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.
The folks who are hoping for a candidate to be elected that promises to work to outlaw abortion or overturn Roe v. Wade
are not realistic. Neither is likely to happen.
>>>>Even if you are a voter that pro-life issues are your number one concern, you have to agree that having a Republican president, regardless if he is pro-choice, will do more good for your cause than having a Democrat president.
I don't agree with that in any way. To be honest, if you take off the pro-life issues, many pro-lifers have more in common with moderate Democrats than they do with Guiliani. I won't vote for a pro-choicer from either party, period. I certainly won't campaign for the man.
patent
His name is all over FR but not in the general population. We have to get Mark Sanford better known because he has the potential to be the next Reagan IMHO.
On the brightside, Allen was a Governor for a period of time. Perhaps he still has more of that mentality than one of a Senator?
Allen could make it, I think. He's another good one.
Maybe you could list the outstanding voter attraction
any other potential candidate might have.
OK, how bout Laura Ingraham?
I'm not necessarily asking you to vote against Hillary. I'm just saying if she and Rudy are the two nominees, I'd like for you to go with the lesser of two evils. I have my suspicions that you agree with him on more issues than you do her. And, if you're stuck having a president that is not pro-life, wouldn't you at least like to have one that is conservative on SOME issues?
Ditto that!! Bob-The-Taxman-Taft would tax everything in sight!! Ken Blackwell is the man!
The south will still be solid red if Hillary is the Dem nominee.
So if the choice is between two pro-choice people, you wouldn't mind Hillary winning given all of her liberal views? Yes, I know Rudy is left of center on social issues, but he is not on fiscal and security issues.
I don't know, I just hope the GOP continues to ride the wave that we are now on.
As a side note, if the GOP doesn't get tough on illegal immigration and Hitlery or the dems talk tough on it, they will swing the votes their way.
We need to keep our southern-midwest-mountain state strategy intact. It has won us the last two elections. The 'Rats can read the electoral map as well as we can. They've learned (or should have) their lesson running failed liberals candidates from the Northeast. They won in '76, '92 and '96 with a southern 'Rat with experience as a Governor and who could put on the mask of "moderate" and push a snowjob on the electorate. I'd be surprised if they don't nominate a southerner in '08.
LOL that Edwards jumped ahead of Kerry on that list.
Simon from California is a pro-life Catholic with Santorum or Brownback as running mate.
You took the words right out of my mouth (or off my keyboard.) Hey, j_k_l, you need a barf alert to go with picture. That man makes my butt pucker.
Another reminder why I am not a Hewitt fan.
Once again, Hugh is fact-challenged.
Pat Robertson did not win Iowa in 1988. He was defeated soundly by Bob Dole.
His prognostications about the 2008 race are about as sound, IMO.
Oh, he is also wrong about Buchanan. Dole beat him too, in 92.
Hewitt needs to hire a fact checker.
So you .02 cents gets us Hillary as President. Everyone had better get their heads straight on this or we'll end up with a "Perot"-like situation again and Hillary. There is no "Rino" I can think of that would be worse than that. This candidate has to be acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats -- or she'll win. 2008 is not going to be a year to be ideological it's a year to be practical (spoken by someone who really, really likes Tom Tancredo -- but the top of the ticket HAS to be someone everyone knows).
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.