Memo to the Dems

It's very early in the game, but I'm certain the "brain trust" of the Democratic Party is trying to formulate some kind of blueprint to recapture the White House, if not Congress, in 2008. I don't know what the think-tankers Joe Trippi, Nancy Pelosi, James Carville and Rahm Emmanuel may be concocting, but if history is any judge, it will likely be as lame as last year's insipid inspirational chant "Hope is on the way." Please, tell me, what the fuck does that mean? Hope should be around all the time. "Help is on the way" is probably what they meant, but because "The Man from Hope" worked so splendidly as a sobriquet for Bill Clinton, they decided to take the word out of mothballs.

As despairing as I have been about politics, I was heartened by a recent poll suggesting that both sides of the political spectrum are favoring moderate candidates, at least at this early juncture. The potential candidate receiving most support from the Republican electorate was, surprisingly, Rudy Giuliani, whose reputation was salvaged by his 9/11 bravado, just like Dubya's. I actually could live with Rudy, who combines a fundamental toughness with an evolved social consciousness. (But I'm adaptible, and can also live with Dubya, though not very happily). Second choice among Reps is that old spitfire John McCain, who is attractive to many Democrats as well, and coming from a Sun Belt state as opposed to the reviled New York, would probably win easily. He may be too independent for the radical right, though, who are pinning their hopes on either Dr. Frist or Rick Sanctis Santorum. Jeb Bush could edge in there, like that silly race horse Giacomo who sped past competing favorites to win the Derby. But Bush fatigue is likely to set in with more stumbling in the second term.

The rank-and-file Democrats support give most of their support, unsurprisingly, to Hillary Clinton, though last year's also-rans Kerry and Edwards are ready to swing at each other to position themselves as the anti-Hillary. Ironically, despite the media's conception, Hillary is more moderate in her politics than either Kerry or Edwards, but the New York connection and the Health Care fiasco she orchestrated in 1993 will stymie her progress. The electoral red/blue map, so crucially parsed in the last two electoral battles, does not bode well for Hillary. Even if Bill survives and promotes the impression that he will be a Major Advisor to his wife, the south is still likely to go to the Bible Thumpers, and significant voters in blue states could also have problems voting for any woman as Commander in Chief.

Pure electoral-vote politics would suggest a southern Democratic candidate like Edwards, though his lightweight performance in 2004 was a poor advertisement. Judging by history, one could quickly surmise that since the only Democrats to win the Presidency since Kennedy were southerners, Johnson, Carter and Clinton, the next successful candidate should be whistling Dixie. But I say, let's check back to see what really wins elections. When Clinton triumphed in 1992, George 41 had shot himself in the foot by responsibly compromising on a necessary tax raise. "It's the economy stupid!" trumpeted Clinton through the advice of Carville, who wasn't stupid. But what really defeated Bush was not his patrician demeanor or the way he looked at his watch during a lull in the final debate. It was, front and center, the interference of Ross Perot. That funny munchkin won, unbelievably, nearly 20 per cent of the vote! Most of that had to come from disenchanted Republicans annoyed by George's tax perfidy and deficient charisma. Without Perot, Clinton would have been toast, and Monica would be working at the Target.

Flash ahead then to 2000, when egomaniac Ralph Nader cajoled just enough votes from reckless idealists to swing the states necessary for Dubya to pilfer the election. Remove Ralph from the equation and Florida goes to Gore and Dubya back to the Texas Rangers. Or travel back in time to 1968 when George Wallace corralled all the southern electoral votes that most likely would have gone to Humphrey, for the Republican's southern strategy had not yet matured.

See a pattern emerging? My suggestion to the Democrats is to find an issue that will motivate some reactionary Republicans to run for the sake of God and Morality. This kind of dedicated nut job could, under the best conditions, siphon votes from the more moderate Republicans to alter the electoral map. Let's bring back Pat Robertson, or Ralph Reed, or Bill O'Reilly. Use some of George Soros's money to surreptitiously back the reactionary's campaign and urge him to go third party if the Republican's platform does not demand the death sentence for pot smoking.

The next three years will see many influential news events, including a likely terrorist attack, a big earthquake, continued Iraqi turmoil and Goodness-knows-what from North Korea. If there is no terrorist attack the Republicans will be at some advantage as the party that prevented another 9/11. But an actual calamitous attack will not hurt their position either, because they have already hedged their bets with those happy assurances that more attacks are inevitable. It won't be historical circumstances that determine our next Chief Executive; it will be which party makes the best chess moves.