Long-Term Planning

If Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 Democratic nomination for president and has the tactical good sense to pick Governor Bill Richardson (NM) or Senator Barack Obama (IL) for her running mate (the former is a better choice), the next POTUS will be a Democrat. Most Democrats and not a few Republicans will be unable to resist the historic implications of having the first woman and the first minority ever heading the executive branch of the US government.

So when all you conservative Republicans finish fighting with each other, you might want to take time out to consider how you will handle such a state of affairs.

Comments

[Tully]

Me, I'm gonna cut off the soles of my shoes, climb a tree, and learn to play the flute.... ;-)

[negronova]

It's too soon to get worked up.

[baldilocks]

Ed,

Probably true about "being worked up"--for either side.

I just wish more people would look more distantly into the future than the latest blurb or action taken by one's party or one's candidate.

After one's party "wins" or "loses," what are we all going to do about the things that we really care about?

Let's just say that my perspective is getting larger. :-)

[negronova]

After one's party "wins" or "loses," what are we all going to do about the things that we really care about?

Nuthin.

We have a populace where most of those who are eligible to take part, are not taking part. That means we are "controlled" by a minority. Of that minority, a minority actually takes part in the local and national party process. That means a super-minority (hah!), controls the political process at the local, state, and national level. They control who "we choose." And those who care, who do we choose? We choose a person from a short list of megalomaniac puffed up suits, whose intellegence and commitment to the people "who elected them" is suspect.

Actually, their commitment to those who *REALLY* elected them is NOT suspect. The super-minority rule in 9/10 cases.

Sorry Baldi, today ain't a good day. :-(

The cynic quotient is high.

[baldilocks]

You're not the only one who feels this way, Ed. :-/

[Janette]

I agree with you Juliette. Republicans need to stop threatening to take their ball and go home if they don't get their "ideal candidate". It doesn't matter so much who meets the all the criteria on your wish list, what matters is who can WIN!

I think that Fred Thompson is the only candidate that will be able to generate enough enthusiasm among Republicans to defeat the Clinton/Obama ticket.

[Casey]

I hate to be the party pooper, and (yes) it's a long way from November '08, but right now every poll has Rudy beating either Hillary or Obama in a general contest.

I'm just sayin'.

Me, I'd like to see Richardson head the D ticket. A Richardson/Rudy or Richardson/Fred match-up would be great for everyone; two good choices.

In fact, I'm beginning to think a Rudy/Fred ticket has its advantages. Fred could ameliorate the concerns some of the more (ahhh) enthusiastic conservatives have about Rudy. Giuliani, on the other hand, has executive experience that Fred lacks. It would be a complimentary match.

Going back to the original question: deal with it. I don't intend to develop HDS and automatically oppose everything from the White House, although there will likely be a minority of conservatives who can't wait for some "payback."

I'll talk about the issues and write my congressman (Mr. Boehner; yes, I helped elect him {g}) just as if a Republican held the White House. It's not a huge tragedy. We survived Carter, and Slicky Willy didn't do too bad. The Republic is strong enough for nearly anything.

Well, maybe not Kucinich and his Department of Peace idea. :)

[Deb]

I agree that the in-fighting is counterproductive, but I also think the party *needs* to lose. Let me explain...I'm one of those who looks back at our history and sees a pattern of powerful positive change *when we need it most,* as in when we hit a crisis.

We don't even need to go back that far, let's just look at Reagan. While he was on the scene for years, he didn't emerge as the great leader we know know him to have been until we suffered through four years of Jimmy Carter's debacle of a presidency! The American people need stark reminders of what real pain looks like, and what a real lack of leadership leads to before we truly unite, seek out and elect good leaders.

For all our troubles, I don't think we're where we need to be in terms of strife yet. Our economy is still too good, most people are pretty well off, and despite being at war, we're not really sacrificing as a nation. Such a tiny percentage of us are sacrificing, while the rest of us sit around and whine about the war like it's a nuissance distracting us from American Idol.

I think the implications of a Clinton/Obama presidency might just be dire enough to bring us back, to force us to look for and *find* the leader we really need. Our economy will suffer greatly if she implements her policies, and we will likely be attacked again.

In a way, as much as I would never vote for this ticket, I won't despair if they win. I am not looking forward to the short-term of what that would look like, but long term? I'm not sure it would be such a bad thing! I mean does any true conservative believe they could do a *good* job or make the country better? What are the chances that they'd do no harm and that the status quo would remain for a full four years? Slim? None I'd say.

So let them win. Worst case they do a good job! Best case? They live up (or down) to our expectations, Americans from every walk of life suffer more than they are suffering today, and they start to look for a good leader--and he or she won't be a Democrat that's for sure.

The other thing to consider is that none of the GOP candidates running today would be able to do much in the next four years other than serve as a whipping boy for the Democratic Congress, a blame-magnet for their failings, and the MSM will march in lockstep with that just as they have with the Bush haters. And four years from now, things would still be going less well than they are now, but it's possible a Dem. could follow, and then we'd have four more years of decline for a total of eight, and it is quite possible that by the time the proverbial really hits the fan, we'd be sufficiently hurt economically that it would be much harder to recover.

So I say bring it on! Rip off the bandaid. Shut up the blamers, let the Dems take it on the chin for a few years, and then, when they crash and burn, send in the right guy (or gal) to fix it.

[Kobayashi Maru]

It would be nice to imagine that reason and competence trump gender (Hillary) + race (Obama) or ethnicity (Richardson). (Begging the question of the chaos that would ensue in the highly unlikely event that Condi threw her hat into the ring!)

If electoral politics were purely about how one was plumbed and the amount of melanin in one's skin, Shirley Chisholm would have been elected in 1972.

[BJM]

Even if all that you say comes true...Hillary's presidency will come undone when Bill's trousers do.

The MSM are laying like snakes in the tall weeds of Bill's libido. Does anyone believe Bill hasn't had some on the side in 8 years? or that the MSM doesn't know who he sees?

Once Hillary's in office all bets will be off as she has no reserve of goodwill or charisma on which to trade and sex sells in every market demographic.

It would be amusing to watch their final take down if we were not in a battle for our survival.

However, the new drapes may be ordered but they haven't been hung, anything can happen this far out and we may be saying "Hillary who?" in a year.