I continue to be completely without interest in the contenders for the Republican candidacy for president of the United States. There’s a simple reason for this: I’m a Democrat, I vote in Democratic primaries (in Illinois that’s essentially what being a Democrat means), and I will only have the opportunity to vote for one of these contenders. There will be plenty of time to examine that contender more closely when it actually means something to me.
At this point Romney and Huntsman are the only contenders I can stomach. That’s not particularly surprising considering that they’re the candidates most appealing to moderates and non-Republicans, generally. It must be dismaying to be a moderate Republican and survey that group.
“It must be dismaying to be a moderate Republican and survey that group.”
Yeah, and so few to share it with…
I think that probably differs depending where you are in the country. Just as being a Democrat in San Francisco means something different than being a Democrat in Chicago, so being a Republican in Illinois or Indiana is probably different than being one in Texas.
Dave, can you think of any historical precedent for a party nominating someone who just (less than a year ago) served in the opposing party’s administration?
The closest analogy I can think of is Andrew Johnson, a Democrat that joined Lincoln’s Union ticket, and when he actually became President, really had no party support and couldn’t get renominated.
Other than Johnson I can’t think of anyone within so short a time.
However, I can think of others who served under a president of an opposing party albeit not within a year. The two most obvious are Jefferson and Eisenhower. Jefferson was ambassador to France under Washington, a Federalist. He was elected to the presidency as a Republican (later called Democratic-Republican).
Eisenhower, obviously, was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe under Roosevelt/Truman and then elected to the presidency as a Republican.
I still dont get Newt’s rise. I had thought that there was bipartisan support for the idea that lobbyists rotating in and out of government is part of our problem, not a solution.
Steve
I continue to be completely uninterested in the farce we call a political process. But feel free to think that voting will entail any substantive changes, after all we’ve seen so many with Obama.