Should Dems run an administration in November.

[kerouac]

Seeing as the Democratic candidate will be running against an administration, I was thinking that it might be a good idea for the Democrats to put together and run an administration against them instead of just prez/vp.

Everyone could know who will be in line to take over in Jan 2005 for the major positions -- like Sec. of State, Sec of Defense, Health & Humen Svcs & Attorney General.

It would be an election that includes Ashcroft vs. X, Rumsfeld vs. Y, Colin Powell vs. Z, and would make for a multi-faceted attack on the entire administration and call their records, and lies, into the limelight.

OR -- would this just open up a can of woop-ass on Democrats?

[Renew Deal]

1. This is good and bad all at once.

The good is that we have attack dogs all over the place. The bad is we have to defend several people's records. It could be a distraction.

[Lostnote03]

2. Interesting idea.......

........my first impression is , not a bad idea......I'm certain that there is a down side however it doesn't jump out at me.....it would certainly be precedent setting......maybe it would help in deflecting the intense BS that the Presidential candidate has to go through...

[Elidor]

3. An intriguing idea whose time has not yet come

Even assuming that the nominee could get his cabinet together in time (a very big if), the resulting sideshow could easily distract from what the candidate has to do: contrast himself with Flight-suit Boy.

But I like the idea anyway. If nothing else, the GOP's 101st Keyboarder Brigade and the Sabbath Gasbags would have too many targets to acquire and smear in too short a time to do much harm. If I'm reading you correctly, the potential cabinet members would serve as chaff to ward off missiles from the press.

Interesting idea. It'll never happen.

Edit: another thought - Although the confirmation process for cabinet members is considered to be a safeguard against whackos and the criminally insane, the confirmation of Ashcroft as AG is only a recent example of how fringe lunatics and/or sharks get in under the public radar. No prospective president would want to subject his choices to even more intense scrutiny than they do now, because many people would not survive such scrutiny. Neither would a candidate want to stake his political fate on the collective palatability of his proteges and patrons.

[kerouac]

5. Yes, plus put admin under spotlight.

Imagine the GOP having to trod out Rumsfeld, Powell, Ashcroft andTommy Thompson, in addition to Shrub and Cheney, for interviews or -gasp- a live face-to-face debate on CNN or something. That could bring a lot of other topics to the table.

[Donkeyboy75]

6. I do like the idea...

I know in the UK each party has a shadow cabinet. A good idea, and keeps everyone on their toes. I really think if the Dems had a shadow cabinet we would have had a better chance of avoiding the war. A "shadow" secretary of defense and state who is well-respected would have been able to make Rumsfeld and Powell look much sillier than they did.

[Donkeyboy75]

4. I think it would extend the defenses too thin.

It would also take away from the presidential candidate. I think we want to let the public focus on him

[SheilaT]

7. I think there would be a huge danger

that putting together an administration before the election would seem phenomenally arrogant and could easily backfire.

[justinpower]

8. I have always thought

the unnamed party representative beats the known party representative. Unless you are dealing with people that have achieved hero status. The less names you put forward the better your odds.

[Cat Atomic]

9. No.

Running a single candidate against the Bush Administration is much more effective. One person is a smaller target, and the Bush campaign has plenty of money to spend on ammo.

It's almost universally accepted that Bush isn't very bright, and that he depends on his advisors for their expertise in various fields. I hear the sentiment repeated by people on both sides of the political aisle.

Republicans speak of Bush's dependence on his advisors in a fawning, "George is a wise King" sort of way, but the meaning is the same: the President isn't really in charge.

A single candidate can run against that perception as well. I think people would like to see the guy they vote for actually running things.

[kerouac]

10. maybe you're right..

Maybe you're right.. All of the people that might be in line for those positions could stump and blast away during the campaign at Bush and company without harming themselves dramatically or coming under the scrutiny they would face if they were -declared- as an eventual member of a Dem administration.

It would limit damage, dirt and scandal associated with the Dem administration while getting similar results, but it would not result in bringing the Bush admin people out for one-on-ones (which probably wouldn't happen anyway).

Still.. it would make it reeeeell interesting.