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.
Legislative Leaders: Bill Frist? Pro-life Mitch McConnell? Pro-life Denny Hastert? Pro-life Tom DeLay? Pro-life Roy Blunt? Pro-life
Tell us again how you only come here to post and people attack you! Tell us again what a noble poster you are!
I told you before, your attitude is what turns people off.
Well, it won't be you; you're never in a position to effect the outcome of anything.
Yeah, I have nothing against John Thune... I'm sure he'll make an excellent senator and is a big improvement over that guy he replaced, what'shisname.
As for 2), yes, I was joking.
I don't care.
The issues being discussed here are far too important to worry about your poor little feelings, or about whether anyone likes me or not.
Grow up.
Once again, your post has nothing to do with what I said to you.
You're a nasty poster who claims to be attacked when it's always YOU who draws first blood.
That's exactly our point - there are MANY perfectly acceptable pro-life Republicans. I favor Allen myself. Why would we want a pro-choice like McCain or Giuliani?
Actually, even discussing the possiblity of a pro-choice Republican presidential candidacy is an exercise in futility - it'll never happen because we'll weed them out in the primaries. I hope McCain & Giuliani realize that, and don't run, thereby discouraging pro-life R's with less name recognition.
I am not trying to drag the Republican Party leftward. But I am trying to make sure that it doesn't go so far to the right that it is impossible to win any elections. America, as a whole, is a centrist nation. We shouldn't have national candidates that are further right than center-right. Congressional races are entirely different matters. In states that can elect 100% conservatives (Idaho, Kansas, Wyoming, etc) . . go for it!!! We don't need moderates coming from there. In states that can not (Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, etc), we simply lose when we run conservatives. I'd rather have a moderate Republican in those seats. We may not see eye-to-eye on all issues, but we will on some, and they will cast the all important vote for leadership the right way.
Oh, and by the way, the feeling is mutual. : )
BUMP!
Good post and welcome to FR.
I wasn't defending abortion. I do believe it is equatable to murder . . . which is not having the right to intentionally kill. It is not analagous to slavery.
I think as the 2008 election comes closer, Rudy and McCain's support will dwindle, but not necessarily because of the pro-choice issue. I think people, and even some Republican voters, are starstruck. Rudy and McCain are WIDELY known . . . and Rudy is incredibly likable. As the election gets closer though, people will learn more about and start to like folks like George Allen, Mitt Romney, etc. Right now, they're basically just known by the people they represent and political junkies like most FReepers.
You are either missing what I'm trying to say, or your avoiding it. Look at the words in my post, I didn't use the words you are trying to force on me. I didn't say "party leaders" or "legislative leaders" etc. I have no idea whether Gillespie or Rove are pro-life. Even if they were, Rove has already said he isn't going to be running a candidate in the next presidential election, and Gillespie is retiring. I'm not saying their replacements are this or that, but the fact is the "leadership" you highlight comes and goes, but the people who have long term control over the party are still there.
A handful of leaders don't pick the next presidential candidate. They can try to advance someone, but there are an awful lot of people that put up the money and backing a candidate needs who also have a big say in things.
That was and is my point. And you can't claim they are in the main the type of people who care more for pro-life issues than for fiscal issues.
patent
No, demonstrably untrue. You attacked me first, as usual.
See your #114 for that example of extreme snarkiness.
Have fun. I'm having network troubles and need to head out of here.
So, you have your chance for a snarky last word, too.
Has anybody considered (R)Sen. George Allen in 2008?
So a center-right candidate like George Allen, or a center-left candidate like Rudy Guliani, could probably have a decent shot at the big prize if they could bring these skills to the table. If they don't, then all the 'Rats have to do is field a "likable" candidate (ala Clinton) who can put on a moderate mask, and they could take the cheese.
Like I've said '08 isn't a year for idology or principal -- if anyone thinks this year was important, '08 will be even more so. In our case I suspect the more moderate Republicans will strongly support the final Republican ticket; but if the far, right Republicans choose '08 to try and make a point and they end up voting Libertarian (or not at all) then we're all $crewed!
Hillary has a 46% base. They thought she couldn't win NY with an under 50% base, she did! There is a lot of people in this country who know nothing about politics and vote for the person and not the ideology.
Sure there is a lot of people in our party that would make great Presidents. Most won't run.
Personally, I hope George Allen runs. I think he could be a great candidate and he has a history that would serve us all well.
All I said was that you are NOT the norm for Republican voters.
Now, if you take that as a personal attack, perhaps you have "issues" you need to deal with concerning your selfworth.
I'm having network troubles and need to head out of here.
You always have to leave when people are challenging you.
I would too. One thing, though, I'd really like to see a strong Republican challenge Susan Collins in Maine. Actually none of Maine's Senators are impressing me. I'd like to see a strong, moderate, Republican take down Barbara Boxer in California. I can't believe the challenger for her seat got so little attention or support.
The word Conservative requires no modifying adjective because it means both fiscally and socially conservative. What you describe here, as I pointed out before, is a liberaltarian.
The left hijacks enough terms of art as it is, as I see it there's no need for the liberaltarians to do the same.
Ahhhh, you're talking about the "smoky backroom" folks. : ) Just kidding, I know who you mean. Yes, any successful presidential candidate has to have his group of financiers. And, yes some may be pro-choice, but, at the same time all of the presidential candidates that are being mentioned have been in elected office before and have already stated their beliefs on this issue. If they were to change now, they'll get the John Kerry treatment of being flip-floppers. I'd say it's safe to say all will stick with what they have been for years, despite whatever their financiers' opinions are.
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.