Here's a Scary State Dept. for a Second Bush Term

Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Armitage have informed the White House that they will both step down if Bush wins re-election. And the leading candidates to replace them are…

  1. National Security Advisor Condi “I admit that I didn’t bother reading the full intelligence report about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction program because, let’s face it, the truth would have been inconvienent to starting a war” Rice


  1. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul “Bomb Them All To Fucking Hell then And Let God Sort Them Out” Wolfowitz.

Powell and Armitage are about the only moderates on the Bush foreign policy team. Gawd save us all if they leave.


I’m glad they announced it. This should scare moderates away from Bush. On the other hand, the thought of Wolfowitz and Rice running the state department fills me with bowel-loosening terror.

Yeah, announcing that they would step down is probably about as close as they can come to publically dissing with the current administration without being seen as traitors to the GOP. And I agree that it’s a good thing, and will hopefully make the moderate vote tougher for Bush to capture.

The only person on the list of possible replacements that I would be comfortable with is Richard Lugar, currently a senator from Indiana. Lugar has taken an active interest in Foreign Affairs for many years and seems to have a level head on his shoulders. Goodness knows we need someone level-headed to balance out Cheney and Rumsfield.

I’m biased, being an Indiana resident. Plus my father (who was a fairly high-level Republican in this state, although he never held public office) used to extoll Lugar’s virtues at every opportunity… the moment he dropped out of the '96 election dad said that the Republicans had blown any chance of winning the presidency. Given this, no wonder I’m more of a fan of Lugar than just about anyone else in DC.

But for what it’s worth, the man is exceedingly intelligent, he seemingly has no skeletons lurking in his closet, and as you mentioned his specialty has been foreign affairs.

He also doesn’t have a crazy fetish for tax cuts and building an American empire, so he has no chance in hell in this administration (or any foreseeable GOP primary).

Count me on this one.

Can someone draw me a quick picture of who’s running for the presidency, who’s not, what the political climate is like, etc ? I’m very interested in the american politics, unfortunately I no longer have cable TV at home, so I can’t watch US news channels etc. I saw Democrat Senator John Kerry the other day on CNN, he seemed to be a pretty smart guy, or am I totally wrong ? What about Republicans, who’s runnning, besides Bush ?

Unfortunately, the Dem with the momentum is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is on the cover of both Time and Newsweek this week. I say unfortunately because while he may be doing well in the primaries by going Left and bashing the war, I see him getting utterly crushed, 49-state Mondale-style, in the general election.

Things to keep in mind.

  1. Vermont has a smaller population than the city limits of your average American metropolis (less than 600,000). Plus, it’s about the most liberal of the states, even more liberal than California. Vermont has the only Socialist congressmen in the entire country. So it’s not hard to govern, especially when everyone in the state is pretty much a Republican-basher.

  2. When he says crap like “We got rid of Saddam Hussein, which I suppose is a good thing” it probably sends shudders of delight up Repulicans’ spines. He “supposes” it’s a good thing that an evil dictator like Saddam is gone? The Democratic Party has never fully recovered from the Vietnam War, in terms of National Security image. Nevermind the fact it was the Democratic Presidents who waged all the 20th Century’s major wars (World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam). But in this day and age, if the voters smell weakness, especially national security weakness, you are doomed. Nadda, not a chance. And unfortunately, the only way Dean has gotten the traction he has gotten is by becoming an anti-war peacenik. That’ll work in the primaries when you have to energize your base, but in the general election, you have to swing to the middle of the road, and Bush will have $200 million in advertising money to remind people of Dean’s “supposes.”

I’m not sure who the Dems should go for, though. John Kerrey would appear to be the front-runner (for the centrist Democrats). Hell, he’s a Democrat from Massachussets with the initials JFK, he’s rich, and he’s got lots of hair. Remind you of someone famous? Plus, he’s got the Heinz family fortune to wage war with, which would help put him on some equal footing with W.'s war chest.

I would have liked to see Bob Kerry venture into the race, but he’s happy being a university president right now. Bob Kerry, former senator and Navy SEAL, Vietnam veteran, and Medal of Honor winner. He would certainly beat Bush in the “I’ve Got Military Cred” test.

I do see former NATO Commander Wesley Clark maneuvering for the vice-presidential slot on the ticket. I think he would be a good choice, and would instantly add national security cred to the Democrats. Retired 4-star Army general, former Supreme Commander, NATO, decorated Vietnam vet, former Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas (remind you of anyone famous?), top in his class at West Point.

I’ll be damned if I know why everyone expects Dean to lose McGovern style - he’s not as liberal as McGovern; the only thing they have in common is opposition to a war. 1968 was such chaos I can’t see the analogy.

Its because Dean has somehow had the “far out liberal” tag stuck on him. Good thing its early.

Woolen Horde’s major criticism is correct though – he needs to come up with a better national security agenda than he has so far, because that will be one of (I won’t say that there’s one key) issue in 2004.

Again though, its still very early. Non-political junkies probably haven’t paid attention to who’s going for the Democratic nomination. At this point, the game is to differentiate yourself from the rest of the pack, increase your name recognition, and raise money. Dean’s done very well on those points.

I’m thinking Dean/Clark would be my ticket of choice. Right now. A year and a half before the election. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Why doesn’t Colin Powell run for president ? Heck I’d vote for him and I am not even an American.

Because of the Electoral College system, he’d never win. Even if he did win the Popular Vote. I really can’t see him winning the Southern States.

Ignoring the lies they tell pollsters (“why, I’d love to!”), I have a hard time believing the South would really vote for a black president in either the primaries or the general election. Doesn’t matter how conservative they are.

Powell has come out and said that the whole story was a fabrication, the conversation upon which it was based never happened, etc.


And the rest of the country would? There is just as much ignorant, closeted racism throughout the whole country that would keep Powell out of office. Not just the Southern states.

Yeah, and who knows what those bleeding hearted West Coast states would do.

And the rest of the country would? There is just as much ignorant, closeted racism throughout the whole country that would keep Powell out of office. Not just the Southern states.[/quote]

Some of the most blatantly racists comments I’ve ever heard were at a big outdoor all day party in rural Ohio.

There is no doubt that there are major pockets of racism in the South. But I’ve seen just as blatant racism in the Midwest, the Northeast, etc. I asked a friend at work today (he’s Black, from Tennessee, working in Michigan) about this - I figured that maybe I’m just full of crap on this. He told me that he’s encountered about the same amount of open racism in Michigan and Ohio and New York that he did in Tennessee, but he said he’s encountered much more “undercover racism” (his term) in the north - racism that isn’t as open, but just as obvious to him.

I think the problem is people in general as much as location. The good news is that maybe kids are growing up a little better. My 11 year old daughter was watching a show called American Dreams on TV with the family a while back and there was a story line involving a black guy going out with a white girl in Philadelphia in the 60s and the uproar around it. She looked at me and was genuinely puzzled - she asked what the problem was. It just never occurred to her that this could present a problem, and when I explained why this was an issue then, she just talked about stupid that was. We had a long talk that night about racism in the past and racism in our country and around the world today.

OK, let’s join hands and sing Kum By Ya now… ;)

Yes, the rest of the country is racist, but I bet without the South a conservative black guy could get elected president.

I’d take that bet. I wish I was wrong.