I'm not sure why I thought about this today. But, it seems that the parties simply switched candidates for this past election. In 2004, the Democrats ran an aging, boring fellow with no clearly stated vision for the nation teamed with a spunky, though vapid, vice presidential nominee. The Republicans ran George W. Bush who was more charismatic and had a plan (vague though it might have been at the time) teamed up with an older vice presidential nominee. In 2008, the Democrats ran a charismatic Obama with a very vague plan of "change" teamed up with an older vice presidential nominee, and the Republicans ran an aging boring fellow who never really laid out a plan and teamed him with a spunky, though attractive, vice presidential nominee.
I'm just tossing this one out there for discussion.
I'm just tossing this one out there for discussion.
Posts
2 comments:
For all their professed (and/or genuine) hatred of each other, the two parties seem to have arrived at a convenient power-sharing agreement. This election, it was the Democrat's "turn". The Republicans basically nominated an older politician whose time had come (a la Dole) in a pretense of putting up a good fight, rather than risking a loss with someone who has a viable political career.
Who else could the Republicans have run?
It seems to me that they were all stiffs; all un-electable, as evidenced by the election.
One thing that scares me about the future of the Republican party is the shortage of up-and-coming talent that is truly conservative.
I keep hearing the name of Bobby Jindal, but know nothing of him. A true conservative out of Louisiana, a land still under Huey Long's long shadow, is a rare thing.
Jeb Bush? I believe no matter his talents, the nation just couldn't bring itself to have another Bush in the White House.
I would love to see a young Republican with a "viable political career" as a possible president.
Post a Comment