It’s time to start talking about the 2008 election. “But Sean,” you’re moaning, “isn’t it a bit early for that? Why talk about 2008 now?” Glad you asked. There are two reasons:
- Because politics is more interesting than governing, much as baseball is more interesting than lawn maintenance.
- Because I want to be invited to one of the 2008 conventions, as one of those celebrity bloggers. If I become known now as the go-to guy for 2008 blogging, I figure I’m a shoo-in.
The 2008 campaign so far is a bit inchoate, in that we don’t even know who will be running. So to help make order out of chaos, I’ll begin with the first logical step: endorsing the Republican.
No, wait, I skipped a step. First, I’ll make some lists of folks who ought to have a shot at the nomination. Ah, wait. Even before that, I’ll first make a list of folks who could definitely have a shot, but are disallowed because of one or another Constitutional provision.
THE DISQUALIFIED
These guys can’t run, because the Constitution says so.
| REPUBLICANS George W. Bush Arnold Schwarzenegger |
DEMOCRATS Bill Clinton Saddam Hussein |
One unusual thing about 2008 is that the sitting vice president, who historically is the presumed nominee, is Dick Cheney. This has only happened once before in American history, in 2004.
Since Cheney shows no ambition to run for the top job, we’re left with wide-open nomination battles in both parties. This situation has arisen as recently as 1928, and as you all remember, it wasn’t pretty. At one point, Governor Lowden of Illinois called one of his opponents a “guy goff,” which caused quite an uproar, until Lowden explained that the man’s name really was Guy Goff.
Will 2008 be as chaotic and divisive as 1928? Yes and no. I mean, no and yes. Divisive, yes, only more. Chaotic, not even slightly. With people like me (if there are people like me) taking the time to apply expert analysis to the race four years out, there is no excuse for chaos.
One obvious place to look for candidates is in the Hall of Losers. These are guys who recently (in 2000 or 2004) ran for president, so we know at least that they wanted the job at some point.
THE RECENT REJECTS
They ran in 2000, or 2004. Might they re-run?
| REPUBLICANS Gary Bauer Steve Forbes Orrin Hatch Alan Keyes John McCain |
DEMOCRATS Bill Bradley Wesley Clark Howard Dean John Edwards Dick Gephart Al Gore John Kerry Dennis Kucinich Joe Lieberman Carol Moseley-Braun Al Sharpton |
I say, cross them all out, except for Forbes, McCain, Edwards, Dean, and Sharpton. Forbes can run anytime he wants, because he’s richer than most emperors. McCain and Edwards managed to lose without looking too much like losers; instead, they gave every impression that they were deliberately losing to be polite. Dean and Sharpton are crazy. (Yes, so is Keyes, but not that crazy.)
Often, desperate pundits will scan the lists of convention speakers for possible nominees. The thinking is, “Hey, he spoke at the party’s national convention. He must be a rising star and likely front-runner for the nomination in four years. And I really have little else to work with here.” So let’s have a look-see at who spoke at the conventions.
THE STEM-WINDERS
Did their speechifying at the 2004 convention promote them to alpha dog?
| REPUBLICANS Michael Bloomberg The Bush Twins Sam Brownback Norm Coleman Elizabeth Dole Edward Cardinal Egan Tommy Franks Bill Frist Rudy Giuliani Mitch McConnell George Pataki Mitt Romney Rick Santorum Bob Taft |
DEMOCRATS Joe Biden Jimmy Carter Max Cleland Tom Daschle John Dingell John Glenn Jesse Jackson Ted Kennedy Kwame Kilpatrick Ed Koch Zell Miller Barack Obama Nancy Pelosi Hillary Rodham Stephanie Tubbs Jones |
Pfft. Cross them all out, too. Except for Frist, Pataki, and Rodham. Pataki has a funny ethnic name. Not funny enough to keep him from running (like “Dingell”), just funny enough to keep him from winning (like “Dukakis”). Miller and Koch gave great speeches, but at the wrong convention. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will seriously consider Obama as a running mate, before choosing somebody else. The Bush Twins have nice legs. More on Rodham in a bit.
There are some other people whose names are being bandied about.
THE MISCELLANEOUS
They weren’t in the lists above, but might run anyway.
| REPUBLICANS Jeb Bush |
DEMOCRATS Evan Bayh |
“Jeb Bush?” you’re thinking, “Yeah, right!” But you’re being sarcastic, aren’t you? We’ll see, we’ll see. But I’m telling you, it’s not as nutty as it sounds now. Bayh would be a great candidate with strong appeal among all Americans. All Americans except Democrats, I mean. Kind of like Lieberman in that regard. Sorry, Evan, no nomination for you. There’s a reason you weren’t invited to speak at the convention, you know. (There’s another party in town, if you’re interested. Write me for details.)
My, that’s quite a few names. But there can only be one front-runner per party, and these are they.
THE FRONT-RUNNERS
It’s theirs to lose. Here’s hoping they do it!
| REPUBLICAN John McCain |
DEMOCRAT Hillary Rodham |
The one fact that is known about Hillary is that running for president in 2008 has been her driving ambition since kindergarten. This maniacal obsession explains every choice she’s made in her life. Her supporters are the most devoted personality cult in this hemisphere. Most regular folks can’t stand her, but regular folks do not generally vote in Democratic primaries in large numbers. McCain, on the other hand, has no cult to speak of, just a bunch of people who know who he is and don’t dislike him. That’s enough to make him the default front-runner for now. Who will displace him? I’ll tell you later.
A good rundown of the field for ‘08
Sean Gleeson lays out the most likely(and least likely) players come 2008, with an open race. Obviously from here the possibilities are wide open but it’s a pretty thorough look at where things stand now, and that will surely have an effect on how thi…
Hmmm, on what grounds are you crossing Giuliani off? I had sort of pegged him as a frontrunner myself…I’m not sure at all if I’ve assessed his pros and cons accurately or left some ruling factor out that keeps him off the list, but you didn’t mention him.
I figure it’s between McCain and Giuliani to some extent or other at this point, so that’s why I’m asking what you think.
Cheers,
M@
At this point, I’m thinking it will probably come down to Bill Owens and Michael Steele.
M@, I didn’t dwell on Rudy’s negatives because I love the guy. His heroism in 2001 has earned him the gratitude of every American. But since you asked, he’s too liberal to win the Republican nomination. Also, he has cancer. Also, his divorce was, ah, uncivil. When a Catholic Republican has an unfriendly divorce, it’s poison.
Watcher, I’m gonna give a rundown of the guvs in an upcoming post.
Sean Gleeson - The 2008 front-runners
Link: Sean Gleeson - The 2008 front-runners. It’s time to start talking about the 2008 election. “But Sean,” you’re moaning, “isn’t it a bit early for that? Why talk about 2008 now?” Glad you asked. There are two reasons: 1.
Welcome to the 2008 race! I’ve been there since election day.
www.Primary2008.com
I loved your post. I am going to follow your thoughts rabidly. Your site will definitely affect my TOP 40 rankings for each party.
I agree with your cons to Giuliani…Those were about what I’d accounted for too. I know he *had* cancer but so did Kerry, actually. The divorce, that’s a challenge politically yeah. The liberal quotient he has is a bad thing to you and me, but it might balance out actually. I guess I shouldn’t be so bold as to say ‘he’s the man’ but I still think you’ve undersold his prospects a hair at least
You could still be right in the end, I’m just trying to get the point spread 
Cheers,
M@
No mention of Bill Richardson - he’s Hispanic, non- northeast/southeast, has bee in a variety of places including elective office. My vote’s for Bill.
What about Rod Glagojevich!!!
My husband sent me you site this morning (and he is a Democrat).I do not understand why you do not come out and say you are conservative and against all and anything that might be just a tad open and liberal (which is not a dirty word!).
I grew up in a Democratic house, where both my parents were factory workers in OHIO. Dad fought in WWII in Patton’s tank core, parents never divorced, never arrested. I went to 12 years of Catholic schools.
AND STILL I was taught the environment is sacred, helping the poor is worthy, women ARE equal to men, and not playing dirty politics, i.e. ALL THE BUSH CROWD is a sin. PLEASE give a warning label on your site of the bias - “the truth shall set you free”
Thank you, Christina
May all come to know Jesus Christ as their savior. No, the environment is not sacred. God’s Word is!
This like isn’t about us. It’s about Jesus! He is the meaning of life.
I agree with Christina…open your eyes. The liberals of an earlier generation are always viewed as conservatives by the next. Why not start the progression now. And Tim, I would venture to say Jesus would think the environment was worth saving, that women are equal to men, and the poor should have health care. Jesus was a HUGE liberal for his time, infact, I would equate him to a socialist.
The fact that you say, “Jesus WAS…” tells us you’re not a believer anyway. Jesus is, not was.
Katie, not once did Jesus ever mention any environmental concerns. God didn’t sacrifice Himself and rise from the dead to save the woodpecker, but to save you and me (and everyone else).
The problem with your observation can be seen when you said, “I would venture to say…”. Yes, Katie, and based on what? Like most unbelievers, you would like to envision a benign God who makes you feel comfortable with yourself. The problem with that: your god doesn’t exist. God’s peace to you. May you call upon Him for salvation today!
Why not Condi, sweetie? I forget.
I thinking Sen. Clinton/Sen. Bama vs Sen. Mccain/NT Mayor Bloomberg.
Honestly if it happened, I might just vote for a republican for the first time. I’d also vote for a woman, even Clinton.
The reason the country is so divided I feel is from people forgetting religion and politics shouldn’t be mixed. Government is supposed to be neutral. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The equal protection clause means the Government can’t take sides, its not equal. It prohibits Congress from passing “any law respecting an establishment of religion”
I am a Christian, confirmed in the Lutheran Church 1985. Horrible wars have and are currently being fought over religion. That’s why the founding fathers didn’t want the Government to endorsing religion. They learned from centuries of history, countries fail when religion gets involved with government.
Ian
“All men are created equal”
Thank you for your opinions, Ian. They are very fashionable opinions, and you share them with many notable modern persons, some of whom have even inaugurated religion-free governments here and there around the globe. Perhaps the best example is North Korea, whose leader Mr. Kim has voiced a heartfelt desire to end the division of his own country.
It’s certainly a tautology, but it occurs to me that every single country that has ever existed throughout human history, except for those few hundred that currently still exist, has ceased to exist. The many thousands of “failed nations” have little in common with each other, as they include religious and secular, even atheistic, governments. They include tyrannies and democracies, glorious empires and humble city-states, and everything between. All of them have expired, all are gone. Some of them are only memories; the rest are not even memories.
Therefore, it is not possible, or at least not true, to say that “History proves that when thus-and-such happens, a nation will fail,” without some stronger evidence of causality. Otherwise, I could make assertions like, “History proves that when men eat vegetables, they die,” and point to the billions of cases of men who have eaten vegetables, and later died.
So: do “countries fail when religion gets involved with government”? No doubt. But they fail when it doesn’t too, don’t they? The question needs futher examination, and is a bit tangential to the 2008 election, so I’ll say no more of it here.
But thanks again.
Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas will make a very interesting Republican candidate for POTUS in 2008. I encourage you and your readers to visit http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com
So, with Laura Bush’s popularity almost double that of her husband’s, what do you think of Laura Bush for President in 2008? I think that she’d win hands down.
Condi Rice is absouluetly cute and cut for 2008 elections. i bet you guys she will win anyone hands down.
come on hillary and obama? first of all obama sounds too much like osama and honestly a woman as president and a black runningmate? im not racist but there are enough people in this country who wouldnt vote for them based on that. if they do i say either mccain and condi or juiliani and condi. everyone loves americas mayor!