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 think we will see a breakout front runner of Senator George Allen, the former Governor of Virginia.
He's a complete package.
I would say that I personally, as well as many of us on FR, are pretty strongly conservative on all three (fiscal, security, social) counts. For me, the pro-life issue is quite important, but I am more of a fiscal conservative than anything.
I probably would hold my nose in the GENERAL election and vote for Rudy, only because I'd trust him more on security issues than Hitlery.
Mitt's OK. I hear he's pro-choice but in reality I don't think he is. He's as pro-life as one can be in Massachusetts.
ACU's rating system is useful, but flawed. Zell's conservatism is Truman-style-not a GOP conservative but an old-fashioned Democrat, conservative by THEIR standards, definitely but not necessarily ours. I bet Rudy would score about a 55-65 on the ACU ratings if he were in Congress.
>>>as well as many of us on FR,
I didn't say otherwise. It doesn't change the point. Many pro-lifers aren't all three.
Giuliani is pro-choice, but McCain is NOT pro-choice. One thing about McCain is he is a strong pro-lifer.
I'm not sure who these people are that you speak of. Karl Rove? Pro-life. Bill Frist? Pro-life. Hastert? Pro-life...I could go on...
They may well have more of a fiscal than social concern. Doesn't automatically make them pro-abortion!
Yeah, Taft and Voinovich are about as interesting as cold oatmeal. They are as drab is Kucinich is loony.
We used to call them conservative Democrats...
Tancredo's only shot is as a VP candidate in '08. Or a dark-horse candidate.
I could deal with George Allen.
GEORGE ALLEN (R) VIRGINIA FOR PRESIDENT!
I really do like George Allen, but I think the breakout is going to be Mitt Romney. He's everything that Allen is, only slightly more polished.
I think that's the case too. If he was outspoken pro-life he would have no chance of winning anything in Massachusetts. He seems to be a pretty devout Mormon and they tend to be strongly pro-life.
Sadly, on the federal level, that is an extremely endangered species.
BUMP to that. What Republican with ANY moral backbone could vote for a cheater--especially a cheater like Giuliani, that did it in front of his CHILDREN?
I'm sorry. It's not about his politics, which will likely be closer to mine than whoever ends up taking the nomination. I can't vote for a man who can't be trusted to keep an oath like a marriage vow. Divorce is one thing. Screwing around is completely different. And screwing around while you have kids is just low down.
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.