The Institute (協会)

Unfortunately, I think you're right. I really think there are two main issues that are going to kill Republicans in the next election: 1) the war in Iraq and 2) bad information from idiots like Michael Moore on health care (I don't think all the Democratic candidates are idiots, but some of their ideas on health care are idiotic... Moore is an idiot though).

The only way I see a Republican having a chance at winning is if there is a major turnaround in Iraq and the American public begins to think we've got a shot at 'winning' the war. Now, I do think we've got a shot at getting something close to 'winning' in Iraq, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen before the next election.

The Democratic party has so much momentum in their Bush smashing that it's easy to attack all Republicans (just look at all the wasted time spent on Alberto Gonzalez). That will probably carry over to the Republican candidates. I'm just praying that Chief Justice Roberts doesn't have another serious episode forcing him to resign and the next president gets to appoint his replacement.

Iraq and health care. Good points!

I think both Iraq and Health Care were on the table last time around. If Obama or Gore are not on the ticket it will be the Republicans to loose. If there is any kind of Gore Obama line up it will be a tough for the republicans to take it. In spite of me being an uber conservative with all of my pro-life and anti embryonic stem cell research baggage I would still love to see some real environmental reform, which I have to say that I think Gore might get something done.

Though, we can not overlook the fact that W has spent more on alternative fuel research than all other presidents combined. If Gore did nothing for the environment the first 8 years in office then I am not sure what he could do now. I think a real crunchy con will be hard for the Dems to beat. The problem is that there is not one on the ticket.

vls said, "If Obama or Gore are not on the ticket it will be the Republicans to loose."

Interesting. . .

I agree that Iraq and health care were an issue last time around, but then Americans thought going to Iraq was a good thing (or at least a heck of a lot more than now, I'm not sure the last time it was a majority). I get this crazy feeling that people are actually buying into this national health care system that seems to be the Dems prize jewel.

vis, I hope you're right. At least there's a shot for a non-Dem to win. (Did anyone notice that Clinton has gone up 8 points to 48% and Obama fell 2 to 26%?)

Anyone but the Clintons... anyone... I'd vote for Kucinich before Hilary got my vote...

The Republicans can't be counted out completely. It really matters who the 2 nominees are. Many people will still vote for whoever comes across the best in 10 second segments on TV.

I think that it is way too early to make any definite predictions about the 2008 election. So much can happen in the next 15 months. I think that the American voting public will decide the issue based on how they perceive the ability of the candidates to deal with the issues. Those issues are not necessarily the moral issues that seem to obsess so many people. I do not think that voters will want to re-cycle Clinton after re-cycling Bush.

Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is a good campaigner

Just nominate someone who's worth a damn and you'll probably come out ok.

In 1991, no one would have predicted that Bush Sr. could have lost due to his tax hikes and an economy slowing due to decreased military spending. Who knows what will happen in the next year?

The overall reality is that only partisan nutjobs (say like myself) are watching most of the brouhaha in politics this early. It may look quite different when Joe Sixpack goes to the caucuses in Iowa next winter.

I'm hopeful for Ron Paul to influence the debate more leading into next year. There's a lot of time left, and the sentiment among college students at least is hopeful.

Now, I don't even read all those LRC columns every day and I still believe this.

Maybe I'm just an optimist.

My wife like Obama!

"I'm hopeful for Ron Paul to influence the debate more leading into next year."

Aren't we all!!(sigh)

is there really any difference between a republican or democratic candidate these days? I have difficulty seeing any real difference.

Demoblicans and Republicrats: Two wings of the same vulture.

Democrats for sure. And I'm not even American. :)

The unstoppable P.C. ticket would be Clinton/Obama. Glenn Beck floated this the other day and I can see his point. For those who consider themselves progressive and embracing all things, voting for a women for president and an African american for V.P. is the sacred cow. If they don't blast each other in the next year then this could be a reality.

And yes, Michael Moore is an idiot. Socialized medicine is proving in many countries to lead to bad health care. My friends in N. Ireland have this care and pay 47% in taxes and get mediocre and often below average care. The center for Canadians to get heart procedures is Cleveland because there waits are so long. There most be a compromise between socialisim and capitalisim in Health Care. Something like justice/mercy/love, but that won't sell.

conservative Christian isn't that an oxymoron ?

Now Hilary has China campaigning for her.

A lot of this will be riding on the nigger and beaner turnout. If it's high, Dems win. Very low, and the GOP still has a chance.

Kevin B., you'd have to admit that non-socialized healthcare is turning out to be not much better. We Americans may pay less taxes, but on the other hand most of us pay out the nose in medical insurance (more than we'd pay in taxes) and can still expect to wait for hours in the emergency room.

Isn't there an argument for nationalized healthcare, only a well-funded version? (Of course, this would mean that we'd have to raise taxes to pay for it...)

If you take a look at the Green Party of The US, we have a comprehensive comparison and plan for single payer healthcare. It covers everybody, ensures doctor choice and costs less (15% approx.). If folks would stop swallowing the propaganda and do their own research, this country would not have 70 million uninsured. We would not be making the incredibly wealthy any wealthier on the death and suffering needlessly of our own citizens.

Jack, Do you find it interesting that many countries with a national health care system also have a growing private health care market? If the national health care system was any good, why would people pay for private health care on top of what they're already paying in taxes?

There may be a good reason that has nothing to do with the quality of the national health care, but if there is, I've never heard it (which I admit given my limited knowledge of the subject, isn't saying much).

I believe Jack has hit the nail on the head. Yes, there are problems with national health care (I'm Canadian) and there are certainly problems in Canada, though it is usually not nearly as bad the caricatures we hear thrown around. It is possible to have good national health care, but you need to be willing to pay the additional taxes. My guess is, Americans aren't.

As to the 08 Presidential race, I think Anthony's pretty much dead on. Support is extremely low for the GOP administration after eight years (as it would be even if it were not for Iraq, etc. That's just the way democracies work) and history would suggest that the people will vote for a change of representation in the White House. I just really, really hope it's not Hillary running for the Dems.

By the way Anthony, do you think you could've possibly found a more unflattering picture of the once and future First Couple?

Just kidding!

Keep up the good work. Fascinating blog.

Man Phil M. whats up with the "nigger" comments man. have you lost your damn mind man! i hope this is a typo or and inside joke between you and Anthony, if not man you need Jesus for real!

Grace and Peace,

If the main issues remain the iraq war and universal health care, then the GOP doesn't have a chance in hell of winning (just go read any poll on American's support of the war or view on universal health care or view on gobal warming). (Not to mention, their only "big name" candidate has definantly killed his chances after admitting he is pro-guncontrol and pro-choiceish.)

Of course, this could change if Ron Paul got more support (which it seems is only likely if the news networks are willing to cover issues that Ron Paul brings up; things besides just the war and healthcare).

Aaron, it's not an inside joke. He's probably a Reformed Christian. You can be racist in many of those circles, esp. in the South, and it will never be challenged. Sorry for the reality check.

Anthony, FWIW, I'm nearly finished with David Kuo's book _Tempting Faith_ based on your recommendation. I've enjoyed it so far and find it very sobering. Peace.

Aaron, relax. I'm a black man. I probably should have made that clear up front.

Paul, I won't debate you on the trend toward private health care in some of those countries (although I would appreciate it if you cite which ones you're talking about). I have friends in the UK, for instance, who have elected to seek private medical care rather than navigate the national health system, and for various reasons. But those people were generally(a) wealthy and (b)impatient folks who wanted to jump to the front of the line for non-essential medical care. But all of them could have gone straight to a doctor for little or no extra cost if they had strep throat or a broken leg. And anyway, as Jeff's comment suggested, the UK folks pay relatively low taxes for health care and may just be getting what they pay for in the national system.

Nobody is arguing that national health care is always better than private, or that people should have no choices. Certainly, the more money someone has, the more money they can - and will - spend outside a public system for, say, LASIK or cosmetic surgery or other non-essential care.

But the point of a national health care system is, first, that doing it all privately leaves millions of people in the dust as far as basic care is concerned. And second, that everyone benefits when health care costs (in terms of time and money) are spread more evenly over the system rather than in, say, emergency rooms (which are where the uninsured must go for almost all of their medical care).