Bloodless Coup

I wouldn't mind Hagel, though I think I'd jump faster to Lugar. That being said, any Republican candidate that is going to get my vote (and I'm an Republican) is going to have to justify their complicity with the policies of the last (by the time the election roles around) eight years. That's a very high mountain to climb.

Lugar will be 76 by the time the GOP convention in 2008 picks a nominee. And given the utter failure that was his last presidential bid I can't imagine he'd test those waters again.

That said - people should go back and look at his old campaign ads. The degree to which they fit with today's national security concerns is tragic. I wouldn't go so far to say as 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he'd been president instead of Bush - but I think he would have had the country much, much better prepared.

But that's the "dog and pony show" that is the nominating process. When was the last time that the "best" candidate made it through either party's process to become the nominee? It's a ridiculous system (Iowa & New Hampshire get to pick the President?). I'm genuinely fearful of what the system will put up in 2008, especially given the power of the right wing of the GOP these days (the Dems left wing seems more in check).

Baltar,
Have you listened to Howard Dean or Dick Durbin this week? I'm not sure the Dems left wing is quite so "in check" as you suggest. I do agree that the system needs improvement (a national primary doesn't seem like it would be so difficult). I think it's pretty likely we'll either see McCain or Jeb in 2008 for the Republicans, but there's a big backlash against McCain among the conservatives for the whole judges deal, so I wouldn't bet on him making it to November (2008). I don't think either Hagel or Lugar have the name recognition to compete with Bush III or McCain.

Morris - What, you expect a party chairman to sing songs of praise about the head of the other party? And how is Durbin, or any other Democrat in Congress, not "in check"? They don't have power to do much more than talk. That seems pretty "in check" to me.

Armand,
In the sense of politics as usual, and dog and pony shows, Durbin is entirely in check, if nothing of a historian. By that standard, I wonder what it is that Republicans are doing that is so out of check? As to what Dean said, it is completely racist to generalize all republicans as white christians. If the head of the republican party came out and said democrats were pretty much all black muslims who never made an honest living in their lives, the media and even republicans would rightly call for his resignation as an incendiary idiot. This is the politics of hatred and anger. If he were a nationalist talking about Mexicans not making an honest living or a zealot talking about Jews not making an honest living, you'd see this for what it is. But since he's just talking about republicans, I guess you think it's okay.

Not that I want to discuss Howard Dean in a post on Chuck Hagel, but since you raise him ...

I don't think it's okay or not okay - why anyone would ever want to interview the head of a party committee is beyond me so ... well, I don't much care. But how is it the politics of hatred and anger? I mean, it's largely accurate. A large majority of Republicans are white Christians - whereas the percentage of Dems who are "black muslims who have never made an honest living" is near zero. So if someone were to make the latter assertion, of course that would be a lie and inaccurate. But what Dean said is largely accurate. So ... well, that pretty much seals my lac of interest in his remarks on the subject.

Largely accurate? You honestly believe that a large majority of Republicans have never made an honest living? And if you're consistent, then I guess you have nothing against racial profiling, because if the statistics show a certain profile (say, Arabs hijacking planes) is more likely to commit a crime, then it would be largely accurate (your standard) to assume they are the ones who should be searched every time they go through an airport.

Show me where I mentioned the "making a living part" - I didn't. All you brought up was him noting that most Republicans are white Christians - and most are. As to that part - it was an exaggeration. But as it applies to DC Republicans he has something of a point - look at the K Street Project and the iron triangles that exist all over the area and many of the Republicans that run DC and the businesses it sends billions to don't "make an honest living" in terms of how many Americans understand that phrase. Still, on that he exaggerated, but then that's something party chairs (or for that matter presidents) often do.

Your last sentence doesn't follow logically at all - simply noting a statement of fact (Republicans tend to be white and Christian), doesn't mean anything in terms of preferred behaviors.

Though of course no matter what I think of racial profiling, and no matter what laws might be passed to ban it, it will continue to go on.

late to this game:

Morris: "If the head of the republican party came out and said democrats were pretty much all black muslims who never made an honest living in their lives, the media and even republicans would rightly call for his resignation as an incendiary idiot."

What about when Republican pundits and pols equate dissent with treason? Are you calling for Rove's resignation? Cheney's? O'Reilly's?

And in other news while a national primary wouldn't be so difficult to pull off, it would require a total rethinking of our entire system. You'd be better off focusing on the electoral college, though the odds of changing that anytime soon are equally slim.

Btw, nationalizing primaries is a decidedly unconservative position, just fyi. You might want to review the handbook.