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.
I was thinking Giuliani, he's a RINO in my book. Social liberalism does not make one a moderate, it make one a Liberaltarian. McCain and Frist may be tweeners but they'll never get my vote, I'd rather stay home.
The Democrats ran a relatively weak field in 1992. A lot of the bigger names (e.g. Mario Cuomo) stayed out of the race, because at the time the decision had to be made whether to run or not, President Bush had sky-high approval ratings. At that point in time, trying for the Democratic nomination was considered a suicide mission.
I agree completely. As long as they're pro-life.
The only thing that makes sense for the dems is to try and pry some Bush states away. Bayh/Richardson would tip the EV's to the dems. I like Sanford, but I would put Romney on the ticket to steal Mass and NH EV's.
I'll stay home before voting for McTurncoat.
I can even make a case to ALWAYS vote a straight Republican ticket, even if the R is pro-abortion and the D is pro-life.
On the legislative level, a pro-life Democrat is worthless unless they're in the minority. It's essential to keep Rs in the majority.
ping pong!
Rudy is great except he is pro-choice and liberal on social issues and that would likely be divisive within the GOP. Really no big names come up aside from Rudy but I'm liking the idea of Duncan Hunter in 2008. That is, if Tommy Franks isn't in the running.
Now, now; let's not bring facts into this.
Yes, they would. That would teach us, wouldn't it?
OMG, I cannot believe people are still on your about that after 100 post.
Who ARE these people?
OMG. I am falling in the floor laughing.
No, you are NOT.
JEB JEB JEB JEB!!!!
Of course I don't want to see Hillary as President but I won't vote for Rudy and I believe there are millions of others who are in the same boat. If the GOP nominates a pro abortion, pro- partial birth abortion and pro gay rights liberal like Rudy it will lose it's base. If the party thinks it can win without it's base let it be.
Fact - If voters see no discernable difference between two candidates, they aren't motivated to vote. Example-Bush's victory. Several million new voters saw that W was a better man than Kerry and turned out to vote. Another example-Ronald Reagan.
*************
I think you make an important point here.
None of the choices-Giuliani, Frist and McCain-are appealing to me. I've never been a fan of McCain's because I think he is too liberal, Giuliani was great after 9/11, but also too liberal on social issues, and Frist has absolutely no charisma.
I vehemenently disagree with you, my dear friend, on both the moral and the strategic sense of that position.
On a purely 'practical' level, what I said remains true: abandoning the pro-life demand that our presidential ticket remain pro-life would lead to both short-term and long-term crushing defeat for the Republican Party.
Take it to the bank.
No he hasn't and he has no compunction about saying that he's in favor of protecting a woamn's right to a partial birth abortion. He may moderate his tone as we get closer to '08, but I've heard him speak on the subject several times and he's one of the most liberal pro-aborts I've ever heard speak.
I like Frist but I don't know about his going from where he is now to becoming president. Giuliani is likeable but he's tooooo liberal. I don't think he'd make a good President. That's asking for a 3rd party contender.
What do you guys think of the idea of Cheney resigning early so President Bush can put someone in there who would fill the bill, so to speak???
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.