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.
One's grown rightward while the other started out as a great conservative and grew into the kind of Republican only the NY Times could love when them and Charlie Keating.
Good.
...unfortunately, that's not your only agenda;
Too bad you consider the fact that I care about the broad range of conservative issues to be 'unfortunate'. Which of those issues do you disagree with me on? Fundamental tax reform? Judicial reform? Religious liberty? School choice? Protection of the right to keep and bear arms? A strong national defense? A strong American foreign policy? What????
...no candidate with your strident views will ever get the nomination again;
And exactly which views might that be? And how are they 'strident'? I think my views are simply Christian and conservative and Republican.
Bush 43 has taken the party as far to the right as it can go.
That's hardly the case. We could easily have a Republican nominee who would be willing to wield a veto pen on excessive spending, for example.
Or who would not endorse so-called 'civil unions', thereby undermining the whole fight to protect traditional marriage.
I am being realistic. I'll vote for a candidate who promises to do all he can to discourage abortion. In fact that's what I did when I voted for Bush, both times - he never once said that he expected or intended to overturn Roe v. Wade. A president who has no problem at all with abortion is not capable of leading the country in any direction I want to go.
Pro-life or pro-choice is a mindset - either you believe human beings can be property, or you don't. All other policies follow from that. If there's two equally pro-choice candidates, then the election is six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. I will vote for the most pro-life candidate of either party in any election.
Reasonable people can discuss at what point the rights of the baby should outweigh the rights of the mother. Full disclosure, my position is "at conception." For me, partial-birth abortion is a deal-breaker - I will never vote for any candidate who supports that.
Okay, equate abortion to murder and I can stick with you, equate it to slavery and you've lost me.
IMO, the 'I'm pro-life, but...' folks have done more to perpetuate the abortion holocaust than most anyone.
So you have said for as long as you've been here; so far, none of your "dream" candidates hasn't been able to get elected.
You are part of the extreme right wing of this party; you want that wing to take over the party -- and it's not going to happen. A president has to govern the entire country, not a small minority.
And so far, I've been more right than you have, and I'm not even pretending to be a "political consultant."
And, IMO, the "there is no other issue than abortion" folks have done more to cost Republicans elections than most anyone. Either by not turning out for good candidates that they disagreed with on one issue and one issue only . . . or by making us look completely intolerant of anyone else and discouraging people from participating in the Republican Party.
If you had an actual example, I'm sure you'd share it.
But you can't, because it isn't true.
Bump.
You don't bother reading your own posts do you?
Yes, Howlin. We all know you're the smartest woman on the planet.
I get nervous when people say things like Hillary isn't dangerous, or we have a Republican Senate/Congress -- for VERY good reason. Executive Decisions. BILL Clinton signed a record number of Executive Decisions -- Congress has no controll of these and they can be very dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. Look at how Carter immedietly pardoned all Vietnam War Criminals -- before he even left the Rotanda after his innaguration.
I'm not certain McCain would make it through, four years is a long time and all sorts of health and other issues can intervene; but I'll take McCain over Hillary -- sorry if it offends -- and everyone deciding to vote for a Libertarian instead of Republican in '08 is making a vote for Hillary same as a vote for Nader in "00 and '04 was a vote for the Bush.
That depends alot on who you are talking about. If you mean Bush, he is pro-life. If you mean the countless guys who will help determine which candidates get the money and the recognition four years from now, many of them are not pro-life (or at least someone ambivalent) and I think you know that.
patent
2) And which of those states you just mentioned wouldn't go Republican anyway?
I haven't seen you around before the last couple of days, newbie.
But I think your screen name is phony.
You pose as a conservative, while trying to drag the GOP leftward at every step.
Can you tell I don't like you?
I never claimed that; I'm just more realistic than you are; I don't set a line in the sand and then cut off my nose to spite my face.
I actually realize that there are more people in the world than me. And I realize that governing is the art of compromise, kryptonite to you guys.
The GOP is SUPPPOSE to be the party that doesn't want the government sticking its nose in their business; some of you want nothing more than to dictate to the rest of us how we should live and what we should believe.
How can you have the legal right to kill someone(thing) unless you own it? I can take my cats down to the vet tomorrow and have them killed. I can even shoot them myself in the back yard. I own them and I have every legal right to kill them, even if my only reason for doing so is the inconvenience their claws are causing to my new sofa.
The acceptance of a right to kill is an acceptance of ownership. The concept of murder means NOT having the right to kill. Even when killing a burglar in self-defense, you're going to have to explain to the sheriff at least.
And I'll be right with you; in fact, most of the people in the GOP will be.
Somebody has to draw a line.
Y'all sure wouldn't.
And then where would it end?
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.