the incumbent president nor vice president is running. (Incumbents Harry Truman and Alben Barkley made brief stabs at running in 1952.) But there are two other, more important reasons why this race is different from most other races. One is that the leading candidates are, at this stage, in conflict or in tension with what have been their parties' dominant bases. Two, we have a much better idea of how these candidates would handle crises than we usually do. Rudolph Giuliani, who runs ahead or at least even in most polls of Republicans, is way off to the left of the party's base. He supports abortion rights and some gay rights measures, and has backed lots of gun-control measures. After his second marriage collapsed, he moved in with a gay couple. Giuliani simply flunks the litmus tests of the cultural conservatives who have had an effective veto on the Republican nomination since 1980. John McCain, running even or a bit ahead in Republican polls, doesn't flunk most of these litmus tests. But he has been a party maverick, on campaign finance regulation, some tax cuts, climate change and judges. He took some tough shots at conservative religious leaders in 2000, though he's made up for them since. He's against abortion, but he's never emphasized the issue, and he voted against banning same-sex marriage. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite big leads in polls of Democrats, is also in tension with her party's base. She voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 and has not, like many other Democrats, apologized for doing so. She has been attacked sharply for her stands on left-wing Websites like Daily Kos. She sometimes sharply criticizes the Bush administration, but avoids the tone of shrill hatred that dominated the party's 2004 campaign and surfaced again in the defeat of Connecticut's Joe Lieberman. This tension with the party base is surely a liability for Giuliani, McCain and Clinton. But they each, to varying degrees, have an asset that few presidential candidates have ever had: We know how they handle crises or adversity. Going into the 2000 presidential race, few voters felt sure they knew how George W. Bush or Al Gore would respond to crisis. We could only look for clues and make guesses. But we don't have to ask how Giuliani would respond. We know the answer. We saw him on Sept. 11, and during the days and weeks after. That's why Giuliani is getting support from many who don't agree with him on cultural issues. They're confident he'll be a strong and effective leader. About John McCain, we know that he endured seven years as a prisoner of war, went through torture and refused several offers of freedom. We know that he overcame his bitterness over his defeat in 2000 and offered staunch support to the man who beat him. We know he has a temper, but also a gift for self-deprecating humor. As for Hillary Rodham Clinton, we saw her endure humiliations -- the collapse of her health care plan, the revelations of her husband's infidelities -- that would make most of us want to crawl in a hole. Yet she persevered, concentrating on her work and winning office in the most raucous political environment in America. You may not like her, but you can't deny that she's shown perseverance and grace under pressure -- a good quality for any president. As it happens, the two major party nominees in 1928 had similar political assets. Americans then knew how Herbert Hoover administered war relief in Europe and Russia and responded to the disastrous Mississippi River flood in 1927. Many Americans had also observed close-up his opponent, Al Smith, who was the governor of the largest and most visible state for eight years before the election. Both were in tension with their parties' bases: Hoover was a big government man; Smith, as a Catholic, was anathema to many ancestral Southern Democrats. The 1928 election shook up the political map. Hoover carried most border and Southern states, Smith heavily Catholic Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The 2008 frontrunners aren't sure to be nominated. But a contest between two of them could shake up the political alignments that have been solidly in place for 10 years. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #10 I'm for Rudy for president as well, and when I'm in San Antonio or Austin, I always stop and eat his BBQ as well.....hehehe Condi? Oh well, if she keeps the donks out, ok, whatever. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-05 23:16 |
| #9 McCain ...it was his missle that started the USS Forrester fire that killed dozens of firefighters. He has a habit of shooting his comrads in the foot. Wx, where the fuck are you getting your facts from? 1. The missile came from an F-4. McCain flew an A-4. The missile struck McCain's fully-fueled aircraft (there's flight deck video of him climbing out). 2. Many of the deaths came from an unfortunate series of errors. a. The flight deck was loaded with ordnance. b. The bombs that exploded just after the missile went off were of an older type that were not resistant to high heat (as were the newer versions). c. JP-5 is highly flammable. Having several fully fueled and armed aircraft on deck didn't help. d. The fire-fighting crews on the flight deck were relatively inexperienced (because the regular crews were either dead or wounded). They initially made basic mistakes, such as washing away foam with high pressure water. I'm not a McCain fan. But I was a former Damage Control Assistant, and the Forrestal fire was one of the mandatory cases we had to study. Then again, never let a few facts get in the way, huh? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-09-05 23:09 |
| #8 Rudy with Condi as VP will destroy the dems. Rudy will sweep with his tough leadership and the black vote will go to Condi as will the womens groups, stripping the Dem party. Neither group would want to be on record for not supporting the first black woman. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-09-05 22:10 |
| #7 get used to incumbent re-election. McCain-Feingold takes effect soon and prohibits those nasty ads tearing down an incumbent's voting record. Between that and the MSM suck-fest with "progressives", McCain has sold conservatives and disenchanted others down the river. He should pay with his retirement from politics and the overturning of his restrictive law on our freedom of political speech. F*CK him |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-09-05 20:46 |
| #6 Give me Rudy and sweet victory over Islam. The presidency is where we want our men of action. The Congress is where we want our men of thought and debate. Abortion and gay rights are debatable, war is not. Right on, wxjames! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2006-09-05 19:20 |
| #5 Not only do they seem fine with losing the war, it looks ripe for becoming a key plank in their platform. "We gott a war to lose! Now who's with me?" |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-09-05 16:35 |
| #4 Winning the war shouldn't be debatable, you're right on that james. But the donks seem fine with losing it. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-09-05 13:52 |
| #3 I like Michael Barone, but he is all wet about this. This country is at war. Therefore, we will choose a war president. Giuliani has garnered the respect of many of us. During the Crown Heights riots, he set up his command center in an intersection in Crown Heights. He's a serious ass kicker. McCain who once dispised Kerry for his cowardice, had forgiven Kerry years before Kerry's 2004 run, yet did not defend the Swift Boat group.....shithead comes to mind. He also wrote the McCain/Feingold incumbent protection act, and it was his missle that started the USS Forrester fire that killed dozens of firefighters. He has a habit of shooting his comrads in the foot. Hilldabeast the warrior, eh ? She's a scorpio, so I would be concerned about loyal Americans being shot in the back with her around. Give me Rudy and sweet victory over Islam. The presidency is where we want our men of action. The Congress is where we want our men of thought and debate. Abortion and gay rights are debatable, war is not. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-05 12:48 |
| #2 I am not sure Rudi is as poisonous as they make him out to be. Yes I disagree with some of his policies but I doubt anyone I agree with 100% is electable. I know a lot of good people, who are divorced, support gun control, and care less about gays. Rudi IS tough on crime/terrorism, is fiscal conservative, understands economics, and doesnÂ’t whine like a girl when facing a crisis. Trust me the LLL fever swamp really fears Rudi because he is just the kind of person that would take 40+ states without breaking a sweat. No I am not on the bandwagon yet, but I am picking out my seat. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-09-05 12:42 |
| #1 Don't be surprised if there are changes in the line up. It's still very early, and the Democrats especially have a history of nominating unknowns rather than the putative front runner. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2006-09-05 11:05 |