Posted on 08/29/2005 7:05:35 PM PDT by RWR8189
For 10 years, American politics has been sharply polarized, with just about equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats arrayed angrily against each other. We have come to think of this as a permanent condition. Yet by the next presidential election, that may very well change. The reason: The leading candidates for both parties' 2008 nominations are in significant tension with their parties' bases -- and, in some cases, outright opposition.
This is most clearly the case on the Republican side. The consistent leaders in 2008 polls are John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani. Of the two, Giuliani is most sharply out of line with the cultural conservatives who have been the dominant force in Republican primaries and provided a large share of the Republican majorities racked up in 2002 and 2004.
Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion, opposes the partial-birth abortion ban and opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. McCain's differences with the Republican right are more subtle. He has consistently opposed abortion rights, but doesn't seem comfortable talking about the issue. He has taken the lead on campaign finance regulation and on Kyoto-like responses to climate change, in opposition to most of his Republican colleagues. At a critical point in the 2000 campaign, he made a point of denouncing evangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
As for the Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton is in significant ways out of sync with the Bush-hating left. She voted for the Iraq war resolution and for all the appropriations to fight the war, and she has shown no sign of apologizing for these stands. She spoke approvingly of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council at its most recent meeting -- and got attacked in the left-wing blog Daily Kos for it. From time to time, she has issued sharp partisan attacks on the Bush administration, but she has been careful to distance herself from Michael Moore- or Cindy Sheehan-type rhetoric. You will not catch her calling George W. Bush a maniac or a war criminal.
Of course, none of these three candidates has his or her party's nomination sewed up. But Clinton has to be regarded as the clear favorite in the Democratic race, and not only because over the last 40 years Democrats have won only when they've nominated candidates whose last names begin with C.
And while cultural conservatives clearly had veto power over Republican nominations from 1980 to 2000, it's not clear to me that that's the case any more. McCain and Giuliani enjoy great respect among Republican primary voters as strong leaders. Both supported George W. Bush wholeheartedly in 2004 and are in great favor with the Bush White House today. Potential opponents more in line with Bush's stands on issues, such as Sens. Bill Frist and George Allen, start off much less well known and have not been as visibly tested as McCain was in Vietnam and Giuliani was on Sept. 11.
Conservative radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, speaking to Republican women in conservative Temecula, Calif., found that most favored Giuliani, despite his positions on cultural issues. When he asked why, one said: "All that doesn't matter if we are attacked. Rudy will keep us safe." Republican blogger Patrick Ruffini's late-August poll of more than 10,000 readers showed Giuliani far in front of the nearest competitor, Allen.
A McCain or Giuliani nomination has the potential to change the regional alignments that have mostly prevailed since the election of 1996, in both directions. Either would almost certainly run better than George W. Bush in the vast suburban tracts of once marginal states like New Jersey and Illinois. But they might fail to draw the huge turnout of cultural conservatives that Bush did in the non-metropolitan reaches of states like Ohio and Missouri.
The 2004 election was a battle for turnout, which Republicans won: John Kerry's vote was up 16 percent from Al Gore's, while Bush's vote in 2004 was up 23 percent from 2000. If it's not clear whether McCain or Giuliani could duplicate the right-wing turnout for Bush, it's also not clear whether Clinton could duplicate the left-wing turnout in 2004, which was motivated mostly by hatred of Bush.
We have gotten into the habit of complaining about our polarized politics. Well, complain now, because it may change soon.
© Copyright 2005 US News & World Report
Distributed by Creators Syndicate
They just won't get enough votes.
Frankly, I don't think Rudy OR McCain has a snowball's chance of the nomination, much less the office. And with so long to go for alternatives to present themselves, there's no need to pick which one of them is the lesser evil.
Thereby opening the door for Michigan congressman, John Conyers.
Run, John. Run!
We have to pray that a conservative wins the nomination.
It seems that way to me.
Something I hadn't thought about, but one of my friends did.
If Rudy, McCain, and Romney all run, aren't they just going to split the moderate votes apart anyway and (for effects and purposes) get totally blown out by the 3rd primary?
It'll be interesting to see who might pop up. Two years before the 2000 election, was anyone thinking seriously about George W. Bush being the candidate? My recollection is that he kind of came out of nowhere (on the other hand, I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention back then).
I wonder what sort of brain damage is necessary to think McCain has a shot at the GOP nomination... the Democrat one, maybe.
Duers would love Conyers.
Somebody should start a rumor...
Bingo. Neither can win the nomination. The conservative core won't have them. Neither can win the election, because conservatives would stay home.
Bush was picked as a front runner early in 1998. His Texas re-election landslide sealed it with the party leaders who were looking for a winner.
It got tribal in the late 60's and it will be so until her tribe and mine retire to a bitter senescence. Their highest moment came in 1975 when the tanks rolled south from the North Vietnamese border. They thought B.J. Clinton was it until 1994 when they got the props kicked out from under their arrogance and they've been playing out a losing hand ever since. Kerry was a perfect ball-carrier for this bunch and a perfect loser.
I think She is a real problem. She'll have the media She's always had and the dirt they dug up from the FBI files and she'll offer every Hollywood pinhead who wants 15 more minutes of fame a chance to bounce on the bed in the Lincoln bedroom. It's a greasy, squalid, unsavory team, but they bulled their way into the White House once and they're determined to do it again. And it may be their last chance.
Neither would win because Hillary would play them like a drum. Hillary must be salivating to run against McCain. She would slaughter him.
Nicely said, BTD.
(steely)
Barone is fooling himself if he thinks either mcpain (media) Az or the guy who will be "Rudy who?" by then will be the nomimee. It will be George Allen. This will be true because neither of the first too will be able to get out of the GOP primary system and both are smart enough to know they would not win as either a rat or an Indy.
The ticket will be Allen/Blackwell.
Never discount Barone's observations.
Neither McCain nor Guliani (especailly Guliani) could get the turn out that Bush got.
I mean who is going to make all the phone calls and knock on all the door for the GOTV effort? Country clubbers?
No their maids will be doing that job.
Jokes on them. The house staff is all Democrats.
Like the old joke goes:
Why are there Rockefeller Republicans?
Because they don't want to be in the same party as the help.
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.