Dimmed today were the prospects of our two-party system providing the body politic with a reasonable choice for Chief Executive in 2008. To wit: Mark Warner, the only moderate Democrat of electable stature, is dropping out of the presidential race.
Warner has been viewed as the most likely alternative to Hillary for the Dems. Now that mantle falls on the unlikely shoulders of Evan Bayh. Bayh has served terms as governor and senator in the Hoosier State (motto: the place you pass through between Ohio and Illinois). His primary electable characteristics have been good looks, an incoherent political philosophy that passes itself off as moderate pragmatism, and most importantly his magic surname inherited from his father, an Indiana senator of dubious reputation and accomplishment, but more importantly still from his mother, regarded by naive Hoosier voters as a secular saint for her loyalty to her philandering husband (sound familiar?) while undergoing treatment and ultimately succumbing to breast cancer.
Bayh will not play successfully on any national stage. Known in the Indianapolis legal community, amongst whom he practiced law before joining the family political business, as "Ken" to his wife's "Barbie," Bayh will be like John Edwards without the ideas (and if you're asking "what ideas?" about John Edwards, you get the idea).
So the Dems will either nominate Hillary or someone further to her left (and if you're asking if something to the left of Hillary is possible, you get the idea, but here you should shudder).
This almost certainly assures the republic of another Republican chief executive, unless the Rs make the mistake of nominating someone so closely identified with the Religious Right that he can be successfully tarred with the extremist brush. And since George Allen appears to have completed his self-destruction, that's likely not in the cards, if it ever was.
But SWNID, by all accounts a Republican sympathizer, does not rejoice in this outcome. The Rs desperately need the sharpening of their thinking and communication that comes from having nuanced opposition. That prospect evaporated today.
8 comments:
Unfortunately, it appears that neither side, in my humble opinion, will put forth a candidate that is worthy of the job. Politics in America is a sad state of affairs, and could be the cause of why some of the many people who do not vote choose not to vote.
I'd take Bayh back as governor any day over that clown they have now. As governor the state had a surplus, and the highways would have never been leased to the French so they could charge ridiculous rates to drive through the state.
One thing this blog has proved, and that is that there are lots of politically ambitious bloggers out there posting comments every time we post something about aspiring presidential candidates.
Sorry, Rob and the courageous "Anonymous," but Evan Bayh's shallow inability as an executive is hardly disproved by the fact that the voters of Indiana returned him to office. We stand by our judgment of Bayh's credibility as a national candidate. Still, we're sure that if he's nominated, he will carry his home state, something Al Gore couldn't manage.
This may clear the way for Bill Richardson, who seems decent enough despite having worked for Slick Willie. He's pragmatic for a Dem, and appears less conniving than most too.
As a life long Hoosier I have found that my beloved state is much more than a land mass between IL and OH. Even though my "track record" concerning predictions of the future is far less sought after than the beloved SWNID it falls to my responsibility to disagree with SWNID concerning Sen. Evan Bayh's ability to govern the nation. This is one time when even though my esteemed elder is still never in doubt I hope that this is a seldom time when he is wrong concerning the senator from Indiana. Come November '08 it will be difficult to vote confidently for anyone against Evan Bayh.
We feel the need to break silence again and comment on a comment.
AGREED: "that neither side ... will put forth a candidate that is worthy of the job."
This is always the case. Some rise to the occasion after they are elected. That is, some rise to some of the many occasions they confront.
The problem shaping up now is that whoever is elected will not have been sharpened by engagement with serious opposition. Polarized candidates don't make each other think harder. Since the Ds now will almost certainly elect someone on the far-left (unless, as Shoes notes, Richardson jumps in and prevails, or maybe Vislack [sp?], but how moderate is he?), there will be little need for the R (likely the center-right McCain or Giuliani or Romney) to engage in nuanced distinctions on policy. The 2008 campaign will make 2000 look like Lincoln versus Douglas.
If you want to call Hillary center-left instead of far left, we'll grant that for the sake of argument. But more than any candidate in recent memory, Hillary is a creature of her handlers. She may be capable of nuanced thinking, but she is so consumed with her ambition and with the mechanics of modern politics, every word she utters is calculated. After the health care debacle, she stopped thinking about policy and devoted herself entirely to winning elections.
I want two candidates who agree that we have to prevail in Iraq and against Iran and NoKo and who will discuss how best to do it. I want two candidates who agree that we need more people worldwide actively engaged in the capitalist economy and who will discuss how best to do it. I want two candidates who agree that we need sensible, forward looking and generous immigration policies and will discuss what they ought to look like.
We aren't going to get any of that without a moderate Democrat in the race.
The entire Democrat party is Lamonting itself, and injuring the republic in the process.
OK, one more. To you, "other anonymous person."
I am a recovering Hoosier, born and bred in the Crossroads of the Nation. I ridicule myself when I ridicule Indiana.
I came of age just after Mr. Bayh, and in his very neck of the woods. I've followed his career. I know people who know him professionally.
I, like they, am not impressed.
What in the world has the man ever done? What did he initiate as governor of Indiana? Legalized gambling and what else? Why does Indiana rank 50th in getting people off welfare? Why has it lost manufacturing jobs as fast as hapless Ohio, with its governor ranked worst in the nation by a national magazine?
What legislation has he sponsored in the Senate? With what great cause or idea is he identified?
Why does he still mention his mother in every stump speech?
What lies behind the boyish smile and well coiffed hair?
Does he even have a political philosophy? Or is it just political ambition?
Is he anything other than John Edwards with less money, a young-looking Democrat with no noticable record who can triangulate himself in a crowded field and maybe come up with the nomination?
Is he not the 21st century Democrat Warren Harding?
Even if he's nominated, how will Americans decide that they feel safer with "Ken" than with ex-POW McCain or 9/11 hero Giuliani?
I'm not sure anyone since Reagan has had anything like a political philosophy to undergird his or her political ambition. (Okay, okay, there have been a few: Gingrich and Moynahan come to mind.) But that's what we should expect in a society that prefers sound bites to reasons. Ironically, Reagan himself is largely responsible for encouraging this sorry state of affairs, being the undisputed master of the sound bite.
Post a Comment