Posted on 12/09/2004 7:42:34 AM PST by crushelits
Watching the Signs
The race for 2008 is already underway on the Republican side, you just have to know what to look for.
NOT SINCE 1952 has a presidential election lacked a sitting president or vice president as a contestant, and Ike was about as close as one could get to non-official incumbent. Before that, it was the 1928 race, and there, too, Herbert Hoover was, like Ike, a figure of towering popularity. In other words, there has never not been a front-runner in at least one party in the modern scrambles for the presidency. Here is a bit of evidence that the race for 2008 also has a leader, one along the lines of Eisenhower and the Great Engineer.
The National Federation of Republican Women is one of those groups about which not much is ever written, but which functions as one of the circulatory systems of American politics. There's a Republican Women's, Federated in practically every county of every size, and their monthly gatherings are full of the stuff of Tocqueville. These are the precincts of the proverbial "blue haired legions," but also younger, more partisan activists as well.
I make a point of speaking to a couple of chapters of the Federation every year, more to listen than to inform. (These ladies have legislative chairman's reports that go on for an hour--and they take notes.) Last Monday, just before heading off on vacation, I went to Temecula, California to speak to more than 200 women from the Riverside County Republican Women, Federated. After a recap and an assessment of Arnold Schwarzenegger's plans for a special election in 2005 to confront gerrymandering,
|
|
RIVERSIDE COUNTY is as "red" as any county in America, and getting redder. Before I spoke, the group had been entertained by the local home-schooling association's girls' choir, and many of the questions I received concerned illegal immigration and Hillary Clinton's ambitions. In other words--this is to use the title of John Podhoretz's invaluable book on places such as Riverside County, Bush Country.
Giuliani swept more than three-quarters of the votes, with the other three choices receiving smatterings of support. Keep in mind that this isn't an exercise in name identification--these women knew each of the candidates--as well as every possible name in the "other" category. This was an informed choice. I stopped what I was doing, repelled the audience, and then conducted a focus group.
Like many other pundits, I have been wondering whether Giuliani can escape the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008 given that Pat Robertson won the former in 1988 and Pat Buchanan the latter in 1992. Giuliani is too "moderate" to win the GOP nod, right?
Wrong, if these ladies are to be believed. Among the many praises that gushed forth: decisive, experienced, loyal to "W"--an interesting positive, that--funny and, crucially, tough enough to take on the Clintons. There were many praises for Senator Frist, and some for John McCain, but Giuliani has their hearts--already.
So avowed, confirmed, to tip of her toes, Marxist, Hillary is better than McCain?
Well let's see:
Rudy Guiliani - Pros: Already widely known, has the potential to put some blue states with large electoral votes in play, has served in an executive role, well thought of for his leadership during 9-11, could raise money out the wazoo, conservative on fiscal and security issues. Cons: Moderate on social issues, more likely quasi-liberal, which hurts him in a Republican primary.
Bill Frist - Pros: Relatively widely known, true conservative on all issues, is a doctor (has instant credibility with the healthcare issue), has done a good job in the Senate. Cons: Nerdy, not awe-inspiring, thought of as "inside the beltway", not sure he puts any blue states in play.
Mitt Romney - Pros: Looks "presidential", is a sitting governor, has the potential to put some blue states with large electoral votes in play because of geography, good record in business and government, is not an "inside the beltway" figure, proved he could win in probably the most liberal state, conservative on all issues. Cons: Not widely known with most red state general population, Mormon (I don't care, but some do)
George Allen - Pros: Served as Governor and Senator, good speaker, strong conservative. Cons: "Inside the Beltway" figure, not widely known, not much appeal in the blue states
John McCain - Pros: Widely known, War Hero status, plenty of experience in Washington, has the experience of a past presidential run, conservative on fiscal and security issues. Cons: Not really well-liked by most Republicans, moderate on social issues, will be in his 70's by 2008, could be viewed as "Inside the Beltway"
Mark Samford - Pros: Experience as Congressman and Governor, conservative on all issues Cons: Not widely known, comes from a state without many electoral votes, has no chance of picking up any of the blue states
Jeb Bush - Pros: He's a Bush, Governor in a swing state, Florida has many electoral votes, conservative on most every issue, ability to raise money. Cons: He's a Bush, moderate on immigration issues, not sure he could do any better than his brother, strong chance he could do worse.
These are the names I'm hearing most often. I don't mean to slight anyone.
That's absolutely correct and he and Perot are good buddies (were before and still are) expect a similar move by Hillary -- and the hard-headed "far right or no one" attitude is EXACTLY what Hillary is depending on to get herself elected and then what??? Eight years of Hillary and this country is going to be ruined.
OK-see post 43.
There are no liberals being mentioned as potential candidates. Moderates at worst.
Hmmm. She definitely gets the "she's a hottie" vote! : )
I like George Allen and he's a little different than your run-of-the mill Senator -- was a Governor and a congressman as well as Senator... IMO he "could" pull it off he he decided to run because I think he'd be acceptable to most Republicans as enough Dems to pull us over the top --
Good analysis. I still have more faith in Sanford, though. With the right running mate he could pick up a blue state or two-in fact he has potential to be another Reagan if he plays his cards right.
What about Tim Pawlenty?
They have a leadership crisis of southern Democrats that could win primaries though.
Yes, but Simon lost his race for Governor. Do you really think we could elect a President that lost his only foray into politics?
I like Jeb, Owens, Stanford, etc. I'll keep an somewhat open mind about this but the courtship has already begun. That's politics in Iowa!
Tancredo
Simon couldn't even win running for Governor of California. Which will vote for Hillary unless half the State falls into the sea over the next four years.
I would handicap Pawlenty just a bit better than Sanford. Simply because he is Governor in a state that was blue this year. He would win Minnesota by default (hell, even Walter Mondale won it in '84!) That is the only difference I see in him and Sanford. Of course, that difference is really 10 more reasons in the electoral college.
Just please assure me that your statements apply to the primaries only, not the general election.
Vote in the RAT primary then. We are talking about REPUBLICAN candidates and Zig Zag refused to switch parties. Tough luck.
I see a lot more Reagan in Rudy than anyone else... the personal life is the main difference. Rudy was a tough, take no prisoners, prosecutor and I give him huge marks for how he cleaned up New York (even though it made him very unpopular at the time)... Now we're watching another Republican (more Dem than GOP) dismantle everything Rudy accomplished while Mayor. If President Bush manages to get three or four new justices on the court over the next four years it's not going to make a huge difference if someone sitting in the oval office is pro-life or not.
Absolutely. I'm a team player. I think it's foolhardy to threaten to stay home or vote third party if the candidate is not up to our personal standards. Any Republican is better than any Democrat. We must fight our battles in the primaries.
I really don't think Hillary is a threat to get the GOP nomination, unless you know something that I don't. But in some ways McCain is more dangerous than Hillary. Hillary you know what you have, McCain is unstable.
There are millions of Republicans who will not vote for a pro-abort, period, ever, primary or general election.
I'm one.
And I'm pretty representative of the makeup of the Republican nominating electorate.
So take all the pro-aborts in your list, and throw them away. They're not going anywhere in 2008 but home. And if they somehow did win the GOP nomination, they would lose the general election badly.
Such a scenario would mark the beginning of the unraveling of the Republican governing coalition that so many have worked so long and hard to build.
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.