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.
What exactly was the deal with his divorce and all that?
I hear he was unfaithful (didn't hear it was that bad till your post), but wasn't paying much attention when all that was going on.
Romney's a Mormon. A Mormon will not be president.
You'll have plenty of company at the top of that list. ;)
Allen is the best nominee I've heard discussed. But he might lose to Warner in 2006!
And I think the party will nominate someone who is a no-name and a governor. Senators have way too much baggage. Sanford isn't ideal, but I don't know who is. I sure hope that we get someone from the West or South, so that we don't have a damn Yankee leading the ticket that has to be super-conservative to overcome the fact that he talks funny.
And anyone touting Rice has the wrong Secretary in mind. Rumsfeld in 2008!
Not if he's still agitating for Fox's border flooding programs. Isn't P. the one who was in Texas talking about how we should tear down the fence?
His gun stance will hurt him BAD, as will his pro-abort stance. Right to Life and the NRA won't help them - and they are oftentimes campaign vounteers.
What needs to be watched is the 2006 governor's races.
That's a positive IMO actually. The outsider is always the one to watch. He can run on "change".
If it's Hillary/McCain - I vote either 3rd party or I'll write in someone.
Bill Owens is another name. Colorado Governor.
No way. Sitting Veeps rarely win unless they inherit the job through a presidential death.
I MIGHT be wrong but I think Van Buren and Bush I were the only winners.
I like Allen (As a football guy it's hard not to) and would consider him in a primary, but what scares me with him is the history of senators winning - or lack of it. Warren Harding and JFK are the only ones I can think of offhand.
"Coincidently, Pataki's just launched a major "tourism" campaign to run in a variety of states on behalf of the state of New York.
The state taxpayers are paying for this "tourism" campaign, but, graciously, George Pataki agreed to appear in every one of the ads for free.
Totally free! That was so utterly selfless of him."
This is typical. Here in NJ it has grown worse with each governor, until recently we had McGreevey appearing in state-financed ads telling people to read to their children. It was blatant campaigning, paid for by our tax dollars.
For 2008 let's NOT wait for the usual RNC coronation of someone who will ultimately betray the interests of taxpaying middleclass Americans.
Pataki - ditto.
McCain - untrustworthy.
Hagel - loathesome.
Frist - boring.
Allen - looks more like a high school football coach than a president.
Jeb Bush - the country will be suffering from Bush Fatigue by that time.
Sounds a lot like the Republican mantra of 1960 . . . Kennedy is Catholic. A Catholic will not be president.
I have a feeling the Mexican border situation will be much different by 2024 . . . either one way or the other. It won't be as big of an issue then as it is now.
Why not?
*sigh* As a history major and political junkie, I hate to this, but it's late and I'm admitting defeat. Who was the candidate that you are referencing? Had to be in the 20th century, because Arizona is a state. I can't think of a Republican President from Massachusetts though.
Yes, but only if he is from a different party. Al Gore tried the "change" mantra (which was damn ironic since he was PART of the Clinton administration) and Clinton backed off from giving him full-fledged support. Whomever the Republican candidate is, he/she is going to need the support of President Bush, assuming President Bush has relatively good approval numbers. Hard for Sanford to run as a "change" candidate and support President Bush at the same time.
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.