(V) Is Hutchinson Insurance Against Hillary?

Some dominoes of Texas politics fell into place in the last few days or, more correctly, did not fall out of place as many thought they might.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson chose not to run against incumbent governor Rick Perry next year. She will instead run to keep her seat as a Republican in the U.S. Senate, a race she will almost certainly win. One of the reasons given is that Hutchinson is reaching a point of seniority and leadership in the Senate where she may be able to help Texas achieve some legislative perks.

I think there is another reason she decided (or was persuaded) to remain in the Senate. I think there's a chance she will be on the 2008 ticket if a few other things happen.

While Hutchinson is not an ideal Senator by conservative standards, she doesn't stick her neck out far from the party very often. She's a coalition type of politician, one who doesn't prefer to bludgeon her opponents with rhetoric but maintains a civil and reasonable tone. Her voting record is often more conservative than her speech. Her lifetime ACU voting score is 91, although she has scored an 84 in 2004 and a 75 in 2003.

In one sense, she embodies what irritates many conservatives about Republican senators, rarely criticizing or admonishing the excesses of Democrat tactics and rhetoric, choosing to make and keep friends on both sides of the aisle. She is proud of what she considers the "women's caucus" in the Senate made up of members on both sides.

In short, here is someone who comes across well, is not easy to demonize and cannot be easily pigeonholed as a rubber stamp, an extremist or an ideologue. These are reasons I think she has viability as a 2008 running mate.

This early in the race, it would be hard to predict who will be the Democrat nominee but the assumed frontrunner at this point is another member of Hutchinson's womens club, Hillary Rodham Clinton. No doubt many in the GOP do not want to see Mrs. Clinton going up against whoever comes out of the Republican convention with the nomination. They know the media will be solidly in her corner and believe she will return to the bloodsport days of stolen FBI files, secret committees and plans to convert us to one nationalwide government health care.

Should Mrs. Clinton win the nomination and the Republicans nominate a male, the GOP may crave a woman to "balance" the ticket and blunt some of the hysteria over a woman being at the top of the Democrat ticket.

Before going into where Sen. Hutchinson fits in, let's look at what other women might be called instead:

* Sec. Condoleezza Rice. The current Secretary of State and darling of some conservative groups, the biggest liability for Ms. Rice is that she has never run for political office. She would be a complete blank slate with regards to some political issues (particularly social ones). Being the first of her race on a major party ticket would steal some of the thunder from Hillary being the first of her gender to lead a major party ticket but could also lead to claims of "pandering" if she doesn't come across as a credible candidate. As John Edwards' recent campaign illustrated, a vice presidential nominee has to be able to assert themselves yet not upstage the top of the ticket. Any gaffe no matter how small will be blown out of proportion and the liberal attack machines will be in full force. We simply don't know how well Ms. Rice would hold up to this.

* Sen. Elizabeth Dole. There has not been a national Republican ticket in over 30 years that did not have a Bush or a Dole on it and, at first blush, some might think "Liddy" would be a more natural choice than Hutchinson. There are similar appeals. Dole is also something of a moderate Republican from a southern state. The major differences are tactical. While Mrs. Dole has the experience of her husband's campaigns, her term as Senator would be up for re-election in 2008 and the Governor's office is presently controlled by a Democrat, meaning that Republicans could lose that seat in more than one scenario should Sen. Dole be nominated for vice president.

* Gov. Linda Lingle. The Hawaii governor broke through in an impressive way to win in a state that votes heavily for Democrats. That shows promise but will Hawaiian values translate well to the heartland and will her presence on the ticket create a vacuum for GOP prospects in Hawaii?

* Sen's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. The pair of Maine senators would likely be considered too liberal for the party faithful, particularly after taking part in such party-angering exercises as the joining "the McCain Compromise" regarding Senate filibusters.

* Laura Bush or Lynne Cheney. While each has their fans both would likely be thought of as place holders for their more famous spouses. It would be charged that the women were figureheads for the husbands who are no longer able to run for the job.

There are probably a few other names that I have left out but these are the top women in the Republican Party who might be able to fill the 2008 ticket.

Mrs. Hutchinson has some qualities that might make her the most ideal woman the GOP has on their bench. A former cheerleader, she is not unattractive. She is not the spouse of a politician. She has waged and won three statewide campaigns in Texas and will win a fourth in 2006 now that she plans to seek re-election. She has survived a legal dogfight against Travis County (TX) District Attorney Ronnie Earle over alleged mishandling of funds while State Comptroller back in the 1990s so she knows how to stand up for herself. Her Senate seat will be safe if she is called upon yet loses a vice presidential bid until 2012. The Governor's office is presently in Republican hands and will likely stay that way so the GOP will probably retain that Senate seat were she to get the VP nomination and win. Her Senate record will likely be picked apart but it will be hard to find anything that stands out as so exclusionable that either party could use it to vilify her.

Whether Hutchinson has the desire or ambition for a national campaign would remain to be seen. She would be age 65 in 2008. I do believe, however, that she could be seen as "Hillary insurance" for a male GOP presidential nominee in 2008, particularly a northern candidate like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty.

Some things would need to happen for this to come about but they are fairly easily reached. If the GOP nominee is male. If the Democrat nominee is Mrs. Clinton. If Hutchinson retains her Senate seat in 2006. If the Republicans keep the Governor's mansion in 2006. Should any of those four things fail to happen, Hutchinson would not be a likely option. If all four happen though, I see it as a distinct posibility.

Sen. Hutchinson represents a relatively safe option to balance a ticket and blunt some of the buzz over a Clinton candidacy. She's a veteran campaigner from a safe state who establishment Republicans can certainly get behind.

Myself I will vote for Mrs. Clinton.

Dear Mr. 1997,

Please explain why you will vote that way.

Sincerely,

Mr. Not 1997

I think the Dems are bloodying up DeLay for fear he might run. He would be good. So will Newt but Newt is playing too cutsy with both sides of the street to suit me. However, he is brilliant and thinks these things through about three moves ahead.

There would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Left if either seriously ran. I don't think DeLay is charismatic enough for a national election. While Newt is (marginally), he has ticked off many on the right. The 1980-1995 Newt was much more supportable than the 1996-present Newt.

They what is ground out when unknown hack writers have too much time on their hands.

That unknown hack writer would be me (hence the "v" for "vanity" in the title). Just thinking a few steps ahead. And, yes, I have too much time on my hands. ;)

I really don't have any insight or knowledge to add, other than I think we can't have any real ideas for who might be the VP choice on the Republican side until we know who the top dog is going to be.

One exception to that-- if McCain is the nominee, I think it is likely that Graham will be his running mate.

But beyond that, I don't think we have seen enough from the others to know what direction they would go.

And since we don't know who the nominee will be, I don't think KBH is making decisions based on aiming for a VP nod. She'd have no reason to think she'd get it at this point.

I found your article to be disingenuous as KBH is mostly pro-abort, and you did not address that issue at all.

I'm also not sure why KBH would not be "pandering" if choosing Rice might be.

good post.

also, she's got all that money from the dallas-ft. worth metroplex behind her.

and, the only women will vote for hillary in the south are in university towns or graduates of feminist universities.

most women in texas despise hillary.

I think it is far more likely that Sen. Hutchison will run for the Governor of Texas in 2010 than be on any national ticket in 08. She'll win re-election to the senate and if she still wants to come back to Texas then I see a chance it will be via the Governoship. Granted Perry isn't term limited but I suspect he'll try something else after this term should he be elected again. jmo.

As an aside I don't think Hillary will be the democrat nominee in 08.

Time on your hands, you in my heart
Nothing but love in view
Then if you fall, once and for all
I'll see my dreams come true
Moments to spare
With someone you care
One love affair for two
And so with time on your hands
And you in my arms
I'll say I am sorry to you

(.....groan)

Leni

They would call Rice pandering to African-American votes (the flipside to calling the GOP the "White Christian Party"). As for her abortion views, how do they differ from Rice's?

There are many wonderful and talented people who would make excellent presidents but they either don't have the stomach for campaigning or they don't do it well enough to win. There are excellent campaigners who make lousy presidents. Bill Clinton is the star of that category.

Perhaps we should allow surrogate campaigners. The candidate would submit a detailed description of how he stands on all significant issues. This would be detailed and published so there could be no backtracking, flip flopping, or using weasel words.

Then each candidate would hire a charismatic campaigner to go out and sell him and his ideas. Press conferences and debates would have to conform strictly to the published positions of each candidate. Professional campaigners would be highly paid and would probably become like movie and rock stars, but they would never make any decisions or hold any offices. The smart people would do that.

And there you have your useless thought for the day.

As an aside I don't think Hillary will be the democrat nominee in 08.

I think if the New York Republicans get off their lazy behinds they could field a candidate to beat her in the Senate race... I don't believe the media polls and have not believed them since I cast the very first vote in my life for that Ronald "Ray-guns" fellow they were so upset about...

I think she'd be very good. She's a real "steel magnolia" type. She'd be good with Giuliani, who should have a come to Jesus moment and get right on various subjects, but unfortunately he's not going to.

Very good post. You're surely giving me something quite good to ponder. I am hoping Condi will be there...I'm an Alabama gal...living on the left coast and just am so proud of her. She's a star...so far. I really like Kay and believe she would for sure off set the HILDABEAST. Am keeping your post and plan to study it more. Just as a side note. I received a letter from Cindy McLame last week regarding a fundraiser for children in another country. Just seemed strange to me and then I'm in the airport today and low and behold there's John and Cindy on the front cover of Architectural Digest of all things. For get it...trying just a little to hard.

Her lifetime ACU voting score is 91, although she has scored an 84 in 2004 and a 75 in 2003.

Sounds like the onset of Alzheimers to me.

I don't we need to have a woman on the ticket just for the sake of having a woman. In fact, against Hillary, I'll go against convential wisdom and say that the best demographic candidate against her would be a Conservative Midwestern White Straight Man.

I'm not against a woman on the ticket, but I support it only if she is the best candidate for VP period. If the Presidential Nominee is a Yankee, a Texan may be a good balance.

the incessant vitriol of that repugnant troll Carole Keeton Strahorn Rylander

I was shocked and aghast when I read this post.

It should read "...Keeton McClellan Rylander Strahorn...."

I've thought about this some more and probably the worst thing the Republicans can do is act as if they are reacting to a Hillary candidacy - which is probably why they will do this. I'm learning that if you want to predict what the Republicans in Washington will do, expect them to do whatever is the most cowardly.

For Democrats, expect them to do whatever is the most political, no matter how blatant they are about it. They will always do/say the most political thing they could do. Never once will they put their country or their conscience above what advances their political position. For Republicans, it's always doing the safest thing for themselves, even if it means selling themselves out which they do time and again.

Karl Rove reminds me of the football coach whose team should be better by three touchdowns than his opponent and manages to win the game on a last-second field goal while he gets carried off the field and hailed as a genius. He's the Bill Belichick of political consultants. Yes, he wins but he makes it closer than it ought to be by playing too safe.

I'm not sure I understanding.

Look at how Cain ran in Georgia in the senate race there, or at the most recent Louisiana race for governor. Rice would be popular in the south, with lots of money and support publicly given, she would be treated well on campaign visits, and when the votes were counted, the democrats would have the electoral votes from South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama. I had hoped things had changed, but the recent races don't give me any basis for that hope.

I don't have to like it, you don't have to like it, but you ignore the underlying reality of southern politics at your own risk.

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.