Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cornpone

Here's an analysis I tossed off for another board...

Well, sadly for those in the "middle" who long for a GOP nominee not tied to the Social conservatives, the fact is that the primaries are still about the grass roots and the grassroots are the social conservatives. It's not impossible for a social moderate like Rudy to get nominated without them but it is VERY VERY difficult. It would take starting with an overwhelming bankroll for one thing.

So I offer two lists, the first are people who could get past the social conservatives, the latter are those who, without special circumstances, could not...then I'll give you a couple names who don't fit neatly on either list and along the way I'll try to handicap the strengths or weaknesses of each.

Conservatives:

Rick Santorum -
Strengths: Beloved by evangelical base, attractive and articulate.
Weaknesses: has some verbal baggage that has been used against him. the Evangelicals will love him for those words but the press will pound him with them. He's a Senator, which usually means he can't be president.

George Allen-
S: Has ambition, owed many political favors because of his role with Senate Campaign Committee.
W: A senator. Not as telegenic as some others.

Haley Barbour-
S: Everyone owes him, solid on ever Social Conservative issue, plays really well in heartland.
W: Lobbyist tag hurts with image, Harder sell in Urban areas (supposedly - I think this is an overrated claim against him)

Bill Frist-
S: Almost everything. Great background, solid on issues, telegenic and very smart.
W: Only the history of Senators not making successful presidential candidates.

JC Watts-
S: Highly charismatic, inoculates GOP against race issue, beloved by the social conservatives. very articulate.
W: Only House seat in his past, might lead to charge of inexperience. Might not have the desire to run. An ideal VP candidate for eventual nominee.

Bill Owens-
S: Lots of buzz around him. I don't know much except that the momentum is building for him.
W: I don't know enough to say.

Jeb Bush-
S: Personable, well spoken, right on the social issues.
W: I personally don't think the party will risk running another Bush right after W....I'm not sure they ever will.

"Moderates"

Rudy Gulliani-
S: Uber name recognition. Most Americans don't know the things NYers know about him, No one has worked harder collecting chits.
W: NO social conservative will back him, he has tons of personal baggage, he's a time bomb on the order of Howard Dean.

Mit Romney-
S: Great camera presence, wonderful speaker, clean history, appeals to the same people - issues wise - as Rudy without the baggage.
W: Beyond the problem on social issues, it's hard to find any. IF any social moderate gets the nomination, he's the one.

Colin Powell-
S: uber-respected, hard to imagine anyone making any charge stick against him. Potentially swings a big chunk of black vote. Cancels any advantage for Dems by nominating a woman or minority
W: Steadfastly passes up golden opportunities. Professed lack of interest seems real.

George Pataki-
S: Respectable job as Governor, Potential to deliver NY to GOP.
W: Almost everything else. Everything he is, either of his opponents can claim to be a better example of. VP is his best hope and that's slim.

"Others"

Arnold-
Can't run. amendment has ZERO chance.

McCain-
Likely too old, but does have stubborn streek...count him among the moderates, despite a mostly conservative voting record, because the social conservatives don't trust him.

Condi Rice-
Might have socially moderate positions, but if so they are so little known as to be easily finessed. Social conservatives would accept her with little urging as the Anti-Hillary. However, few can succeed at being elected to the White House in their first race. But she's such a special case she might pull it off. Also a potential top shelf VP option.
that said, she has expressed no interest.

John Ashcroft-
Hyper-polarizing, and he probably knows it. Age might be a factor too, but he did toy with running in 2000 before it became clear that Bush was the party's choice.

Chuck Hagel-
Gambled and lost on a Kerry win. Had been widely discussed but his trashing Bush on the war within weeks of the election (as if the expression of that opinion couldn't have waited until November) clearly has marked him, rightly or wrongly, as a man who was angling to be Kerry's token Republican and may well be persona non grata with the Bush loving grass roots.

Alan Keyes-
Likely won't run given the good assortment of conservatives he could endorse, however, there's one scenerio...if the GOP seems determined to ram through Rudy or another social moderate, he may again feel compelled to be the "loyal opposition" role he has played before. He can't possibly get the nomination in a normal year, however, if the GOP blows up over the effort to nominate a pro-choicer (a distinct possibility if they try it) either a full blown split or simply a divided convention, the social conservatives will need a willing standard bearer not afraid to burn bridges - i.e. Keyes.
Most of the rest of the social conservative potential candidates are office holders who won't take the chance of gambling against the establishment and losing. Keyes has not such qualms.


My guess? Frist, Romney, and Owens make up the front tier, Gulliani runs but flames out early, Hagel, Pataki, and Allen run but are gone from the race early having gotten no traction.
By March it'll be down to either Frist or Owens and Romney (or Guliani if I'm wrong about him buring out ala Dean).

The rest won't end up running.

Look for Watts and Condi to be prominently mentioned for VP - especially if the Dems nominate Hillary or Obama on either side of the ticket.


52 posted on 11/03/2004 10:07:59 PM PST by WillRain ("Might have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: WillRain

I just fired a shot across the bow...its obvious you've done some real thinking on this...Thank you...


53 posted on 11/03/2004 10:11:04 PM PST by Cornpone ((Aging Warrior))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: WillRain
To tell you the truth,out of that batch,JC Watts looks like the pick

another thought;How about the Hammer, Tom Delay?

67 posted on 11/03/2004 10:44:22 PM PST by Cheapskate ("America , F _ _ _ Yeah !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: WillRain
George Allen-
S: Has ambition, owed many political favors because of his
role with Senate Campaign Committee.
W: A senator. Not as telegenic as some others.

My money is on Sen. Allen.

I agree with you above points. Plus...
He has been a Governor of a large, southern state.
He is a conservative that plays well to the media.
He has a commanding physical presence.
He has his dad's classic NFL football linage to draw people in to listen to his story.
He seems genuinely humble and strong simultaneously, Who's that remind you of these days?

88 posted on 11/05/2004 9:12:57 AM PST by Ghengis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson