The two most important rules to playing the pundit game are
these: Say it boldly, and say it first. It doesn’t matter if you’re
proven wrong later. People are more impressed with daring in the
present than they are disappointed by error in the past. George
Bush is proof of that.
The two most important rules to playing the pundit game are these: Say it boldly, and say it first. It doesn’t matter if you’re proven wrong later. People are more impressed with daring in the present than they are disappointed by error in the past. George Bush is proof of that.
I got to thinking about this as I reread a column I wrote back on Dec. 5 for the Salt Lake Tribune. Back then, so soon after the election, a lot of secular Democrats were starting to believe in the Apocalypse and making plans to move to Canada. Why they thought they could survive Armageddon up there any better than down here, I’m not sure.
In that column I described the faint signs of impending trouble for Republicans that had begun to crop up, even at the party’s most triumphant moment. I predicted four issues over which President Bush’s vaunted political piggy bank, then bursting at the seams with capital, was most likely to go bust.
1) The plummeting dollar could cause foreigners to stop underwriting our debt and send interest rates skyrocketing.
2) Iraq could go south.
3) The investigation into the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame could reach into the White House.
4) A vacancy on the Supreme Court could be filled by someone that would please the right wing but further polarize the country.
I went on to say that if this resulted in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it would be “the most energizing thing to happen to the Democratic Party since Herbert Hoover.”
I was right about two and three, as the troubles of presidential advisor Karl Rove in recent days demonstrate. And in the next day or two, we’ll find out if I was right about the last. I was wrong about the first, but only so far.
In the prediction business that’s a pretty damn good record – especially the Plame call, which was on few people’s radar at the time.
Since I’m on a roll, I’d like to call attention to a quasi prediction I made later in that column, and bring it up to date.
The election of 2004, I wrote, was “reminiscent of 1964, when the party that got creamed at the polls took back the White House four years later. The star born that year was Ronald Reagan, who gave the nominating speech for Barry Goldwater at the Republican convention. This year’s star may turn out to be Barack Obama.”
That wasn’t much of a prediction, since it was already a widely held opinion. The soon-to-be senator from Illinois electrified the Democratic convention a year ago like no one else – certainly more than the nominee, John Kerry.
With Bush weakened by the above and other factors, speculation on his successor will soon gather steam as the words “lame duck” begin to appear more often in print.
And with my rival pundits preoccupied with the guessing game over the next Supreme Court justice, this is my opportunity to beat the smart money to the punch.
So to atone for that weak-kneed Obama forecast, I’d like to step it up a notch, even though I doubt I’m the first with this: Come 2008, I predict we’ll see Condoleeza Rice vs. Barack Obama.
Another rule of punditry is not to be so audacious that you appear nutty, so I’ll say they are not likely to head their party’s tickets. But if one party chooses a black candidate as a vice presidential running mate, the other may follow suit.
There are countless obstacles. Rice’s constituency within the Republican Party is amorphous, and she would never satisfy the evangelicals, who have become the tail that wags the party dog. But the only important role for vice presidential candidates is to provide balance, which she would supply in abundance to a western pro-life moderate like John McCain.
Obama has a better shot at the top spot, if he would accept the possibility himself. He’s a moderate with a temperament to match, a problem-solving approach, and widespread appeal. But the eastern Democrats who control the party will never get over their politically suicidal love affair with Hillary.
So get ready for McCain/Rice v. Clinton/Obama, with the advantage to McCain.
Next week, I’ll be predicting a gay-versus-lesbian contest in 2016. You gotta stay ahead of the curve in this business.
John Yewell is the city editor of the Hollister Free Lance. Reach him at
jy*****@fr***********.com
.
