Remember the old John McCain? The guy who drew the admiration of Democrats and infuriated the right-wing? The guy who approached then Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in 2001 about switching parties? The old McCain was still very much a conservative, but his principled stances drew admiration from both sides of the aisle. Well that guy's still around, but these days he goes by the name of Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).Nebraska's other Senator is Ben Nelson, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate by far. The two have been bitter adversaries in the past, but know have apparently grown quite fond of one another.
Recently Hagel was seen having dinner with Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R-NYC). Both men have been rumored as potential Independent Presidential candidates. Hagel, despite his strong anti-Iraq War sentiments, is still quite conservative. And Bloomberg is a former Democrat who'd be considered a liberal by almost anyone's standards.
In a recent poll that included Bloomberg in a 3-way race, he drew almost all his support from the Republican candidate. Some of this is probably due to overall dis-satisfaction with the Republican field. Once Republicans learned of his liberal tendencies, that'd probably change. Plus we don't elect Presidents by a popular vote. Would Bloomberg in the state of NY, where's he's more known, help or hurt the Democratic candidate? That's what I'd like to know.
Right now you can listen to Joe Lieberman (I-CT) give a speech that people are tired of "politics as usual" and "partisan bickering". Of course he's going to say that, it keeps him relevant. Except for the tiny detail that he's only an Independent because it was the only way he could get re-elected.
Here's the problem with that argument. It's bullsh*t. The Republican Party is in disarray. Democrats are motivated and happy with both their leadership in Congress and their crop of presidential candidates. Independents have to use the tired argument that the two-party system is broken because you can't get elected unless you take votes from both the Democratic and Republican candidate. If a Hagel or a Bloomberg admitted to running because of their dissallusionment with the GOP, all they'd do is split the Republican vote and be seen as a spoiler.
Actually Bloomberg has insinuated in the past that his decision to run might depend on who the GOP nominated. Translation: Nominate Rudy or say hello to Pres. Hillary Clinton. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
(Actually the title of this diary is inaccurate. In a 3-way race, only the Republican candidate would get screwed)
May 5, 2007 - It's hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every `08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public's approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.'s nadir.
It also notes that each of the leading Democratic contenders beats the Republican front runners in head-to-head match-ups.
Which leads me to the surprising observations made by Bruce Bartlett at NRO:
As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats will win the White House next year. It's not quite 1932, but it's getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if any enthusiasm for the Republican candidates - even among Republicans.******
At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton.
What a strange race 2008 is turning out to be.