Who are we running against for '08? It won't be *

[The Straight Story]

Whoever we think has the best chance (or at least a group of people in the whole field) we should be focusing on them as the rw nutjobs are on Senator Clinton.

* is out, something that get's closer everyday. And while I have no problem pointing out his ineptitude (which is not a hard chore I might add) I would like to focus less on him and more on key targets in the party. All the negative we can muster against * now will flush mostly away when a new candidate appears.

For me, personally, * is not the only big problem we have. We have three branches of government, two of them filled with elected folks. Sure, * is the leader and all that, and yes he is a huge problem, I am just not sure how much focusing on him will change the next two elections. It may help of course to 'tar' the party in general - but he is out anyway soon (relatively speaking in historical terms) and I guess I am wondering - who should we also be focusing on heavily?

It seems every week there is some magic thing which will bring down * and crew, and yet how long have they been there? I am NOT saying to lay off him of course, just hoping I can get some clear insight from some smart folks here as to who we need to get working on asap to get people across the country thinking. For every one thread on sen candidate X we have a gillion on * boy. Maybe we could end up with a forum on repug sen/house/presidential candidates and kick some things in there around.

Oh well, maybe I am just off tonight, carry on :)

[The Traveler]

1. It is the ideology of * that is poison

and we must focus on the antidote.

[Yupster]

2. McCain

That's my guess. It's his turn next.

[win_in_06]

3. George Allen or Newt

would be worse case scenario IMO

[GRLMGC]

4. George Allen is a dumbfuck

Newt is just plain evil. It WOULD be the worse case scenario

[The Magistrate]

5. That Is A Good Topic, Mr. Story

Let me start by saying it is a pleasure to see your thoughts on this subject.

It is hard to see who the Republicans will run in '08. For some decades now the Vice President has been the heir apparent in either Partry, but it is hard to conceive of Cheney being put forward into the limelight. Figures such as Allen of Virginia and Frist are certainly possibilities, and then there is the satrap of the house in Florida. It is hard to see figures like McCain or Pataki or Romney getting through the Republican primary electorate.

In elections where an incumbent is barred from running for the excutive, there is always a sense that the election is in some sense a referendum on that departing incumbent's performance. Because of this, it strikes me as very important to, as you put it, "'tar' the party in general" with this wretch, and the calamatous incompetence he has displayed. Any figure who runs will have a thick record of expressed support for him throughout his regime, and it should be easy to tie the two together. The more mud can be made to stick, the easier ot will be to do this to effect, it seems to me.

It seems to me to be essential that this be done in the '06 Congressional elections. These must be nationalized by the Party, and treated as a referendum on, and opportunity to repudiate, the current regime. It seems adviseable to me that our Congressional delegation should begin to lay the groundwork for this by acting as a parliamentary body in opposition, and opposing, regardless of whether that opposition can muster a sufficiency of votes to succeed. The lines must be sharply drawn, and no doubt left that a vote for a Democratic party candidate is a vote against the current regime, straight down the line. There is no other way to profitably tap the growing popular discontent.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[jobycom]

6. Good points. But I think we gain mileage by bashing Bush's failures

I think we are going to win in 2008 because I don't think the Republican machine wants to win then. They know everything is bad, and that someone will have to raise taxes and cut boondoggles. So they are going to whiff at the ball in 2008, let us win, then blame us in 2012 for raising taxes and for creating the bad situation we will inherit.

But bashing Bush helps for three reasons. One, it helps firm in people's minds that he is a failure, so maybe he will be remembered that way. Two, we undercut the fundamentalist/neocon message by showing it and Bush failed. Three, it gives us a chance to bash the entire Repub party, which helps in 2006.

See, we're going to win the presidency again, someday. That's a given. What we really need to focus on is winning Congress and the states. Bashing Bush bashes the Republicans, and helps us to reclaim America. Every low poll number makes the whole Repub party look bad. And future Repub candidates have to either side with a failed president, or have to reject the core party message. Either tactic hurts them, and helps us.

You are definitely right, though, that we are gloating a lot over Bush's bad numbers without turning those numbers to usefull election advantage yet. We should start linking the whole Republican ideology to Bush's bad numbers.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Please drop 2008 and focus on one election at a time: 2006! Repugs Out!

[zbdent]

8. You mean IF elections are held in 08

Wouldn't surprise me if the US was under martial law (been saying this for some time).

Remember, Bush yesterday was warning about possible attacks . . . right?

[nickshepDEM]

9. No doubt in my mind. Its going to be.... Sen. George Allen (VA)

[joeprogressive]

10. Every potential candidate has taken advantage of Bush's false coattails

at one time or another. As they now try to distance themselves from the idiot boy leader, we should emphasize that they were in league with the devil.