Electability when? (It's the Economy Again, Stupid)

Electability arguments for Democrats and pugs alike should focus on who will be most electable in November, 2008.

Iraq will not be the top issue of 2008, nor will Iran, healthcare, immigration, or "values."

By election day the Economy will probably be a bigger issue than the rest of the issues combined. The entire 2008 campaign will most likely be conducted in the context of a developing recession combined with sharp inflation in gasoline, heating and cooling, food and imported goods in general. Not to mention foreclosures. And the Fed won't be able to do much because the dollar is too weak to bear many rate-cuts. (And rate-cuts in the US rasie the price of oil because oil is denominated in dollars)

It's a nightmare scenario shaping up, reminiscent of the dreaded Stagflation of the late 1970s.

The irony is that the nominees may well be picked before the economic wheels come all the way off. Or maybe things will slide more quickly than that. (Gasoline might be $4/gallon before Iowa... tough to tell)

Clinton and Edwards seem the best bets in an economy-dominated race. On the Republican side, Romney is probably best able to carry an economic message, almost by default. (In a truly awful economy, Rudy's 9/11 bullshit will have zero appeal)

It will be hard enough for them to win under the current path dependent circumstances (though they can still win). You throw in a recession, and we could be looking at an LBJ sized Democratic landslide.

the economy will be the deciding factor.

Examples of liberal "excesses" was the sexual revolution, lax crime enforcement, incompetence, projects running over budget and a massive energy crisis. Although many of the "excesses," were not truly bad and some were just continuing problems rather than caused by liberals, they did accompany the stagflation of the Nixon/Ford administrations (Carter to a small degree). They were something the Reaganites used to help them gain office.

Now, our stagflation is accompanied by the conservative excesses of massive deficit spending/borrowing, senseless wars, fearmongering, torture, homophobia, xenophobia, incompetence and a massive energy crisis. The icing on the cake for both excesses was a lack of hope.

Edwards and Obama are two of the most hopeful men in America today. I'm not sure about Hillary, but her husband was a very hopeful man and he was from HOPE. I hope that her supporters will address this issue over the next few months. (I know some Republican claims to be from Hope, but he's a truly hateful person.)

No offense intended, but this clown is a huge part of the problem, hardly the solution.

The question is which of the Republicans could best to carry a Republican economic message. I am assuming they will run SOMEONE, so somebody is going to have to be out there in a recession talking about how tax-cuts and cutting unemployment is the solution.

Obviously it would be a LOSING message, but Romney is the pug in the race best able to sell more tax-cuts as the cure to everything because he has the veneer of a businessman, which would be (IMO)a better front for economic double-talk than Guliani or McCain or Huckabee.

I thought you agreed with that sentiment. With every core in my being, I will vote my cat in before standing behind a neo-con hell-bent on selling off this country for pennies on the dollar to the highest bidder. No matter which party designation they have behind their name.

Have a good weekend!