Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Re: the Love Affair with Condi

I agree with LJ about most of the folks following the two reasons you cited electability with women and African Americans...in fact, I cited those same two reasons in my Re: Condi v. Hillary (more on) (update) post. Mostly I'd be for her because I believe she has the same foreign policy views as W.

I did mention earlier that she's pro choice but I think that if she espoused the originalist view of judicial nominees, she'd get a pass on that from the base. I also think she has a pro affirmative action position. I'm not too concerned about either of those (or most non-economic domestic issues). Immigration is the hot button today (interesting blend of domestic and foreign policy) and maybe will still be in November, but it might wane by '08 especially if some congressional band-aid is put on it and nothing catastrophic happens. It shouldn't wane but it might. I don't know where she stands on that one.

I think most have learned (even some dems like Bill) that the single best thing the executive can do for the economy is GET OUT OF THE WAY and keep some kind of lid on, if not reducing, taxes. I don't think Senator Clinton has learned that, nor any of the last dozen or so dem contenders. (And for the record, my biggest Bush disappointment has been his inability to stop spending like a drunken sailor. Deficits are overblown as an issue as the Reagan recovery showed but are still problematic....Bush has been an utter failure on domestic spending.) Difficult to imagine the strength of today's US economy if Bush had held down domestic spending to merely Clintonian levels.)

Much like the Dem's view of the last election (anybody but Bush), I fear that may be where the GOP may have to go in '08 if the junior senator from NY is the opponent. Sadly, as the dems learned, that is no way to run a campaign.

No comments: