Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, has been working alongside the former first lady on a number of issues, and even appeared with her at a press conference on Wednesday to promote - of all things - health-care legislation. But more puzzling than that, Mr. Gingrich has been talking up Mrs. Clinton's presidential prospects in 2008, to the chagrin of conservative loyalists who once regarded him as a heroic figure. Last month, he even suggested she might capture the presidency, saying "any Republican who thinks she's going to be easy to beat has a total amnesia about the history of the Clintons."
Since it's the end of the week, I'd like to throw into the ring a crazy idea.
There are things that make me wretch when I go to the polls: having to vote either Republican or Democrat. I punch the chads with one eye shut. If I vote Republican, a little voice in my head mentally slaps me around for promoting a party that has a weak spot for Pat Robertson and people like Creationists. And when I vote Democrat, the little voice's doppelganger punches my cranium for supporting the relativist, cave-in, self-defeating politics of the Left.
I can't think of two better firebrands for this country's two ideological bases -- Gingrich and Clinton. Their adversarial history is legendary. I love the idea of them swapping political spit in public.
So what's my crazy idea? That Hillary and Newt both quit their parties and start something new. By 2008, each party will have gone to such ideological extremes that perhaps they'll be liabilities, not assets for a presidential candidate. I have grave doubts that Bush's current trajectory is necessarily going to take the Republicans to still-yet higher places in the next election.
I disowned the Democratic party because all the discontent I had for liberals finally crystallized before me in the aftermath of 9/11. But I didn't join the Republican party, either. I'm registered as an independent -- I think of that as my political purgatory until something truly practicable emerges on the political landscape. Perhaps a new party is in order. Even as I write that, it sounds heretical to our binary democracy.
And yet, the first Republican president -- Lincoln -- ran and won when his party was only six years old. It's true that Republicans back in 1860 were inspired by the Whigs, but it was a new party nonetheless. Is that so unthinkable under today's circumstances?
I like the pairing of Hillary and Newt because they're each symbols of hatred by their opposition. If they could work something out between them, I might be persuaded to overlook their past ideological overindulgences and send them a chad of approval. They would, as a presidential team, be formidable to the Bush-like and Kerry-like candidates I expect to see paraded before us in 2008. Lunatic-ideological cream pies would be thrown at Hillary and Newt from the extremists on both sides of the political divide, with equal vigor. And perhaps then, finally, the extremists would be exposed and laughed out of the halls of power, where serious matters need tending.
OK, well -- it'll never happen. Go ahead and tell me why it won't. But if not Hillary and Newt, I would like to hear something that is viable for 2008. Republicans and Democrats are in the thickening mud of their own past ideologies. This fast-changing world challenges us to do more than slog through our ideological past. I'd love to hear some crazy ideas that might be saner than America's current national politics. Throw your best pies and see what happens.
It won't happen because their money supplies prefer to stay where they are.
However, I was surprised to see that the DNC's flyer to me this week (they think I'm a Democrat for some reason, possibly because I've been critical of Bush and called Pat Buchanan an unmitigated ass today) had, in addition to the standard over-the-top NOW-style rhetoric in the cover letter, an amazingly balanced poll.
Perhaps the DNC is starting to realize that it is a political, rather than missionary, organization?
Hilary and health-care?
Jamais de ma vie!
My doctor dad showed me excerpts from that horrific 3500 page lawsuit generator that she authored when i was still in school. No way.
There were racial quotas for specialists and mandated providers for things like tetanus serum.
She can never be president anyways, because she is not credible as CINC. Especially while there is the WoT.
Un-fricking-believeable.
Jin,
It is un-fricking-believeable. That's my attraction to it.
What I am really saying here has less to do with Hill and Newt and more to do with starting fresh in a fast-chainging world. I like the idea of bridging seemingly unbridgable divides. Heck, we're suppose to be igniting democracy across the globe with our military and neoconservative ideas; but Hillary and Newt getting along together? -- no way!
Un-fricking-believeable.
I see damned few potential candidates from either party who will be able to run without serious party baggage. This upstanding citizen is disgusted, and bordering on losing hope.
I don't think this country will survive with one party running things semi-competently. It's a half-brain lobotomy that will eventually kill us. There's enough cross pollination of ideas between the parties to make me believe that some alternative to both of them is viable.
So, I'm not sure you've thrown a pie with an idea inside of it.
I am starting to believe the 'rumor' that the Hildabeast is smarter than the average joe. I also thought that Newt was smarter the the 'beast. I just don't see any torch bearers on the other side of the aisle that could be a match once the 'beast grabs the immigrant issue as her own, stealing a march on the republicrats.
Dang,
Just considering the possibility has caused me to strain a brain muscle. I wil apply cold beverages internally and work on this puzzler.
Cordially,
Uncle J
I call your bipolar ticket and raise you Lieberman/Rice or Miller/McCain. You may interchange these selections as you wish.
Are there two other politicians in America who are slicker than Newt and Hillary? They both covet the limelight and will do anything for attention. Unlike Bush 41, Newt cannot accept that he is out of power and is unlikely to return to it. These two exhibit the worst tendency of politicians, ideological flexibility to suit the moment. Newt used to have convictions, but that is easier when you are on top of the heap. Why not throw other spineless and convictionless pols like McCain, Chafee and Jeffords in the mix and you can have your new "Moderate Party". Just make sure you don't stand between them and the camera, especially when some important issue like steroids in baseball comes up for debate on Capitol Hill.
Paulo, Applause, (jumping up and down)
Gingrich is little more that a wannbe playa in the Eyes Wide Shut bunch, hoping for a life time invite to Bohemian Grove. Next thing we will see is his endorsement of Lugars one world government LOST treaty.
Beware those without Ideology Marcus, can you really admire people that stand for NOTHING ?
Our problems are not the ideologs that tell you bluntly what they stand for and what they intend to do.
Its the political roulette wheels card sharks, and Stealth Fabians that are the problem. And Gingrich, became all three.
Historically, the rise of a new party has been preceded by the demise of a previous party (Federalists to 1816; Whigs 1834-1852; Republicans 1854 to present) So, unless you are going to root for the demise of one of these parties, I think you need to hope for realignment. Unfortunately, all of my realignment scenarios involve either James Dobson or Ward Churchill getting a nomination.
And Jin, if Hilary isn't tough enough to be CINC, I don't know what woman is.
And Jin, if Hilary isn't tough enough to be CINC, I don't know what woman is.
Condi. Being tough and the perception of being tough are two different things.
Cicero, quit messing with my head!
Hilary has waaaaay too much baggage-- if she even opens her mouth about health-care, the AMA is gonna be paying for full page adds lifted from the more idiotic things in her 90's "Health-care Plan".
And tv too.
Hillary is certainly tough enough to be CINC, but she is in my opinion, the Democrat Party's Richard Nixon. The parallels are very eerie.
I always enjoy reading people's take on Newt Gingrich. But I never learn anything about Newt from those takes, just the writer. As they are so often based on the MSN myths of Newt rather than the reality. Newt's always been a lot more and a lot less than his myths.
PD Shaw,
You bet, the is a cross between Cruella Deville and Andrea Dworkin
Even tho, Andrea herself would probably find the Hildebeast a bit too butch.
Gingrich is an ideas guy. That was his strength and his weakness. He was talking about domestic security as an underrated issue before 9/11, and I'm always interested in what he has to say. Glad to see that if he sees an idea that makes sense to him these days, the politics aren't so much in the way now that he isn't the front-and-center guy for his party.
I think any ambitions on Newt's part to put himself into a front-and-center position again would be a grave mistake - he's a great leader for a specific time and place, and now ain't it - but Cicero's challenge is fun and I'd encourage folks to pick it up.
The name calling and trash talk is kind of dumb, though I suppose it might be sort of fascinating in a train-wreck kind of way to come up with the Hilary and Newt counterparts of BushMcChimpyHitlerDespotTheocrat. Or is that BushHitlerMcChimpyTheocratDespot? I always forget....
Thats the spirit, and the context that all the above should be understood.
Ill point to an even earlier oxymoronic fusion, that perhaps some have forgot.
Remember Pat Buchannan and the reform party ? His running mate was an avouched Communist.
When you see two such elements forged together that the largest atom smasher could never hope to pair. the conversation around this new form of unobtainium is gonna sound a bit, umm conflicted.
BusHitler and KimjonGandi is SOP for the moonbats, but what Marcus opened up here has the virtue of humor.
Cicero is joking? Whew!
But i like lurker's Rice/Lieberman ticket a lot!
Doubt it could happen, tho-- black female/jewish bald guy?
Uhn-uh!
Some times you just have to change if for no other reasin that the path forward is a dead end. I like Prsident Bush, but I also have a lot of concerns extending into the future.
Lately I have been finding that I have to actively remind myself that I don't like Hillary.
I just don't want to have to see Bill again for 4/8 years.
:-(((
Hillary's a smooth operator. I'm not sure if she's as smooth as her husband, but still good. And very astute.
Anyone who runs for the Dem's ticket in 2008 needs to ask themselves a question: rally the base, or strive for the middle? Both parties in 2004 tried to rally the base, and the Reps did a better job.
I'd really like to know what Hillary's opinion is of her chances with those two strategies. If she thinks the base is the safer bet, you won't see much of Newt. He doesn't bring her anything there.
On the other hand, if she's counting on the Reps to nominate a social conservative (Ashcroft as opposed to Condi), then she could have a good chance of taking the middle.
Lastly, and least likely, is that she thinks SHE could take the middle, but not as a Democrat. What if she (and Newt) have come to the conclusion that the Democratic party is more of a liability than an asset for her? Would they run as independents? As Whigs? Ross Perot won 19% of the vote. Could Hillary win the middle 40 in a 30/40/30 race?
It really depends of course on who she runs against. If the Reps go right, and the Dems go left, it could leave enough room in the center for a well known name to take it. A Condi, Liberman, or Giuliani would leave no room at all - but could they win their primaries? Kucinich v. Pat Roberston (not that that's likely, I'm just hypothesizing an extreme) would probably leave 85% of the population deperate for a 3rd choice.
Cardozo
Bush is no hard right winger, it was Kerry, that rallied the Republican base, not Bush.
To that end, the Hildebeast would be quite effective, Hillary 2008. im all for it.
Cicero is a jokester. Feh.
Well, the joke might be Hillary carrying Newt over the threashold into the White House. -- with Bill watching from that closet in the Oval Office he and Monica once shared a cigar in.
But I am not joking about a 'new party' alternative. I think it would be healthy -- I'm already in an alternative party. I've talked to lots and lots of people who are not really comfortable with either party. My vote for Bush was not easy.
I was hoping the Hlllary/Newt angle would spark a lively debate on an alternative politic in this nation, that is badly needed. Like I said to Jinderella earlier, we expect to bridge the divide between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, and get feudalism converted to democracy in Afghanistan -- but the mere idea of Hillary and Newt on the same side is fightin' words. If that's so outrageous, then so's neoconservativism abroad.
The reaction here to Hillary and Newt illustrates the divide quite nicely. Practicality dictates that we either vote Republican or Democrat; but I hardly see our situation in this world as a practical challenge. Third parties need not be reserved for Naders and Perots -- each was an extreme of the extremes already in place.
Anyway, have a nice Friday. My daughter's taking her first swim in her brand new inflatable backyard wading pool that we got from Wal-Mart. She's 14 months old and looks mighty cute in her silly little bikini.
Pew Research has an interesting report out: "Beyond Red vs. Blue: The 2005 Political Typology." (Here)
To find out your typology, go here
Thats the spirit!
As we watch the left destroy the democrats as a party, you might get your wish for a new one, but it might not be a third party.
Enjoy it while you can Marcus, the interval from 14 Months to 14 Years is all too short, whereon about that time you will discover ever more "conservative" traits welling up in you, as you dream of an aligator filled moat around your castle, and see certain strange visitors showing up, as the enemy.
I like this crazy idea, though it would have to be a sort of didactic exercise rather than a serious political ticket. Boxing Alcibides is right: You just can't divert the Great Money River that easily.
But some kind of Clinton-Gringrich enterprise promises hours of fun for the entire family. Anything that might subvert the endless moronic game of Democrats and Republicans is okay with me.
"the Great Money River that easily."
Actually, the Great Money River is why it might happen. See Howard Dean's difficulty in following Terry McAwful's record in showing the Dems the money.
You can raise lots of cash against James Dobson, et al. The question is whether that cash will flow more freely into someone channeling Peter Drucker or Ward Churchill. Methinks the former, and if the Dems choose the latter, there's beaucoup bucks to be had for a new party that fills the breach.
It is a great idea(new party) but there is no there there with those two. Bill generates to much negatives without Hillary's health plan and Newt is the father of the nuclear option. there is nothing centrist about that party as a political one. Maybe a think tank!