Ahh, but would conservatives want Arnie? Arnie is economically conservative, but socially liberal. He is pro-choice and supported Prop 71, California's stem cell research bond measure. Arnie has also inidicated that if it was legal in California, he would not be opposed to same sex marriage.

He fits very well into California politics, but how would he play with the evangelical base?

With due deference to your polls, which should be at least as accurate as those of Big Media, I do not see a President Schwarzenneger in the future. I do not think the States will pass a constitutional amendment just to elect one man. Especially one whose social policies would not do well anywhere except the Left Coast and the northeast.

However, you may be right about a Hillary vs. Rudy in 2008. 2008 will be the first year since 1952 where we did not have an incumbent president or vice-president on either ticket.

On the Democratic side, the primary race between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and whoever else should be fascinating to watch. On the Republican side, I do not have confidence in any prediction. You suggested Rudy, I have previously suggested a C. Rice vs. H. Clinton race, and there are many others who may want to throw their hat in the ring.

I'm not going to give it too much thought now. I'm enjoying the moment and will revisit the issue in earnest in 2007.

Szdfan,
This independent social conservative would not vote for Arnie in any primary.

Do you realize that at other, boring old webistes people are discussing the 2004 election? How retro!

I don't see Rice running for President. She doesn't seem to have the wheeling dealing quality you need. More of a "my way or the highway" sort of person.

One thing about Arnie is that he is the consumate wheeler and dealer. Arnie is not considered a Republican in California, BTW.

People (I think Melanie Morgan was the first. Melanie is "the Mother of all recalls" ie the engine that got Gray Davis out) describe Arnie as "the official head of the Republican wing of the Democratic party" which is a fairly good description. A social conservative he is not. He is not much of a fiscal conservative either.

But he is (my predicition) unstoppable if that amendment passes.

Drew, I disagree--

Arnie is considered a Republican in CA, particulary during the budget battles with Democrats in the state senate (i.e. the "girlie men"). Granted, he doesn't fit the mold of most Republicans (particulary with the Kennedy connection), but he has been a major supporter of the President and a voice for the California Republican party.

During the conventions, there was a lot of talk about the "Big Tent" Republican Party, yet some more conservative elements will reject moderates as RINOs and not "real" Republicans. It seems to me that these narrow definitions of who is a Republican goes against at least the Big Tent spirit.

Arnie's budget was not that different than the last one, so I concede your point about fiscal conservativism (particulary compared to Tom McClintock), however, he is very pro-business and anti-tax and was a major factor in supporting or defeating a number of Propositions critical to business (i.e 64 and 72).

I do agree about Condi Rice -- she also doesn't seem like a particulary happy or charismatic person that people could support and cheer for.

Regarding the Constitutional Ammendment allowing naturalized citizens to run for President--

The reason this has never come up, is that before Arnie, there has never been a naturalized citizen with the politcal stature to run for our highest office. Arnie does change the dynamic.

I personally support this hypothetical ammendment. I was born overseas with two American parents and even though I have a State Department issued birth certificate, I could also not run for President under the current definition. My citizenship was automatically transfered to me from my parents, but I am considered in the same category as a naturalized citizen.

I personally support this hypothetical ammendment. I was born overseas with two American parents

I posted here a few months ago the percentages of Americans who immigrate each year (IIRC 1/3 of 1%. That is huge. Look at the growth rate of other countries and see what an additional 0.033 per year is), what percent of the current population are first generation immigrants and what percent are first generation Americans.

We are a nation of immigrants. That is our strength. We need that Amendment.

I think that both Guilani and Arnold are too socially liberal to win - at least the way that 'W' just won. Either would alienate a large batch of the recent 51%. Who to nominate then? I have no idea. I like the charisma of both guys and no one else comes to mind. Condi has strengths and weaknesses.

I think Edward's 'concession' introduction probably cost him any shot of even running in '08. It was bad - very bad.

I do not know who to nominate either, but three years is a long time. If I were to make a guess (not a forecast, but a guess), I'd say the next Republican nominee is currently a governor. If Bob Taft (Ohio) was a very popular governor, he'd be a natural since he'd take his swing state.

Jeb Bush would be a natural except I doubt the country would elect a third Bush in 2008.

Edwards ("Senator Gone") is gone. He ran for Pres/VP in part because he knew he couldn't even be re-elected to his senate seat as an incumbent.

Worse (for him) he now has no office and no forum for the coming years. You may never hear of him again He will just go back to channeling babies, telling juries the babies are crying out to give Edwards a lot of money. That seems to be his only job skill.

Tommy Franks?

Governor Pataki of New York? Governors tend to become president. What is his standing among the social conservatives here?

Guilani also has the problem of a pretty sordid history -- openly living with his mistress while major of New York City.

What about Rick Santorum of PA? He's been outspokenly conservative on social issues.

At last I have found a place where I am on the Left Wing Fringe! It feels sort of wierd [G]

So, let me ask you. Should Hillary run against Rudy Giuliani would people here refuse to vote for Giuliani because of his personal/marital history?

Should you have the choice in the primaries between a person who would possibly beat Hillary (she's the sure-thing opponent in 2008) but who had separated from his wife and was living with another woman pending his divorce and a person who likely would lose to Hillary but was idiologically pure, which candiate would you vote for?

The problem the Democratic Party is having at the moment is not its issues, but its attitude. "You are ideologically pure and hold beliefs homogeneous to our beliefs or you are dirt to be despised" pretty much sums up the views of the Democrats (more on that when I have time to start a new thread).

I would caution against getting into a contest with the Democrats as to who can be more condescending and contemptuous of people with differing attitudes and beliefs. They are the experts and being condescending and contemptuous and will beat you in that contest without breaking a sweat.

Tommy Franks is a very impressive man. On the few occassions I have heard him speak, he has been very articulate and persuasive. If he were a pro-life candidate, I would strongly support him.

I'd rather vote for Arnie than Pataki - neither will support pro-life and Arnie is at least amusing... Neither would get my vote in a primary.

I would also support Rick Santorum. And if he could take Pennsylvania, he would have a big advantage in 2008. (This brings up one of Quixote's Rules of Politics. Any presidental nominee who cannot win his home state deserves to lose the national election.

Left Wing Drew! Three words that are rarely used together...

I agree we do not want to mimic the Democrats and be intolerant of all. But a party should have several core principles and its leaders should reflect these principles (as the old saw has it, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Other than abortion-on-demand and a belief the government can solve all problems, what core beliefs do all Democrats share? They strike me as being united against a common foe (Bush) vs. united around several key ideals.

"They strike me as being united against a common foe (Bush) vs. united around several key ideals."

See:

http://www.nationalreview.com/europress/boyles200411051146.asp

on the uselessness of trying to use hate to achieve political success. "Hatred as a political tool works best where hopelessness thrives: Jails, France and Germany."

That is humorous but remember it did work in France and in Germany. Not just in Schroeder's re-election but in Hitler's success.

I would be interested in hearing more about this intolerance of the Democatic Party -- this is basically one of the arguments that Democrats have had against Republicans.

I would agree that many liberals are sadly intolerant of conservatives (intolerance masked as tolerance) and I personally struggle against that attitude. This is one of the
reasons I read conservative blogs and argue with you guys -- it's critical (but also frustrating) to understand what and how the other side thinks.

There is a great deal of fear and hatred against the Bush administration. Actually, as these things usually go, it's fear that shows up as hatred. For example, I'm not able to listen to the far-left Pacifica radio network because I cannot stomach their rhetoric. But at the same time, Republicans and conservatives are also not without guilt in this. As a liberal, I have recieved what feels like countless of rather hateful insults lobbed from the conservative machine by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Michael Savage. The fact that we live in a political environment where the word "liberal" itself is tossed around like an insult is troubling. My background is highly religously conservative and I attended college in that red state Indiana. In my experience, there have been many moments I have felt a great deal of intolerance from my conservative neighbors.

However, at the same time, criticism of President Bush and his policies is not automatically "hateful" or "anti-American." Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" critique of Bush, while in your face, is not instrinscally hateful. Sure, he takes potshots at the President, but how is that any different than Rush Limbaugh's songs about Bill Clinton? Is that any different from normal partisan politics. Many conservatives compared "Farenheit 9/11" to Nazi propaganda without ever having actually seen the movie -- how is that not a hateful response in return?

These labels get thrown around by both sides in order to silence the critique and the messenger. If someting is "hateful" than it must not be relevant.

So Drew, I would be interested in reading more about the Democrat attitude of intolerance, but at the same time I would like to raise the question, what role if any will Republican moderates play in Bush's America? Moderates like Arnie were paraded out in front for the cameras of the Republican convetion, but at the same time, do any of them have any real say in the policies and direction of the Republican Party?

One thing that few conservatives understand is that the Left is highly fractured into different groups. For example, in the 1970's feminists and lesbian activists often butted heads and fought turf battles. There is a similar conflict today between Gay and Lesbian activists and the transgendered community. One of the things that has given me hope this past election, is that this is the first time the Left has been this mobilized since the 1960's and '70's. There is a unity that has not always existed before and I think it will be helpful.

The challenge for the Democratic Party would be to articulate those values (tolerance, internationalism, equal access to institutions, ending exploitation). Part of the problem today is that the Democrats have not articulated their core values and the leadership has often sounded more Republican than Democrat.

BTW, Salon posted an interview with the conservative activist Richard Viguerie. They are a bit tough on him, but do let him have his say.

Szdfan:

I actually write a lot. An enormous lot. Ask the Admiral. He keeps a whole 200 GB hard disk just for my hourly email opinions.

Yes, I intend to write more here about the intolerance issue but I would also be happy to discuss it with you privately.

I find that often an informal Email discussion lets people clarify their thinking so they can write a more coherent and shorter public statement.

The Admiral knows my Email address. Do you, Sdzfan, know his? If you want to chat more tell the Admiral by private Email (don't post it here, obviously) your Email address and that he should forward that to me.

Regards,

Drew

Drew,

I have forwarded my contact info to the Admiral. Let me know if there is anything you want to discuss.

I almost hate to bring real data into a discussion of opinions, but some people have already starting polling for 2008. Some interesting points to note.

According to this poll, Arnold Schwarzenegger currently does not have a chance with 66 percent of all voters opposed (and 57 percent of Republicans opposed). However, keep in mind a lot can happen in four years – if Schwarzenegger did a great job governing California and moved to the right on social issues (two objectives that may contradict each other), this might sway people.

The poll also shows I was right about people not being ready for an Bush president. The number of people who do not want to see him run is almost as large as those opposing a Schwarzenegger campaign. Giuliani and McCain have the best positive numbers, but they also have about of a third of voters who would oppose them becoming president. The polls with lesser known folks (Owens, Romney) don't mean much other than these folks currently do not have any name recognition.

On the Democratic side of things, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have the most support, but these polls did not ask how many people would oppose their running. Those are very important numbers – if your base is not excited about you (or if large chunks of your base dislikes you), your odds of winning are greatly decreased.

No thoughts about Colin Powell for prez in 08? I heard he might be nominated for the supreme court.

I wanted to comment about an earlier post.

"One thing that few conservatives understand is that the Left is highly fractured into different groups. For example, in the 1970's feminists and lesbian activists often butted heads and fought turf battles. There is a similar conflict today between Gay and Lesbian activists and the transgendered community. One of the things that has given me hope this past election, is that this is the first time the Left has been this mobilized since the 1960's and '70's. There is a unity that has not always existed before and I think it will be helpful."

Does the Democratic party really feel good about a unity between feminists, gay and lesbian activists and the transgendered community? I cannot believe that those three groups are the keys to winning elections in America.

To ACR re Colin Powell:

One "feature" of the US political system is that someone with support, in total, from members of both parties, i.e. someone who would draw a lot of votes in the general election, often isn't electable because he doesn't have enough support in his own party to get the nomination.

Powell, after trying with all his might to undermine the Bush administration during his tenure as Secretary of State has pretty much burned his bridges in the Republican party and is "unnominatable."

Since he is Black he is un-nominatable by the Democrats (see for example the recent comments on Rice or Thomas, who the new senate majority leader calls "an embarassment." (Not really the right sort of person, you know).

And (a big item) I gather Powell's wife is very much against his running. She thinks some whacko would assasinate him.

To ACR re the unity of the Democratic Party:

It cuts both way. I do agree the Democrats are more unified and homogeneous now than they were a decade or two ago. They have done that by shedding the "ideologically impure" and moving further left. So they are more unified but less numerous. They can get a party platform and candidate _they_ are all behind but if as their party gets smaller they have less and less ability to then win the general election.

The Republicans are having the opposite problem. They have a majority (at the moment) but are more and more homogeneous. That has the opposite advantages and disadvantages.

I agree with a comment someone (was it the Admiral) made. If the Democrats continue on their path they will disappear. There is no point in voting for someone who will be a congressman in a party that has only 1/3 of the seats in the house. He may agree with your positions, but he is powerless. Better to vote for the person who will be in the majority party but who is somewhat closer to your views. (An Olympia Snow sort of person).

The US government doesn't really allow for viable minority parties.

But then, as soon as the Democrats get to the point where they have only 1/3 of the house, people will migrate to the Republicans who will be even more heterogeneous and fragmented and the Republicans will fall apart into two new parties. Probably the the "Liberal" (in the Margaret Thatcher/European sense of "Liberal" - the free trade small government crowd) and the Social Conservative Republicans.

Actually the Republicans are an uncomfortable alliance of those two groups right now. After that split (if it happens) at least the division between the two surviving parties will be more rational than the current two parties.

I can't understand the Democrat view (Big Government running your business and the government, but not your personal social interactions) or the Republican view (Big Government running your personal social activities, but not your small business activities).

People haven't read their Thatcher. She points out that is unstable. You can't have freedom in some of the three: Politics/Economics/Personal Life without "corroding" the other areas and winding up with freedom in all of them. ("Asian Capitalism" is similarly unstable per Thatcher. And me.)

Oops, I made a typo. I meant the Republicans are more numerous at the moment but LESS homogeneous (more squabbling sub-groups)

Remember the name EVAN BAYH. If the Dems are smart they will nominate this moderate in 08- fiscally responsible, 2 term governor of a red state, Senator on Armed services and intelligence committees, young, good looks and zero baggage. GOP will be very worried if he runs.

Rudy Giulliani and McCain have no chance winning the southern primaries.
All these polls are irrelevant.