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.
Even if Hillary is the Democrat nominee?
I will say one thing-if Rudy runs on a fiscally conservative, tough-on-immigration, tough-on-terror platform, with a pro-life and pro-2nd amendment running mate who will have a say in those issues in the Giuliani administration, then, and only then, would I actively support him.
And-that's not that far-fetched of a possibility.
I agree wholeheartedly. The nation truly is divided. We probably, as a whole, are center-right. However, people would elect a center-left candidate as well. The American electorate does not want to vote for a national candidate that doesn't have the word "center" in their political beliefs somehow. In the next 20 years, the United States will not have a candidate that is further to the left than Bill Clinton or further to the rigth than George W. Bush. We ought to remember that when we nominate our candidate in the primaries. I guarantee the Democrats learned their lesson with John Kerry.
You know, even with her lack of political experiewnce, Condi Rice might look pretty good in 3 years, given McCain is a wack job and Giulani a bit to soft.
Maybe Giulani/Rice
SANFORD!!!
Go to my profile page and go to the online petition to get Mark to run!
SANFORD!!!
Go to my profile page and go to the online petition to get Mark to run!
I assume you mean June 2008?
Jeb Bush? Seems like a good man. But I'm worried there may be a sense among the electorate of "Bush fatigue". With the exception of the '96 debacle, that name has been on the national ballot going back to 1980. True, we've won the majority of those contests, but I'm wondering if the 'Rats might not make some issue out of the "it's time for a change" notion? We can pre-empt that by getting a good, new, fresh face in there.
Ross Perot might have made Clinton known, but Clinton still got the nomination over other better-known candidates. Ross Perot only mattered once Clinton was the nominee. Within Democratic circles it was a "who can beat Bush and Perot" thing.
And completely smart of him. It has legitimate government purpose AND gets his name out there a bit better. Not too shabby.
Rudy is left of center on social issues, not fiscal nor security. In the end, he's just a centrist.
So you want the republicans to lose? Did you bump your head before you wrote that?
Governor of Ohio? No frickin way would I support Bob Shaft!!!
Unless you mean Ohio's FUTURE governor, Ken Blackwell...well that's a different story!
True. Plus, Jeb doesn't want to run.
I also think all this hand wringing...(the ONLY, TINY chance republicans have of NOT losing EVERYTHING is to nominate candidate "X") is kind of strange considering the republicans have the presidency, senate, house, and a majority of governorships. We obviously are the more popular of the two parties and in a MUCH better position than the democrats. That not to say we are assured to win in 2008, a lot can happen between now and then, but it certainly not the time for doom and gloom over our "impending" defeat in 2008.
Repubs may be wrong assuming the "solid south" is a given. They run a pro-abortionist from New York and they will find the south won't be so solid. Whoever wins must carry the south. I'm for Sanford.
I do agree there should be another Bush run for President, but it should be in 2024 and that person should be George P. Bush (I think he would be around 47 or 48 then).
1) South Dakota . . . ahem, 3 electoral votes.
2) Freshman Senator
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.