The hubby came up with a very interesting idea this evening. We were talking about potential candidates for 2008.
Kerry? No.
Hillary? No.
We need a Democrat who can talk to folks in the red states.
And then the hubby uttere one name: Mark Warner, Democratic governor of Virginia; a state that went for Bush this time around and in 2000. I don’t know how Warner stands on gay issues, but I recall that he fought some anti-gay bit of legislation in Virginia (unsuccessfully, I believe).
Worth considering? Mabye.
Neville Chamberlain lives!
I would like to point out that Franklin Delano Roosevelt won FOUR TIMES with magnificent majorities after a succession of Republican presidents had reigned. And Grover Cleveland became our president after about twenty-four solid years of Republican rule. Where were these guys from? Why, NEW YORK!
I think it is crystal clear we need a NEW YORKER, by way of a red state, for president.
No retreat; no surrender. The Democrats have gotten within an eyelash of whipping Bush twice. Stop wringing your hands! Tell hubby to take a Percodan.
See, here’s the problem I have with “picking a Southerner.” If we are doing this as some cosmetic attempt to attract Southern voters, they’ll see through it. Furthermore, what about the needs of us Northern progressives? If this Southern candidate doesn’t still speak to our values, he’s going to lose our votes.
Bayh ’08. You heard it here first.
I also thing Bayh. He has been out front in center, especially with this quote:
“We need to be a party that stands for more than the sum of our resentments.” – Senator Evan Bayh, D-Indiana
Bayh has it exactly right. We need to be a party that is FOR something, not AGAINST whatever the other part is FOR.
We also need to remember that this IS a religious country, but that does not always have to equate to being a conservative one. Abolition, New Deal, Civil Rights, and many of the Viet Nam protests were lead by religious leaders. We need to lose our fear of religion and take our faiths back, and demonstrate that if we are going to be good stewards of God’s creation, we have a lot of moral imperatives in how we treat the environment and each other. Who better than us to preach the Golden Rule?
Bush succeeded not because everyone knew all of his programs. He was able to commmunicate very simply and easily because everone understood his moral underpinnings. Kerry, on the other hand, just talked about his myriad plans. That takes too long, and in the end doesn’t tell you much about the MAN. If a new situation arises, we know exactly how Bush will react because we know what he BELIEVES. The electorate never got a good understanding of what Kerry believes.
Arrianna Huffington, alwasy wise, wrote something insightful IMHO ….
I am thinking if we are determined to lose with Republican-lite, why not go for Pete Coors? Nothing appeals more to those Southern NASCAR fans than those jiggly twins. Besides, T., Pete is even better on gay issues than Warner [if you ignore the Coors family contributions to the Heritage Foundation on the QT.]
You are right on one point. Southerners, Christians, and Conservatives alike will see through any attempt to run a Democrat candidate from the south who pretends to be Conservative on moral issues or isn’t completely in line with Conservative moral issue and values.
Abortion is a no no. Gay marriage and civil unions is a no no, taxes..no no, illegal immigration is a no no, 2nd amendment violations is a no no. U.N. is a no no. French appeasment is a no no.
The only candidate that you could truly run and win with in the south is Zell Miller. If this is the case, moderate to liberal conservatives will not support him. Liberal southerners will not win and should be an oxymoron. We won’t vote for Rudy either. It should be evident now that southerners want a southerner, or at least a conservative mid-westerner. Poo poo the idea if you want, but the election to the church goers that I know hinged on moral issues, not pocketbook issues.