Posted on 02/28/2005 1:14:01 PM PST by crushkerry
Every four years speculation bubbles that some New Hampshire politician or another might join the national ticket for one of the major parties. It has to do with the prestige of the Granite State's first-in-the-nation primary. In 1996, then-Governor Steve Merrill's popularity and charm earned him a spot on Bob Dole's long list. Same for former Democrat Governor Jeanne Shaheen in 2000. Last year, as improbable as it seems today, National Review even snuck in a mention of former Governor Craig Benson on a list of possible candidates for president in 2008.
That won't happen, but since we're speculating, allow me to ask: Why not Senator John Sununu (R-NH)?
Thighs deep in the nation's Social Security debate, son of a former White House Chief of Staff, smart cookie in his own right, and proven political giant killer, the idea is not as outlandish as it might first seem.
Sununu served in the United States House of Representatives from 1996 through 2003. In 2002, he won one of the most hotly contested U.S. Senate races in the country. He is Roman Catholic. He has a peculiar fundraising base of fellow Lebanese-Americans. He's handsome. Has an attractive and likable family. And considering the name Sununu has been on the national stage since at least 1988, he probably has better-than-expected name ID.
Republicans were not always bullish about Sununu. Written off as overrated after a nervous squeaker against relative unknown Martha Fuller Clark in 2000, Sununu decided to do the unthinkable in 2002. He ran for a United States Senate seat that was already held by a Republican. Ultimate victory would mean knocking off the sitting GOP Senator Bob Smith in the primary and then beating sitting Governor Jeanne Shaheen in the General Election. Sununu beat Smith by 12 percentage points; Shaheen by 4. By the way, Shaheen outspent Sununu by $1.2 million.
Sununu has shortcomings. He is soft-spoken and, though conservative (2004 ACU rating: 100%), not prone to toss out red meat for the rightwing masses. But from his recent speech at the 2005 Conservative Political Action Conference, one could sense a genuine connection between Sununu and the grassroots. And writing as someone who has organized all manner of political events, when John Sununu is invited to meet with voters and concerned citizens, no matter how small the gathering, he almost always says yes.
As a Lebanese-American, Sununu has been accused of being anti-Israel, chiefly by Smith during their testy primary. He's not. But neither is he as deferential to Israel and her foreign policy concerns as many conservatives.
Sununu's presence on the 2008 presidential primary ballot would muck things up in an interesting way. For one thing, most of the other Republican candidates would probably write New Hampshire off and focus on Iowa and South Carolina. But what if Sununu got in late, after the other candidates had whittled away some of their resources, and before a frontrunner emerged?
The point may be moot. Sununu has never mentioned a desire to run for president and, so far as I can tell, this article represents the first and only speculation on the subject. But at present, there are no fewer than twelve US Senators considering a run at the nation's top job. Sununu should be one of them.
Sununu's reputation may well depend on the fate of Social Security reform. He is the co-sponsor of one of the more aggressive reform plans, which would allow younger workers to invest some of their Social Security payroll tax into personal retirement accounts. If something big happens this year, Sununu, along with President Bush, will be seen as one of the heroes of the revolution. If everything goes horribly wrong, he may end up a scapegoat.
But it says something about a guy who at the tender age of 40 is willing to risk a life of political prosperity for something he feels is right.
Patrick Hynes is former Political Director of the New Hampshire Republican Party. He is the proprietor of the website www.anklebitingpundits.com.
I agree on Pawlenty, but hesitate to say much being a Minnesotan. I have had the opportunity to have contact with him on several occasions, and he is a genuine person, much like President Bush.
Because he's just as big a RINO as his dad is. Wrap that up and put in the bank.
Off the bat, she could lose Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire and possibly Oregon
Cubans don't run Florida, and I'll grant there are alot of New York transplants there, but, as close as Gore got, there was a grudge there against him, it got even thicker with Janet Reno getting her rear handed to her in a primary against a guy no one had ever heard of.
Florida is also turning redder and redder, only one state elected official is a dem.
I honestly think that she could lose kerry voters in Florida, and she ranks with Janet Reno popularity. The fact that Kerry lost by a wider margin the Gore did suggests a trend.
I can't even see her peeling a single red state over to the her side.
The part of Florida that is growing the fastest is the area stretching from Naples to Fort Myers, along with the area north of Orlando (Orlando itself is a Pit). Most of these are folks from the Midwest. Of course, my parents live in Palm Beach County, aka Scarsdale South, AKA The Bagel Belt (where they live, Boca Raton, is the "buckle of the Bagel Belt") and there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that that area of the state will go GOP.
My take on Florida: The influx of midwesterners and conservative-minded transplants is counterbalanced by a continued influx of liberal New Yorkers, Puerto Ricans, and non-Cuban Hispanics (although the wealthy Colombians and Venezuelans are quite conservative). I think that it will remain slightly more red than blue, although it will never be as solidly Republican as Utah.
oops..my bad...
Firstg, I'm not knocking Sununu..I think be'd be a first rate President....I'd rather see him that Frist in a heartbeat.I don't think he's viable, becuase the GOP doesn't give the credence tp IOwa and NH like the Dems do..it's the S Carolina primary that is the first real test for the GOP candidates
I live in the area that you call the fastest growing area. Unfortunately, it is not growing redder. Bush was a strong candidate in Fla. He had his brother in the governor's mansion, and his brother is quite popular here. They made it look redder, but the voters were not voting Republican. They were voting for Bush. The fact is that the majority of voters in my area are now registered as Dems.
In 2008, both of the Bushes will be gone, and there is really no other strong Republican candidate in the state, except possibly Crist, who might win the governorship in 06. Unfortunately, the Dems have equally strong prospects, including former (deceased) governor Lawson Chiles' son.
South Florida will go heavily Dem, no matter how you cut it. In the last election, a strong moderate GOP candidate, Mel Martinez, won the Senate by the skin of his teeth. But he was running against a very liberal female Dem candidate who had hired a terrorist to be on her payroll while she was the President of Florida So. University. Martinez should have won by much more, and did win primarily because of the overwhelming Cuban support in So. Fla., and the heavy investment by G.W. Bush.
Since there is not going to be a Cuban or a Bush on the GOP ticket in 08, I think it will be an uphill battle.
I have to admit that David Souter was such a HUGE mistake that even three degrees of separation bothers me. I would need to take a much closer look at Sununu the younger before going along with it. At the time of Souter's appointment, we were told that all of the players were impeccable conservatives. I think not.
She COULD lose any of those states, but I don't see it happening. The whole state of MI is run by the Dems. Remember that this is the state that handily elected a liberal female from Canada as their governor.
I think the mistake you are making is to not understand that Kerry was a basket case as a candidate. The most liberal candidate in history, indeed the most liberal US Senator in history. He selected a liberal Dem as his running mate. He made one goof up after another throughout the whole campaign. Despite that, he won PA. And he beat a strong moderate candidate in the process, ie. GW.
Hillary is not going to be a weaker candidate than Kerry. She is going to be stronger. Any state that is so far to the left that it would vote for Kerry is far enough to the left that it would vote for Hillary.
And that means we've got to field a stronger candidate than Bush, but we don't have one.
You give Hillary too much credit. She's appealing in the abstract, and obnoxious up close.
I think 2004 had some instances that skewed the race.
Bush's 51%, I don't think was his ceiling, I think it was his floor.
Hillary, has more against her, then Kerry did.
Keep in mind, her husband, who is more popular then her, never ever got 50% of the vote.
She is also a fund raising machine for the GOP, and motivates conservatives more then she motivates liberals.
Several of the states I mentioned, had improvements for Bush, and one of them, may have been lost due to fraud.
To be honest with you, I think the best chance the GOP has of getting keeping the white house in 2008, is to hope Hillary gets the nomination for the dems, I for one, am rooting for her to win a bloody primary over the dems, before getting blown out in a general election.
You may be right. However, if you're not, then heaven help us.
That poll isn't credible three years out. I don't assume she'll self-destruct. I just won't assume she'll win. She's just not as formidable as everyone else thinks.
Oh, and "would be a good candidate" is something I agree with too. That statement does not equate to "would vote for her" or even "would consider voting for her."
What Republican Governors are on the horizion?
If it will make you feel any better, in 2004, I only got 2 states wrong.
I had New Mexico going to Kerry (I figured with Bill Richardson's corruption and factoring in vote fraud) and Wisconson going to Bush (which may have actually been lost to vote fraud).
Sununnu supported the Law Of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He is not worthy of Smith Senate seat, much less the Presidency.
Does he have any experience outside of politics and public service? Republicans will elect people whose business experience has been strongly driven by family ties, but they haven't elected someone without other experience since 1972. George W. Bush worked in oil and in baseball before becoming governor of Texas. George H.W. Bush worked in oil before running for Congress (and losing) and serving in the CIA and as ambassador. Ronald Reagan was an actor who came from a completely blue-collar background.
Does he have any signature issue besides Social Security reform? The best that can happen politically with Social Security reform is that no one really notices a difference for the next twenty years. The worst that can happen is that people will have reduced benefits or believe that their benefits are reduced and end up angry. No one is going to ride this issue to the White House. If all he has to show for twelve years in Congress is that he helped with Social Security reform, he's not going to have much support.
His running makes the New Hampshire primary less important, and he will lose some popularity in New Hampshire for that reason alone. I don't like the fact that we tend to nominate our candidate in a few primaries at the beginning of the primary season. I think a healthy fight is good for the party. The last truly competitive primary we had was in 1980, and that primary produced the Ronald Reagan presidency without which there would not likely have been a George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush presidency.
Bill
Are you channeling Pat Buchanan?
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.