Senator George Allen
Posted on 04/30/2005 1:17:23 PM PDT by SDGOP
George Allen looks like hes picking up some steam for 2008
Two different sources: First is the national journal poll taken recently as cited in the WSJ's Political Diary.. heres the excerpt
George Who?
National Journal, the non-partisan weekly magazine of Washington for policy wonks and political junkies, has cornered the market on exclusive "insider" polls of Washington players. Its latest survey of 175 members of Congress, political consultants, and party activists turned up some surprising early opinions on the 2008 presidential race.
The Republican presidential field is wide open with the decisions of Vice President Dick Cheney and Florida Governor Jeb Bush not to run. So the 85 GOP insiders polled by the Journal had a tough decision deciding who has the best chance of capturing the 2008 GOP nomination. Their surprise choice was Virginia Senator George Allen, a former governor who likes to emulate Ronald Reagan's sunny conservatism. Factors cited in his strong showing were his ability to connect with the party's conservative primary voters and his hiring of campaign strategist Dick Wadhams, who helped engineer the defeat of Senator Tom Daschle last year.
Just behind Mr. Allen was Senator John McCain, who has much higher name ID but a maverick reputation among GOP primary voters. A little further back were Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. They were followed in descending order by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who made a surprisingly good showing.
On the Democratic side, no one would be shocked that the 90 Democrats surveyed by the National Journal's "insider" poll gave Senator Hillary Clinton more than twice as many votes as second-place finisher John Edwards. Virginia Gov. Mark Warner came in third, reflecting in part the fact that he was the only southern governor on the list. The last two Democratic presidents -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- both came out of the same talent pool.
After Mr. Warner, the insiders tabbed moderate Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana as the next most likely nominee. He was followed by 2004 nominee John Kerry, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, a 1988 presidential candidate who appears to be in the mood for a last hurrah. Last place in the Democratic field according to party insiders? Former Vice President Al Gore, now part-owner of a struggling cable channel. "He's down there with Mike Dukakis as someone you wouldn't want in your Rolodex," was the acid conclusion of one party official.
-- John Fund
________________________________________________________
The second source is from Patrick Ruffini's little poll he ran on the presidential primaires pitting Rudy vs Frist, Rudy vs Mccain and Rudy vs Allen. Check his site for the results.
I guess the issue here is that Allen could probably do well when its just republican primary voters but when its indies and dems voting he'll have trouble. (Kind of like mccain pulling his strength from open primaries).
Yes, I know the Dem nominee will be a certain female senator from my state, but she's sort of an exception, being the mega-celebrity and former first lady that she is.
Guess I'm looking at Mark Sanford, Bill Owens, and George Allen as being 3 of the better possibilities for '08.
I've heard lots of good things about Allen. I don't know that much about him, however. I'll have to track down some of his recent writing or speeches.
I like Allen. I can definitely get behind his candidacy if he's the nominee.
I'll likely be choosing between Allen and Pawlenty (maybe Frist) when 2007/8 rolls around.
He'd be good...
But my first choice is still DeLay!!!!!
THE HAMMER '08!!!!
Don't fret too much. Allen was a governor.
The one common theme running through it was that the kerry campaign was so disordered, Kerry team wasn't capable of coming to a consensus and always wanted to debate everything. This tends to be the problem of Senators is that they have problems governing since there used to being 1/100 instead of the guy on top. Allen nuetralizes this because he was a former governor and doesn't really fall into the typical senate role.
The second part of this is that if you look at when Senators have typically run, they've run in particularly bad situations and it wasnt always the fact they were a senator that they lost.
1960- Kennedy barely won but he was a likable candidate and did have solid convictions when it came to foreign policy, however we can argue that he really stole the election but lets not start that up again
1964 - Goldwater was running against in incumbent VP and took very unpopular positions at the time, it wasnt so much that he was a Senator that he lost but the fact that he went off saying he'd nuke the russians that got his ass kicked in the election.
1968 - VP vs former VP so this election doesn't really matter
1972 - You had a Senate Challenger vs a sitting President. Mcgovern's problem was that Nixon took the big wind out of his sails when he announced "peace" in our time since Mcggovern's big claim to fame was his anti war stance and that he'd start cutting back on defense. Not to mention nixon was a very strong candidate to start with
1976 - Governor vs President... n/a
1980 - Governor Vs President N/A
1984 - Governor vs VP/Senator N/A
1988 - Governor vs VP N/A
1992 - Governor Vs President N/A
1996 - President vs Senator. First off DOle was probably the worst candidate we've ever nominated to run and clinton was running during peacetime and prosperity. Dole lost because of what Senators typically do. Senators like dole compromise all the time and to most (and it has some basis in truth) it looked like Dole compromised on every important issue of the day.
2000 - VP vs Governor N/A
2004 - Senator vs President. Kerry once again lost because he tended to compromise on far too many issues and his campaign was in disarray.
The common theme here in recent history when it comes to Senators running is that they COMPROMISE far too much on issues that are important and it gets thrown back in their face. George Allen isnt guilty of this and hes been a governor so hes capable of running a good campaign and has strong convictions.
Thanks. Being from Iowa and an activist, we need to start seeing electable conservatives coming here. I could get behind Allen.
Andy, if you want some commentary on Allen i suggest you check out some of the Virginia Blogs. (VAConservative.com comes to mind as well as sic semper Tyranis http://sicsempertyrannis.blogspot.com/). As for Pawlenty i think the problem with Pawlenty that will come up in the primary is the fact that he snubbed the FDA to allow importation of Canadian Drugs.
If the Democrats continue with their morally challenged positions on gays, abortions and God removal, the GOP will win with anyone other than Rudi types who agree with the Democrats.
Well keep in mind if they nominate a (barf) 'centrist' ala Hillary and with the media in their back pocket that issue can become moot. We need to turn the 2008 campaign into another referendum on Conservatism vs Liberalism and we'll kick ass big time. The other plus i like about ALlen is that hes good at party building. He was head of the NRSC for 2004 and pick us up 4 seats. He was out there with rove recruiting and helping candidates. The only downside he had was Colorado and Illinois. The problem with colorado was more Senator Campbells fault for dropping out of the race at the last minute and the fact that Allen and Rove begged just about every candidate in Colorado to run but none were really interested and Coors seemed like an Ok alternative(but owens should have jumped in at this point and ran). And illinois we would have won had Jack Ryan's sexual drama not come out. Jack Ryan was a great candidate and would have beat Obama and Obama knew it. He was on his knees thanking god when he dropped out of the race and i fault the Illinois GOP for getting week kneed about Ryan after those allegations leaked. Heaven forbid a man have sex with his own wife, granted it was in a public arena but come now i dont think its quite scandal worthy.
Hes alot like reagan with his conservative message, and as much as i love reagan he wansn't the best when it came to winning Senate Seats and working on the Party building aspect, something Bush is great at and something i think Allen will be great at as well.
I'd like to know what he would do about SS reform and health costs, primarily.
I love Sanford too, if Allen and Sanford ran i'd be pretty torn. Both men are my two favorite candidates. The problem though with Sanford is 1) he has said he didnt want to run and 2) he may have a fundraising problem. While allen is still technically a "dark horse" he does have a substantial fundraising base and can get his name out there, something sanford does not. Then again Allen-Sanford would be my dream ticket.
Exactly, I think he'll give it a pass this time, though he's got a shot at VP. And I like his low-spending instincts but not some of his libertarian instincts.
18 former U.S. Representatives went on to become president, followed by 17 former Governors, 16 former state legislators and 15 former U.S. Senators.
Virginia, "the birthplace of presidents," has sent 8 of its sons to the White House- Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor and Wilson.
Four of Virginia's governors became President, three of her U.S. Representatives and two of her U.S. Senators.
One Virginian who made it to the White House, John Tyler, has something in common with George Allen. Both served as U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative and Virginia's Governor.
Allen - Steele 2008!
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.