Posted on 11/11/2004 1:29:29 PM PST by MAKnight
Who will be the GOP's choice for the White House in 2008? There seems to be a huge number of potential contenders. But the fact remains that they have to pass a series of key tests, in my opinion, before they can be considered credible contenders. First of all, whoever it is has to be someone with some strong victories at the ballot box, at least at Governor or US Senator level under his belt. Failing that, he/she would have to have very high national name recognition due to some respectable/impressive achievement. Second, whoever it is has to be acceptable to the GOP base. These are the two most important criteria. But there are myriad of others which are often unique to the people whose names are being bandied around. All in all these criteria exclude a significant number of people from the contenders list.
(1) Rudolph Guiliani: As a former twice elected Mayor of New York City, and a bona fide 9/11 hero, Rudy would be perfect, if only he were not so far to the left on a slew of social issues. Chances are that that he never would have been elected Mayor no matter how bad David Dinkins era New York got if he did not lean left on those issues. Either way, despite the fact that he is well-loved and respected by the base, he is not going to be getting the nomination. He belongs in the Senate, specifically, in Hillary Clinton's current seat, a cause the base would definitely rally behind. If he takes her out in 2006, Hillary's dreams of the Presidency are gone for good.
(2) George Pataki: A three time elected governor from a very Blue state, which is very impressive. That said, there is absolutely no way, barring an act of the Almighty, that this man is ever going to come in any way close to winning the Presidential nomination. He is as far to the left on social issues as Rudy Guiliani with none of the charm. And to win his last election, he moved so far to the left on every other issue that The New York Times actually endorsed him. That's like the mark of Cain. If Rudy decides not to run, he would be a great choice to take on Hillary Clinton in 2006. Other than that, this is as high as he is ever going to get.
(3) John McCain: Reasonably popular around the country, especially among so-called Independents. This is largely due to the fact that he has been getting uniformly fellatial treatment in the Press ever since he threatened to take the 2000 nomination away from President Bush and then endeavored to remain a thorn in the President's side after the election, much to the Press' delight. Once a solid conservative, he got addicted to Press adulation, and has thoroughly pissed off a huge number of the GOP base by voting the New York Times way on way too many occasions just to get good Press. Even so, he is well-respected in the GOP and is a valuable member of the party when the chips are down ... but he will never win the nomination. Besides that, he would be 72 in 2008, and thus too old.
(4) Rick Santorum: A two term Senator from a light Blue state, which is impressive. He won his second term even as Bush was losing the state in the 2000 Presidential election. But 2006 is going to be a hell of a tough election year for Rick Santorum. The Press is going to land on him like a ton of bricks ... the memos are already forged and sitting in Mary Mapes' safe at CBS. He would be the most vulnerable high ranking GOP Senator and the Press would want revenge for Daschle's loss. And to make matters worse, his support of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey has made him somewhat less popular with the GOP base in PA (and around the country). That said, even if he wins in 2006, he is too much of an easy target for demonization to be the nominee in 2008.
(5) Arnold Schwarzenegger: An Austrian immigrant so he is ineligible. A Constitutional Amendment just so Arnold would have a chance at being President seems a bit much. Besides that, he is way to the left on social issues so he would not win the nomination.
(6) John Bush: i.e. Jeb. On paper, this is a man who would have been the front runner for the nomination in 2008, if only his name was John Ellis Smith, not John Ellis Bush. A two term governor who won re-election with a 13% margin, incredibly popular in his state, a strong record of accomplishment and a smart, solid and proven conservative both on social and fiscal issues. And to make matters even better, he has successfully managed to strengthen his party in the state. Alas, his last name is Bush and his father is a former President while his brother is the current President. Therefore, his running is very likely not going to sit well with the electorate. The base would go wild but no dice ... which why he did the smart thing and bowed out.
(7) Mitt Romney: This guy would have been a great contender, if only he was the Governor of Michigan (like his Dad) or Indiana or Wisconsin or any other state, except for Massachusetts. No one would like to nominate a guy who is so highly unlikely to carry his own state. It is possible (Reagan did carry MA in 1984) but it is highly unlikely given the current polarization of the electorate. Which is too bad, because he has been wonderful during the campaign season and he has been a stalwart soldier for marriage as we know it. Add that to his excellent stewardship of the Salt Lake Olympics and his efforts to govern as a conservative in Massachusetts(!) and the base might have turned out for him, even if he is a bit of a squish on abortion (remember he's in Massachusetts). He picked the wrong state. He should have gone to New Hampshire.
(8) Robert Taft: Considering how seriously unpopular he is in Ohio, especially among the Republican rank and file for tax-loving ways, he knows that he will never be President, at least as a Republican. I do not believe he is even considering it. Thank goodness, Ken Blackwell is waiting in the wings to contest this seat in 2006 or we would definitely be losing it.
(9) Chuck Hagel: He wants to be like John McCain, so he consistently says and does things to get good Press. Unfortunately, this means that he has to regularly and worse, publicly bash the Bush administration. Luckily, his votes are far more reliable than John McCain's but he has far too often given ammunition to Democrats for use against the President in far too many of his public statements. More often than not, he is a constructive voice, which is a good thing. What makes it a bad thing is that he is often also a loud voice at the wrong place and the wrong time, much to the delight of the Press. This has become his undoing and unbeknownst to him has practically killed his dreams of being President. He seems to be ignorant of the fact that you cannot be popular with the New York Times and the GOP base at the same time.
To my mind, so far, only five gentlemen have a chance at being nominated and being elected President in 2008.
(1) Bill Frist: A man with a winning record and to make matters better, is an actual surgeon ... which proves he had a life prior to politics and he was remarkably successful at it too. The Press is going to have a hard time trying to demonize him. The problem is that he's a Senator, and Senators often fail dismally to make it to the Oval Office because of their usual lack of executive experience, a national profile and voting records that can be twisted into many interesting negative ads. Fortunately, unlike John Kerry, Frist is a Senator of some consequence being that he is the Majority Leader and is somewhat accomplished in and out of the public sphere. Of course, that applied to Bob Dole as well. Another plus is that since he is retiring in 2006, he would have two years in which to campaign exclusively for the White House.
(2) Bill Owens: National Review named him the best Governor in America two years ago and he is widely considered to be a good candidate for the nomination. Unfortunately, apart from the Presidential race, it seems the GOP had a horrible 2004 election night in Colorado. He leaves office in 2006 after his easily won second term, so he has two years in which he has to raise his state party's fortunes and successfully hand over the keys to the Governor's mansion to a Republican successor. As far as I'm concerned, that's the test he should pass before he can be a serious contender. Furthermore, his recent marital problems (which may involve impregnating a subordinate) also pose a big, almost insurmountable, obstacle with the base. But provided that there is nothing sordid about Owens split with his wife, the Democrats would be risking a backlash if they make a big deal out of it. In other words, he was a far better candidate for the nomination in 2002 than he is today.
(3) Ernest Fletcher: First term Governor but will have a chance to fight for re-election before 2008. He seems to be a seriously accomplished man in and out of politics. A former Air Force fighter pilot with an engineering degree who happens to be a medical doctor to boot. He served in Congress where he racked up pretty impressive conservative credentials both on social and fiscal issues. So far he seems to have proven himself to be a pretty effective governor. First Republican Governor of Kentucky for almost forty years. Has seriously cool prospects. He bears watching. More importantly, he should be made aware of the fact that he is being watched. Question to KY'ers: does he have another name apart from Ernest & Lee? Lee is cool but "Ernie" just doesn't seem ... Presidential (no offense intended to Ernies out there).
(4) Mark Sanford: Still in his first term but provided he wins re-election in 2006, he would be in great shape for the nomination battles in 2008. He has so far proven himself to be a very principled politician, sharp, articulate and is a four-square conservative on both social and fiscal issues. But quite frankly, Sanford has to cultivate a higher and very positive profile in time for the primaries for him to be viable. The base would love this guy while the Press would do their very best to make his state of origin a negative (Dan Rather will probably let loose with a forged e-mail from Sanford's ancestors discussing the sale of Martin Luther King's great-great grandmother the day before the 2008 election). With an around 70% approval rating in his state, and a conservative record that would make the base swoon, he's definitely worth watching.
(5) George Allen: In 2008 he would be in his second Senate term. That is, if he succesfully defends his seat from a concentrated campaign by Mark Warner (who may possibly try instead for the White House). While a Senator, he is quite unique from the past few Senators that have tried for the Presidency. He actually was a Governor, and a remarkably good one at that, so he has the executive experience that is the bane of most Senators with Oval Office aspirations. Furthermore, he is solid conservative who will be able to rally the base to him if he does win the nomination. Even better is that he is quite a smart man and has oodles of charm i.e. (witness the addition of four new GOP Senators under his stewardship of the National Republican Senatorial Committee). If his state goes GOP in the Governor's race in 2005, he is in great shape for the nomination in 2008.
The lower half of the ticket is a bit more difficult. I'd nominate one of either Micheal Steele of Maryland, perhaps John Sununu or Tim Pawlenty. Contrary to the common impression, the running mate need not be someone with a particularly high profile but he should at least be able to inspire the base and, if possible, bring his state along with him. A nice plus would be if he/she provides some form of regional balance to the ticket (but then Clinton and Gore came from neighboring states after all). I am unaware of anybody in the House who would make a good running-mate for any of the six above.
Anyway, what are the virtues of these tickets?
Allen/Steele: This is a very nice ticket. Some would say a Lieutenant Governor is from too junior a position to be on a Presidential ticket, but Steele is far from being an empty suit. He may be a squish on the death penalty but the man oozes gravitas (will appeal to Independents) and can fire up the base from the stump all day. The possibility exists that the ticket can get up to 25% of the black vote and bring Maryland along, provided he publicly and powerfully stands up to the NAACP, and the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons who would immediately launch a massive demonization campaign against him in the black community. The problem is that having two candidates from Virginia and Maryland sure as heck wreaks havoc on the regional balance issue. But, especially given the sharply divergent cultures of the two states (strongly Red and strongly Blue), I don't think it really matters that much.
Allen/Sununu: A very nice ticket as well. Sununu is young (but old enough for the Presidency), smart and an excellent conservative who would almost definitely bring his state along to the party. He nicely balances the ticket and would probably appeal to vast swathe of independent voters in blue states across the country. Furthermore, Sununu is well-poised to run for the White House as he would still be relatively young even after a second term. The major problem is that having two Senators on the ticket, even if one used to be a governor, seems to be a recipe for disaster. But then again, the Red Sox won the World Series. Anyway, I have heard only nice things about John Sununu but I have no knowledge as to his campaigning skills or his ability to enthuse the base. Of course, four years is planty of time to learn.
Allen/Owens: See notes on Owens and Allen above. Very well balanced ticket though perhaps not so attractive in blue states. Again, provided that there is nothing sordid about Owens split with his wife and he manages to recapture the state legislature as well as hand over the keys to a Republican in 2006, this could very well work. An attempt by the Democrats to make a big deal out of his divorce could backfire big time. Anyway, it is far more likely to be the other way around (Owens/Allen).
Allen/Pawlenty: Very well balanced ticket and will be very attractive in the Upper Mid-West. Tim Pawlenty is still in his first term but that does not really pose a problem, provided he wins re-election in 2006 and he strengthens his party in the state after their recent losses. Like the Colorado GOP, the Minnesota GOP had a horrible 2004 election night. If he is in any way interested in being on the ticket, his campaign for re-election and getting his party back on top in 2006 starts today. As a Vice-Presidential candidate, he could prove a great asset to the campaign in the Upper Mid-West. Unlike John Edwards, he has a very good chance of delivering his home state and getting Wisconsin to come along.
Allen/Sanford: The regional balance problem with a vengeance. The Press would label this the "Confederate Ticket" the moment it is born and it would very likely have a seriously hard time being competitive in the more competitive blue states, i.e. Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. When it comes right down to it, I just have a hard time believing this would work unless Sanford does a good job of marketing himself well to the American people.
Allen/Fletcher: Regional balance problem but it sure as heck is not a ticket to sniff at. I don't see two many weaknesses with this ticket apart from its potential weakness in the winnable blue states, which can be somewhat ameliorated if the ticket has the charisma to pull it off. Very viable ticket.
Allen/Frist: It's far more likely for it to be the other way round (i.e. Frist/Allen). But this ticket, either way, would be strong when it comes to experience and competence. The two-senator (i.e. Washington insider) and regional balance problems raise their heads for the ticket though, but this is still quite a viable and appealing ticket either way. Frist's many medical mission trips to Africa, even during his Senate career, to perform surgery and care for those in need, would make him a very tough guy to demonize and Allen's executive experience as Governor cancels out that particular weakness in Frist.
Frist/Allen: See above.
Frist/Owens: Well balanced and a likely strong ticket. See notes on Frist and Owens above and the notes on the Allen/Owens ticket. Owens very easily cancels out Frist's weakness on executive experience and like Frist, leaves his current office in 2006 and has two full years in which to start running.
Frist/Steele: Could be a very strong ticket. Not that many weaknesses except for one. None of them have had any top executive experience in Government. A Senator and a Lieutenant Governor may not be a convincing ticket.
Frist/Sanford: Not as attractive as the other options if Sanford does not market himself well. If he does, it would be a seriously strong ticket even though a bit weak outside the red states. Not balanced at all, but the Press would not be so quick to label this a "Confederate Ticket" because of Frist's record as a surgeon and humanitarian.
Frist/Pawlenty: Good ticket. Well balanced and could prove attractive. Pawlenty's being a Governor (providing he wins re-election in 2006) takes care of the executive experience problem very well. See above on both men.
Frist/Fletcher: Regional balance all shot to hell but could very well be a seriously attractive ticket. Two medical doctors (both certified pilots), one who used to be the Senate Majority Leader and the other who is a former fighter pilot and current Governor. Very solid pair of individuals. Not too many weaknesses on paper. Bears serious consideration.
Frist/Sununu: Very well balanced. The only two problems is the two-senator one and the fact that neither of them has ever had any executive experience. Either way, Sununu would largely play the same role for Frist that he would for Allen as stated above.
Fletcher/Sununu: Well balanced and quite attractive when it comes right down to it. The executive experience and two-senator problem is non-existent and thus could prove to be quite strong.
Fletcher/Frist: More likely to be the other way round. See notes on Frist/Fletcher above.
Fletcher/Owens: Well balanced but far more likely to be the other way round. Two governors on a ticket poses far less of a problem than two Senators. In fact, I would wager it is more likely to be a plus. Could be a remarkably strong ticket.
Fletcher/Pawlenty: Well balanced and a possibly strong ticket. See above on both men. While Pawlenty is older in the Governor's office, Fletcher is far more likely to be at the top of the ticket.
Fletcher/Allen: See notes on Allen/Fletcher above. Strong ticket though a bit more likely to be the other way around.
Fletcher/Steele: See notes on Allen/Steele above. A strong ticket, especially if you add the fact that with Fletcher's biography, this could be a stronger ticket than Allen/Steele.
Fletcher/Sanford: See notes on Frist/Sanford and Allen/Sanford above. Two Governors on the same ticket, like Fletcher/Owens. Could very possibly be a solid ticket.
Owens/Sanford: See notes on Fletcher/Owens (two Governors) and see notes on Frist/Sanford and Allen/Sanford. Well balanced ticket.
Owens/Frist: See notes on Frist/Owens above. Note that a Governor at the top of the ticket is the usual configuration though who would more likely be on top in the case of this ticket is a 50/50 affair. A well balanced ticket.
Owens/Pawlenty: A very well balanced ticket. Both are governors, and unfortunately, both are governors who saw their state parties crash and burn on election night in 2004. They have to make up for it in 2006. See notes on Owens and Pawlenty above.
Owens/Steele: See notes on Owens and the Allen/Steele ticket. A well-balanced ticket.
Owens/Allen: See notes on Allen/Owens above.
Owens/Sununu: A well balanced and potentially strong ticket. See notes on Allen/Sununu above.
Owens/Fletcher: See notes on Fletcher/Owens above.
Sanford/Steele: Completely neutralizes any attempts to make the fact that Sanford is from South Carolina an issue. Could be a very strong ticket. See notes on Allen/Steele above.
Sanford/Allen: Far more likely to be the other way round. See notes on Allen/Sanford above.
Sanford/Sununu: Well balanced and strong ticket. See notes on Allen/Sununu though it should be noted that this ticket would not have the two-Senator problem.
Sanford/Frist: Far more likely to be the other way round. See notes on Frist/Sanford above.
Sanford/Fletcher: See notes on Fletcher/Sanford above. Even though Fletcher is younger in the Governor's office, Fletcher should be more likely to be at the top of the ticket, given the eight year difference in age, with Fletcher being the older man. It would make more sense for Sanford to be the incumbent Vice President at age of fifty-six running at the top of the ticket for the White House in his own right.
Sanford/Owens: Far more likely to be the other way round. See notes on Owens/Sanford above.
Sanford/Pawlenty: See notes on Allen/Pawlenty but note that both are surrent serving Governors. A well balanced ticket.
Anyway, this is my opinion as to who may be the standard bearer for the GOP in 2008. I may have ignored quite a few people as prospects i.e. Mike Johanns, Dirk Kempthorne, John Hoeven, Mike Huckabee, etc. but hey, this is nothing but a semi-educated guess, anyway. As for who the Democrats' nominee might be, I am not too bothered as of yet. Kerry says he might run again. Edwards is making noise in that same direction. Neither of them would give me any sleepless nights. Neither am I too bothered about Hillary Clinton winning the nomination though she would no doubt be a tough opponent, especially when you consider the fact that the Press is going to go all out to make certain she wins (they're already aggressively labelling her a "moderate" and "centrist"). Either way, hardly anyone would motivate the GOP base like she would and with a moderately good GOP candidate, I do not believe she'll carry a single Red state. Neither Bill Richardson, Rod Blagojevich or Tom Vilsack bother me much either, though Vilsack and Richardson may be tough to beat.
But the guy who terrifies me as a Republican looking at 2008 is the Governor of Tennessee, Phil Bredesen. He can actually, with some plausibility, call himself a fiscal conservative and social moderate and make a whole slew of Red states competitive. With a halfway decent running mate, like Mary Landrieu or Bill Nelson, he can do a great deal of damage.
Any opinions, kudos, criticisms, etc. are welcome.
I'm underwhelmed at the choices.
Allen has been a successful Gov. and Senator. Just came off a very successful campaign as leader of GOP Senate Election Commitee. Personable. Son of famous football coach. If he gets the $$$ behind him, he could be tha man.
If Tim Pawlenty wins reelection in 2006 I think he should be considered for top of the ticket.
What about the Governor of Maryland? No LG is ever gonna be on a national ticket, no matter how black he is. Steele and Blackwell have to move up to be considered nationally.
Frist is too boring and "namby pamby" - I can't even stand to listen to him . . . he doesn't have the personal intensity and aura of leadership that a presidential candidate needs to have . . .
I like Colorado Governor Bill Owens for 2008. I also agree that Jeb would be the best contender if only his last name weren't Bush.
I like Fletcher/Owens. Sanford grew up in Florida and lived in New York City of all places, so he may play better outside the South better than you think. That said, he's dumb as a mule.
Condi Rice
Great analysis, from my "quick-read". You're thinking ahead, and that is great (see my tagline).
All I know is this: whoever the Donkey Party decides to run, the GOP better darn well get out their record...ESPECIALLY if it is SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED. Call Gary Aldrich and make sure that "Unlimited Access" is available from the publisher, and get the media campaigns ready.
Same with the esteemed Ms. C (I can't mention her name, lest I be barraged with picture requests, in keeping with the FReeper rules) and her book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", BKO's "Final Days", and whatever happened to those Rose Law Firm records...or whatever that was.
We already have precedent in that the media glossed over 95% of Kerry's "record" and history (and called those who presented the other 5% discredited, creepy liars), while ripping the President a new one...I would imagine that the press will be 110% in the tank for SWMNBN, if she runs in '08.
I'm not so sure the Bush last name is a liability. I wouldn't take that as a given. Especially if it's Bush vs. Clinton.
There are several others you didn't mention, but whose presence on the national scene will become obvious three years from now.
However, I expect the other side to be a struggle between Gore, Kerry, and the Queen Bee. She will sting Kerry to death bu finally allowing the media to "out" him on dishonorable dischanrge, and will not take Gore seriously, marginalizing him. Therefore, we nee an anti-Hillary strategy.
I am advocating, for that reason, to nominate a military man with high caracter ratings. That person can beat Hillary. , or any other Dem.
Time to follow the mold of Teddy R., Eisenhower, Grant nominations and pick a hero of the war next time.
I would like to see Rep. Jim Burton on top of the ticket, with Ernest Fletcher as V.P. Who wouldn't vote for a ticket of Burton-Ernie?
Owens is by far the best candidate. But where on earth did you hear about "impregnating a subordinadate"???
Did you just make that up?
It is my understanding that they have already reconciled and were only on a trial separation.
Allen and Coleman, the Senator from Minnesota. He was also a popular mayor.
It's way, way, way too early to be worrying about "who has a chance". What we have the luxury of doing at this early stage is first asking ourselves who would make the best president, period - and then spend the next four years convincing people that he's the best choice. If our choice is reasonable, then reasonable people will go for him. The rest will follow along.
With that in mind, I'll start the ball rolling by suggesting Tom Tancredo. I'm perfectly happy to entertain suggestions about who'd actually be a better president, but to let's not keep deliberately setting our sights so low by fretting over "electability".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.