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 am. In my homestate in the last several presidential elections, candidates for delegate or alternate to the national convention have had to swear fealty to the pro-life plank in the platform and to a pro-life presidential/vice-presidential ticket. If you don't agree, you aren't a delegate. It's that simple. Accordingly, every single delegate and alternate is pro-life.
And that particular state is the norm in the GOP presidential nomination process. The vast majority of delegates to the national convention are committed pro-lifers.
Now, are you going to answer me with facts, or attack me as you usually do with your trademark invective?
George Allen's a good choice. He's a Senator now but he went to the Senate from the Governor's Mansion. He was a very popular Governor in Virginia.
***********
You are likely right. I like Mitt Romney, but it is his pro-choice stance that may make him a less desirable candidate. It's too bad, but the Republican Party has to be realistic.
If you really believe that then the lessons of the last election have been lost to you. Conservatives don't balance pro-abortion with pro-tax cuts. We may favor tax cuts but know in the end that compared to something as fundamentally evil as abortion a tax cut is nothing. George Bush got more than 8 million more votes in 2004 than he got in 2000. Care to guess who made up the majority of that difference? I'd wager a huge plurality of that vote came from conservative Christians who stayed home in 2000. You can bet the farm that those folks won't turn out for a 'centrist' like Rudy. And I don't hate the guy...I admire him in alot of ways, I just would never vote for him.
I am fully aware of the pro-life plank; unfortunately, that's not your only agenda; no candidate with your strident views will ever get the nomination again; Bush 43 has taken the party as far to the right as it can go.
He'd be great as a Cabinet member, in 2008, if he's not already sitting in the Senate, having defeated 'Her Heinous'. That's the office on which he should be concentrating. I believe he could be elected easily. Even some who voted for the Hag last time, might remember Giuliani fondly from his actions on and subsequent to 9/11, and vote for him instead.
'Fraid not. I'll vote for the most conservative viable candidate in the R primary and you can't tell me any governor or Sentor is "too conservative" whatever that means.
I reserve the Zell option for if the Gerry Ford/Nelson Rockefeller wing can retake the party.
You and those like you spend more time tearing away at the foundation of the party. You can't build up and tear down at the same time and expect it to stand without falling apart.
Precisely. Most all of us knew exactly what you meant.
Unfortunately. I would not vote for Giuliani, though.
>>>>So if the choice is between two pro-choice people, you wouldn't mind Hillary winning given all of her liberal views? Yes, I know Rudy is left of center on social issues, but he is not on fiscal and security issues.
The question isn't only "don't I mind Hillary." I do mind Hillary, but voting in a presidential election should be so simple minded.
The questions are much deeper than that, IMHO. Right now the only viable party pro-lifers have is the Republican party. The guys who control it only tolerate pro-lifers becuase of our votes, but their hearts lie in the fiscal conservative direction much more than in the social conservative direction.
Right now they will put pro-lifers up for office only somewhat grudgingly, in large part because they need our votes. If they can get our votes for free, e.g., Rudy, then they have no reason to give us what we want. We would be the Blacks of the Republican party at that point. The long term damage to the pro-life movement that would be the result of voting for Rudy is enormous, IMHO, and outweighs the cost of a lost election. If you all didn't get that hint with Bush I and Dole, that conservatives of various differnt stripes won't vote for middling RINOs, and you nominate a true RINO like Rudy, you'll get the same message once again -- another Democrat in the White house.
I'm not a die hard fiscal conservative. I'm more a conservative than a liberal, but Rudy's fiscal conservatism is barely a positive to me, as I don't really see much from him on the subject. His strength on security is great, but I don't see much experience. Still, that's a strength. Neither are even remotely enough to overcome his unwavering support for gays and abortion, and I would consider myself at least somewhat conservative on both fiscal and security issues.
Fiscal conservative Republicans have to get something through their heads. Not all of their voters are fiscal conservatives. If you drop the values portion of the platform, they WILL stay home, as will I.
patent
When, other than 1964 has that ever happened?????
Amen! Amen! Amen!!!! Glad to see you're reasonable enough to recognize that. : )
I completely understand your reasoning . . . for primaries. You should vote for the person that best represents your values in every election. But, if it is a general election and both candidates are pro-choice, wouldn't you rather make sure the one that agrees with you on 80% of the issues gets in rather than the one that agrees with you on 10% of the issues???
I would dig up Bob Casey and jump-start him before I'd vote for Giuliani.
I usually use a impromptu scorecard. It used to be on how they balanced on social vs. fiscal issues. I've thrown security issues in the mix since then. It's been elevated to that level now I think.
Oh yes. Four years of Hillary and we would definitely want to move further to the right with our nominee, right? *sarcasm* My bet? If Hillary wins, our candidate in '12 will be even more moderate because the politicos will think the country has moved further to the left.
Me too!
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.