• on a comment on Why did the tide turn in '32? over 9 years ago
    Amen.  Hoover was backed into the corner by laissez faire trade policies anyhow.

    Even had Hoover known a disaster was impending, the laws at the time forbid him from any activist efforts stop it.

    Only the hellish shock of the Great Depression and the rise of fascism rattled Americans enough to accept a strong government.

  • comment on a post The midterms (US Senate) over 9 years ago
    I've lived in PA a long time.

    Hafer is viewed by both sides as a good human being and an effective politician.  She has solid name recognition, even beyond political junkies.

    Rendell LOVES her, and Ed seems to just get things done as a political boss.

    Plus, if Rendell continues to deliver consistent results (even Specter 9-point win was tighter than expected, especially since Hoeffel did not impress) the DNC will eventually owe him.

    A Hafer win would all but assure Rendell of serious consideration as a Veep come 2008.

  • comment on a post Vilsack Is Out over 9 years ago
    Dean would be dead in the water as DNC chair.

    What would he do that could promote a 2008 run?  It would look too crooked if he jumped from money-maker to candidate.

    After all, what kind of confidence can you have in the primary system if Deaniacs come in with Tom Delay-type control of the purse strings?

    Dean needs to find a way to remain relevant and current.

    Maybe the Shadow Cabinet idea would work.  God knows it would garner a LOAD of headlines.

    Dean could snag some smartasses like Gary Hart and maybe a few decent GOP'ers and form the thing on his own as a watchdog group.

    DNC chair is just a languishing position.  In recent years, only Ed Rendell has really made it work.

    Just my opinion.

    http://progressivepropaganda.blogspot.com

  • on a comment on Senate 2006 over 9 years ago
    Lost by nine points.

    Losing by nine to Specter is good.  Bear in mind, Specter has been in office since the 60s.

    Also, Specter is about the only GOP'er I can name off-hand with Philly ties.

    Even among Dems who vote against him, Specter is generally not viewed as the end of the world.

    I know.  I voted for him.

  • on a comment on Using 2006 to set up 2008 over 9 years ago
    If Rove is anywhere 100 miles from McCain then McCain is beatable.

    We could dredge up every god-awful thing Rove did to McCain in 2000 and force the public to wonder why the hell McCain now wants to be near Rove.

    Our entire line of attack would be "John McCain: when did he sell his soul?"

  • on a comment on Using 2006 to set up 2008 over 9 years ago
    Rudi would be the ideal opponent.  Michael Dukakis could beat Guiliani.

    Current polling shows him to be the favorite, behind McCain.

    McCain is iffy.  It wouldn't be too hard to paint McCain as a wimp, now that he has rolled over and let Bush tickle his belly.

  • on a comment on Using 2006 to set up 2008 over 9 years ago
    GOP gains around Pittsburgh could offset losses around Philly.

    That being said, Santorum looked pretty friggin vulnerable against Klink the last go-round.  And Klink was a joke -- he probably got 3% just for having the same last name as a character from Hogan's Heroes.

    Plus, Santorum is an emminently hate-worthy guys.  He just looks like a wimp in need of a good run through the wringer.

  • on a comment on Using 2006 to set up 2008 over 9 years ago
    Actually, you need to investigate Harold Ford Jr.  He's impressive.  He's the kind of young leader that makes you fell all warm about America's future.

    In fact, if it weren't for this nucleus of upcoming guys like Ford, Obama, Salazar (and brother) . . . I'd be getting myself on a plane to New Zealand.

    The new batch of Dems looks more like Clinton than Kerry . . . and that's reassuring.

  • comment on a post Using 2006 to set up 2008 over 9 years ago
    Awnald is not gonna happen -- in fact, his chances in CA hinge on the economy improving before 2006.

    Obviously, any Amendment to change the Prez requirements would drag on beyond 2008.

    But, knocking him off would definitely put the GOP in its place.

    ---

    I hope Frist runs for the Senate seat AND Ford runs.  I still feel that Frist is vulnerable -- and that crushing him outright would go a long way to killing the GOP in 2008.

    Ford is an absolute GEM of a candidate.  Young, well-spoken and dynamic.  He's Clinton, minus the perversions.

    With Frist out of the way, the GOP doesn't have too many stable types to run for Prez, either.

    ---

    Rudi is a friggin joke.  We have pictures of him dressed as Marylin Monroe . . . hopefully the we can keep quiet about Rudi, and let the GOP nominate him.

    ---

    Jeb has said he will not run.  Anyway, he's clunky compared to his brother.

    Plus, FLA is a hellhole -- twice as bad as Texas ever was -- and could easily be held against him.

  • Amen on the props to Karl Rove.

    Boo to the 'good candidate' quip.

    Kerry was simply TOO Senatorial.  He's painful to listen to -- the kind of guy who teaches 100 level courses and then fails students for skipping class.

    Bush -- good or ill -- is INTERESTING.  There is a long and fanciful backstory that comes with Bush.  It provides him a mildly legendary status.

    Clinton had that sort of backstory.  Bush's father didn't.  Reagan had it.  Carter . . . had a backstory, it just really sucked.  Nixon -- WOW! -- by the time he was elected he had a backstory that still fill volumes of books.  

    Remember: the President is a product being sold to an audience.  

    1. He has to be worth your time -- INTERESTING.

    2. He can't upset the audience too much.  

    The Presidency is like a good sitcom (I wish That's My Bush was still on the air . . . that was a funny sitcom that was funny for mocking sitcom structure)!

    Even the most outlandish sitcoms reaffirm American Values before the show is over.

    Watch some sitcoms -- try the Simpsons, they're very good at balancing liberal politics with Red Statevalues -- and draw your own conclusions about why Dems are not quite clicking with Red State America.

  • We need AGGRESSION.

    If the Bush administration proves as woeful in a second term as it has been in its first term, then 2006 could be a year of change, like 1994 was.

    If you go back and look at the 1992 numbers, and compare them to the 2004, you'll notivce there are some fault lines waiting to be cracked open.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

    A combination of conditions plus the right candidates could play out very well.

    Plus, we stand to launch assaults in 2006 on weaker GOP candidates in the north.

    This mean the NRSC will not necessarily be poised to defend Frist if a strong challenge can be mounted.

    My bet says: mount an attack.

    Get an army of young, conservative Democrats to pount the hell out of them in 2006.

    We need to get back on issues that resonate with the general public, not dumb, useless issues like being on the wrong side of the gay marriage debate.

    Frankly, Kerry & co didn't put the screws to Bush.  We needed a steady drumbeat of "Halliburton and Enron" every firggin day.

    We should have circulated photos of Bush as a male cheerleader with his arm around Victor Ashe (even if we had to Photoshop them!!).

    We need to get in the game like Karl Rove is in the game.

    That is going to mean attack politics, young candidates, and a conservative tack focusing on progressive principles that don't upset the American public.

  • Ford will end up either in the governor's house or the Senate for TN.

    If Ford is hardcore, he could challenge Bill Frist for his seat in 2006.

    It would certainly be payback for them getting Daschle (not really a great loss, but etiquette is etiquette, right?).

    How's that for an idea?

    Harold Ford to take Frist's seat in 2006?

  • "call the conservatives on their shit."

    Why stop at that?

    Bush was vulnerable had the Dems been up for a Rovian bloodbath.

    Bush is a male cheerleader of questionable sexual preference.  Allowing him to trot along playing cowboy and not slap him for it was a mistake.

    We should have POUNDED the draft.  Every single friggin' day.

    Why did the weak DOLLAR go completely unmentioned?

    Oil was barely mentioned.

    The Saudis were never mentioned save for a few 527 ads.

    We need to get as filthy and evil as Karl Rove.

  • He'll have a shot if:

    1. The field remains open going into 2008.

    2. He wants it.

    As you've said, his youth may be prohibitive.

    Likewise, I suspect there will be a stretch when the Dems want to give Dean a shot in the primaries.

    Maybe we'll even solidify behind him.

    ---

    In the mean time, it's wait-and-see.  Unless the Dems are willing to ramp up a conservative tack or a liberal growth spurt, the Dems will simply be watching the economy and Iraq.

    The economy is unlikely to sour.  Iraq . . . who knows?!

    My suspicion, though, is that Dems should hope for a full recovery on both fronts.

    Americans tend to be willing to tinker with change during good times -- ask Al Gore!

  • comment on a post Howard Dean for DNC Chair; Terry McAuliffe for NY-25 over 9 years ago
    I'm new to posting here.  But, after the Kerry loss, I just feel I need to do more than JUST READ!!

    2008 is going to be an up-and-comer election on both sides.  It will look a lot like 1992.

    http://www.house.gov/ford/biography.htm

    Harold Ford, Jr.  Young, southern, good-looking.  Very young, but an EXCELLENT SPEAKER.

    Allegedly black -- perhaps a light-skinned black from TN wouldn't scare the GOP'ers so much.

    Just a thought.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads