February 23, 2004

TEMPORARY REPUBLICAN

Bush in 2004, Hillary in 2008! Dan Aykroyd wants both:

"There's a tremendous initiative in law enforcement [that] may be reversed if Bush is not re-elected," he said. "Let this administration finish this war and this fight against terrorism."

And, once thatís out of the way, Aykroyd will swing his support to Clinton:

"I'll be there with my band to help her. Then we'll have the glory days back for the Democrats."

Posted by Tim Blair at February 23, 2004 12:26 PM
Comments

That's not completely unreasonable. If you favour the Democrats' liberal social policies, but realise that the war on terror is the most important issue right now, then vote for Bush in 2004, and Hilllary (or whoever) in 2008.

Of course, that assumes the war is won by then, which is by no means certain.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 23, 2004 at 12:31 PM

It also takes into account that the current batch of Dem candidates are, um, sorely lacking.

I don't have a problem with that philosophy at all. Won't be voting for Hillary in 2008, myself, but I'm glad to see that there are still plenty of Americans who have... um... what's the term? Ah yes... Common sense and pragmatism in regards to the current fight against terrorism.

Posted by: Sortelli at February 23, 2004 at 12:36 PM

Good to hear a CANADIAN who isn't anti-Bushite.

Posted by: Sean at February 23, 2004 at 12:40 PM

And what does he like in Race 4 at Ascot?

Does he want that each-way too?

Posted by: Razor at February 23, 2004 at 01:01 PM


It's some indication with how little I think of John Kerry that I find Hillary Clinton a greatly appealling alternative.

Posted by: Andrew at February 23, 2004 at 01:02 PM


Boy, that was a stupid post. An utter tautology. I'm running a fever, so forgive me.

Posted by: Andrew at February 23, 2004 at 01:03 PM

One small problem: Aykroyd's a Canadian. He's entitled to his opinion on this or any other matter, but federal law places some fairly severe restrictions on how foreigners can participate in US elections. Of course, the next person I meet who has the slightest interest in his opinion or his band will be the first.

Posted by: Brown Line at February 23, 2004 at 01:29 PM

My bad for assuming Dan to be American.

. . .It's so hard to tell Canadians from Americans. . .

Posted by: Sortelli at February 23, 2004 at 01:31 PM

Dan's an old friend of a (now distant) friend & by all reports a heckuva good guy. The 6 degrees of separation thing saw him spending time hanging out with people who were also hanging out with P.J. O'Rourke years ago, and from the amount of common sense that's obviously rubbed off, it looks like that time was not wasted. Tho' I suspect they both were. And hey, married to Donna Dixon...all hefty Canadians should be so lucky, eh?

Posted by: Carl H. at February 23, 2004 at 01:43 PM

Given the length of time that Dan Akroyd has lived and worked in the U.S., he could very well be a U.S. citizen (you can be dual U.S.-Canadian. If that's the case, he could vote for Bush and Paul Martin this fall (I would not vote for the latter myself . . . ).

Posted by: Geoff Matthews at February 23, 2004 at 02:00 PM

Sean,

Here's another Canadian who isn't anti-Bush:

www.steynonline.com

Posted by: TimT at February 23, 2004 at 04:15 PM

I fear that a President Hillary would reverse the law enforcement advances of the Bush administration. And who in their right mind trusts the woman who sucked up to Suha Arafat to set foreign policy?

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at February 23, 2004 at 04:32 PM

Probably doesn't get much coverage in our press ..
but I know many Liberal Democrats who plan to vote for Pres. Bush. These people are very concerned about national security and like what Pres. Bush has done so far (more or less).

They don't see any of the Democratic candidates as concerned as they would like about waging, and winning, the war on terrorism. Lieberman came the closest of all the Dems. to echoing their own concerns.

As far as what happens after Bush's second term, it all depends on where we are on the war and who is running for president. The people I know wouldn't find it outrageous for someone to vote for Bush this time and Clinton next time. It would all depend on the issues.

Perhaps it's just the Democrats I know in my state, Massachusetts, but blind party loyalty isn't for them. My state is rather weird in that most of the state's congresspeople are Democrats but we've had a Republican as governor for ages (different ones).

Most of the people I know who automatically label themselves as Liberal Democrats are actually Independents or Libertarians in terms of their political ideologies and voting records. Some are more to the left, others more to the right. This probably explains why they could vote Bush one year and Clinton the next. They don't care that much about politics in terms of what label they use. This is Massachusetts so Liberal Democrat is fine for them. Also, most are Liberal in the classic sense, NOT Leftists.

I'm an Independent and will vote Bush this year. I didn't vote for him last time. Who I vote for in 2008 depends on issues and who is running. I can't picture myself voting Clinton, but neither could I picture myself voting Bush. (My biggest problem with Bush last time was how his campaign trashed Sen. McCain.)

Posted by: Chris Josephson at February 23, 2004 at 08:06 PM

I'm Canadian born, raised, and currently living in Toronto. So count me as another Canadian who's NOT anti-Bush.

The twist is, I'll actually be voting for him come November. I've held dual citizenship since I was 15 and lived in the US for 10 years prior to moving back here.

(For what it's worth, I'm also a registered Democrat.)

I guess my point is that while Mr. Akroyd is indeed Canadian, Geoff's point above about the plausibility of dual citizenship is certainly noteworthy.

Posted by: Simon Cable at February 24, 2004 at 12:18 AM

". . .It's so hard to tell Canadians from Americans. . ."

Not true, mate. Count the gonads...
Americans = 2
Canadians = 0

hope that helps.

Posted by: paul a'barge at February 24, 2004 at 12:24 AM

A lot of people are taking for granted that Hillary won't get her clock cleaned when she stands for re-election in '06.

Don't be too sure about that. Among the true believers, she's a lock. But unless she starts delivering something more tangible than speeches to us New Yorkers screaming in pain about the state-wide economic nightmare, a large amount of voters may decide to give someone else a try.

Posted by: TC at February 24, 2004 at 12:32 AM

I was dumbfounded when she won the first time. I'm just sorry that New York had to find out the meaning of the word "carpetbagger" the hard way.

Elizabeth


Posted by: Elizabeth at February 24, 2004 at 12:53 AM

I enjoyed the movie "Dragnet" in 1987. Great soundtrack by the electronica music group Art of Noise.

Dan Aykroyd has a good view of the world by saying: "Just give me the FACTS, Ma'am." I hope is not serious about Hillary in '08. Instead of playing with the Blues Brothers band, he should re-join Ghost Busters and catch the monster of Whitewater...

Martin Lindeskog - American in Spirit.
Gothenburg, Sweden (a.k.a. the socialist "paradise").

Posted by: Martin Lindeskog at February 24, 2004 at 01:16 AM

Elizabeth, my guess is Hillary won't even try in 2006, she'll decline and start her Presidential bid at that point. Two years out is about right.

Personally I think there are a lot of life-long Dems that may be unwilling to vote the Dem ticket this go around but its uncool to say so. When the radicals and puppetshow freaks converge outside the Republican convention in NY a lot of people will see things a bit clearer.

Posted by: ruprecht at February 24, 2004 at 01:35 AM

Had an aunt with dual Canadian/US citizenship. Don't know how many times she voted in both places. When I was a young child I thought it was very neat to be a citizen of two countries and thought most people who came here held dual citizenships. Was surprised when I grew up to discover it isn't as common as I thought it would be.

It can be very difficult, at times, to tell who is an American vs. Canadian on TV. The accents are almost the same, but not quite. Have to listen very closely to spot the differences.

As far as gonads go, there are many Canadians who have the stones .. their government has been hijacked though. We have Americans who are very ball-less and want us to run and hide behind the UN.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at February 24, 2004 at 01:35 AM

If a lot of people share Dan Aykroyd's point of view it could be decisive in November. Remember how closely divided the country was last time around. If Bush can win over a small slice of fence-sitters he could win big. Keep this in mind when you hear reports of less than 50% approval ratings for Bush. The disapprovers probably include a number who will hold their noses and vote for Bush anyway because of they place a high priority on national security. If the war on terror becomes the big issue of this campaign, as I suspect it will, it's a big plus for the the Republicans.

BTW, I am a "dual citizen" of the U.S. and Canada, although there is really no such status. Each country just recognizes me as a citizen. In the case of the US and Canada there are no major conflicts between the obligations of citizenship, but it can create problems with other combinations of countries. Also, Mark Steyn is far from the only Canadian supporter of the war on terror. Here are a few more:

www.davidwarrenonline.com
www.georgejonas.com
Charles Krauthamer of the Washington Post
David Frum of the National Review and "axis of evil" speechwriter.

Posted by: Coleman Nee at February 24, 2004 at 01:43 AM

"law enforcement"?

No, this is war not a police action.

Posted by: Colorado Conservative at February 24, 2004 at 02:14 AM

What law enforcement advances?? They are very poorly paid. Is the Patriot Act an advance? Dan Ackroyd is an ignorant slut.

Posted by: Martha Washington at February 24, 2004 at 02:17 AM

Hillary can select Star Jones as a running mate. "Skank & Tank." What a team!

Posted by: Buster at February 24, 2004 at 02:39 AM

If Bush wins now, his brother Jeb Bush will win in 2008. Hillary won't win. That's a joke.

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at February 24, 2004 at 03:12 AM

"I'll be there with my band to help her. Then we'll have the glory days back for the Democrats."

Band?? Of What? I want John Belushi to bring the glory days back for The Blues Brothers. Nothing like comedians who want the rest of society to take them seriously.
BC

Posted by: BC at February 24, 2004 at 04:04 AM

Obviously, Hillary will run, but it will be the long-delayed match against Giuliani, and she will lose. Badly.

Best Rudy moment: tearing up the Saudi prince's 10 million dollar check, and basically telling him to stuff it up his burka.

If this wasn't going to happen, I wish Rudy would be called in to replace Ashcroft. He's a much more dedicated prosecutor. Hey, if Rudy can put the "Teflon Don" in stir for life, and kick the Mafia out of the sanitation business and Fulton Fish Market, he can certainly obliterate whatever's left of Al Qaeda when Bush is through with them in 2008.

Posted by: Mick McMick at February 24, 2004 at 04:26 AM

The War on Terror will never end. It's like the War on Drugs. And that's precisely why Bush keeps focusing on it; the rest of his policies are shit. He plays to voters' greatest fear - being blown up.

Posted by: fred at February 24, 2004 at 04:40 AM

The above comment was brought to you by: ChomskyDroids, LLC. For only $24.99, you can get the ChomskyDroid program and never again have to worry about finding exactly the right words to post on comment threads throughout the internet! That's right, only $24.99.

Send your money NOW to: ChomskyDroids, LLC, c/o Paypal button at yourish.com.

(Sorry, couldn't resist that last. I'm an opportunist. But not a thief. I didn't link it.)

Posted by: Meryl Yourish at February 24, 2004 at 04:53 AM

My view is that Hillary is positioning herself to run in 2008, as she appears to move to the middle in any number of areas. Sure, she looked a bit silly in Iraq at Thanksgiving time, but she has also backed the President much more than many of her Democratic peers in the Senate as to Iraq, etc. I predict that by the time that she does run in 2008, she will appear to be fairly moderate, and someone who may be trusted with national security matters. (I remember her husband's time in office, and won't be swayed, but I predict that many will).

Posted by: Bruce Hayden at February 24, 2004 at 05:04 AM

After reading Fred's fascinating and informative post I realize we are losing the neverending 'War on Stupidity,' also.

Posted by: Harry at February 24, 2004 at 05:17 AM

"federal law places some fairly severe restrictions on how foreigners can participate in US elections"... Try telling that to the Al and Bill campaign of 2000; it accepted many thousands of dollars from the Chinese military and then subverted laws that protected our strategic edge. Clinton allowed ballistic targeting technology to go to Red China thereby allowing the communists, yes Martha there still are despotic communist nations, to target Taiwan, a democracy, as well as Alaska and Claifornia with nuculear weapons. Is it any wonder that the Kerry campaign doesn't want anyone looking into his congressional and pre-congressional record.

Posted by: Esbiem at February 24, 2004 at 05:18 AM

Americans will never let Bill or Hillary Clinton anywhere near the White House again. They've got their cadre of sycophants out there peddling their revisionist history and socialist bullshit so my advice is .... buyer beware.

Posted by: zubby at February 24, 2004 at 05:36 AM

I believet that while one can be a citizen of two countries, once s/he votes in either the citizenship in the other is no more.

Posted by: Tom at February 24, 2004 at 06:34 AM

What's the problem with voting in two countries? When I lived in Cook County, I used to vote several times in each election!

Posted by: Jim at February 24, 2004 at 06:54 AM
Not true, mate. Count the gonads... Americans = 2 Canadians = 0

hope that helps.

Posted by: paul a'barge

Whoa, whoa, hold on a minute there! Lots of Canadians have large, dangling pairs. Damian Penny, for example. :-)

Posted by: Yankette at February 24, 2004 at 08:56 AM

I believe that while one can be a citizen of two countries, once s/he votes in either the citizenship in the other is no more.

How would the second country find out you voted in the first nation? Is this like my speeding tickets being viewed by my insurance agent? Does repeat voting build up points? Twelve or more points and your other passport is invalidated. What if your other country doesn't allow multiparty elections? Can your points then be sold on Ebay? Would Canada count US voting if it wasn't bilingual? If you have bilingual voting in a multiparty Canada, does that double your chance of getting an honest politician? Got to go, the aides say it is time to take my medicine.

Posted by: Patrick Kovchok at February 24, 2004 at 11:48 AM

Hillary isn't going to abandon her NY Senate seat. The White House is obviously her goal, but no one I've seen in recent memory is more of a pragmatist. She'll hold on to the seat and try to make herself the next Teddy Kennedy if she can't win the nomination, or the White House. She must have learned something from Joe Lieberman. Plus, just because the seat opens up in 06 doesn't mean she'd get to start running then. Even if she wanted to let the seat go, to have any hope of putting another Democrat in it, she'd have to bow out by late '05 at the latest, and that's way too much lead time. You have to time your entry into the race.

She's going to be a dangerous candidate in 2008. For one thing, she'll have a ton of money and a strong claim on the nomination right off the bat. And there's going to be a battle royale for the Republican nomination. I don't think Jeb Bush is going to get it -- not quite the charismatic leader his brother is -- and he will be battling some serious competition, including half the Republicans in the Senate. The result of that, ultimately, is going to be two candidates who are nearly indistinguishable -- and probably another Ralph Nader run.

Posted by: ben at February 24, 2004 at 11:51 AM

Giuliani for vp in '04! Giuliani in '08!

Posted by: frendlydude2k at February 24, 2004 at 02:50 PM

Giuliani for vp in '04! Giuliani in '08!

Ick. Why can't we find a Republican who's more dedicated to fiscal sobriety than Bush?

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at February 24, 2004 at 03:47 PM

Are you kidding? Rudy brought NYC back from the brink of disaster. He was largely responsible for the city's recovery from what seemed an insurmountable debt. And the boom in NYC was in large part what spurred the national economy of the '90s.

Rudy would be a great choice because he's conservative on defending the country and fighting crime, as well as reforming the welfare state and doing something about the homeless situation, which he did in an uphill battle against the so-called "advocates," who wanted to leave mentally ill people in their cardboard boxes in February. "Freedom of expression" or some such nonsense.

But he is quite liberal in the old-fashioned way, from when "liberal" didn't mean "I hate America and love Marxism." Despite what the worthless Rudy-bashers would have you believe, he is very liberal on gay rights, abortion, etc.

And besides, he hates the UN, and when Arafat came to town, he appropriately let him know he was not welcome. And Saudi Prince Fraud got a piece of Rudy's mind when he tried to give him a reimbursement check for our "deserved" attack on 9/11.

And what other Republican would stand a chance of turning New York into a red state?

Posted by: Mick McMick at February 25, 2004 at 01:29 AM

Ruprecht, I hope you're right.

I believe she'll run for Senate again in 2006 because she needs a power base.

I'm afraid of her running in 2008. Look at the amount of sleaze during Slick Willie. The voting public didn't seem to care. I think she'll come across as the victimized wife, which makes me rather ill.

I amuse myself, however, by mental images of Bill conducting the White House Tour as First Husband (Spouse?). I wonder if he'd bake cookies.

Elizabeth

Posted by: Elizabeth at February 25, 2004 at 03:06 AM

I dunno about never letting the Clintons into the White House again. I personally know 2 people who would have voted for him a third time. Go figure. In this era, people want a feel good president, and people remember him as a feel good kinda guy. God help us all.

Posted by: tommy at February 25, 2004 at 01:16 PM

Please count me as another Canadian supporter of Bush, in spirit, not in vote.

Posted by: Rob at March 3, 2004 at 10:57 PM