Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rough Road: Republicans should be worried about their White House prospects for 2008.
Weekly Standard ^ | 9/28/05 | Fred Barnes

Posted on 09/28/2005 2:47:53 AM PDT by Crackingham

THE Presidential election of 2008 is a long way off, but Republicans better start worrying about it now. The 2006 midterm election? Republicans are likely to hold onto the Senate and House. But 2008 is another story. In the midst of a Republican era, Democrats stand a good chance of taking the White House then. Even Senator Hillary Clinton of New York--or perhaps I should say especially Hillary Clinton--has realistic prospects of winning.

What's the problem for Republicans? There are at least five of them. The field of Republican candidates is weak. Democrats will have an easier time than Republicans in duplicating their strong 2004 voter registration and turnout drive in 2008. Democrats, despite their drift to the left and persistent shrillness, barely trail Republicans at all in voter appeal. Besides, they may sober up ideologically in 2008. And the media, unless John McCain is the Republican nominee, will be more pro-Democratic than ever.

Let's look at each of these reasons briefly. The strongest potential Republican candidates are Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. None of them is running and Cheney and Rice are downright adamant about it. I've asked Cheney about 2008 on three separate occasions. He gives absolutely no indication of changing his decision not to run. And he says his health isn't the reason. He just doesn't want to be a candidate and won't do it, he insists, even if President Bush asks him to.

Rice is just as negative on the idea of seeking the presidency. And aides to Jeb Bush say he has no desire to run in 2008, but might consider it in 2012. Besides, he looks worn out after so many crises (hurricanes, Terri Schiavo, the 2000 recount) during his two terms.

That leaves the Republican party with a lesser field of candidates: McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Virginia Senator George Allen, and a few others. All of them have distinct handicaps. McCain's is that many Republican loathe him. Giuliani is a social liberal. Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level. Frist has a soft and blurred image.

The second reason for Republican anxiety about 2008 is organization. Democrats, with millions of dollars from limousine liberals such as George Soros, paid for thousands of campaign workers to sign up voters and get them to the polls. They produced a much larger Democratic turnout in 2004 than in 2000. Republicans used an army of 1.5 million volunteers to increase the Republican vote by even more. It was an enormous political feat.

But in 2008, there's a reasonably good chance Democrats will able to produce another great field operation. All they'll need is another infusion of money from rich liberals. But Republicans will have a harder time. The 2004 volunteers showed up because of their strong personal commitment to President Bush. Will so many volunteers work so hard for McCain or Allen or Giuliani or whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination in 2008? I doubt it.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona; US: Florida; US: Massachusetts; US: New York; US: Tennessee; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2008; allen2008; fredbarnes; georgeallen; gop; gop2008; hillary2008
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

1 posted on 09/28/2005 2:47:53 AM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
This guy thinks McCain is going to get my nomination?

No wonder he's disillusioned.

2 posted on 09/28/2005 2:52:03 AM PDT by RedBeaconNY (Vous parlez trop, mais vous ne dites rien.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBeaconNY

McShame? Never. He's a kook and a RINO.


3 posted on 09/28/2005 2:52:50 AM PDT by highlymotivated (If American ever falls, a STINKING LIBERAL will be behind it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Again, Fred Barnes has a firm understanding of the situation.


4 posted on 09/28/2005 2:54:11 AM PDT by yer gonna put yer eye out (Will quip for food...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Will so many volunteers work so hard for McCain or Allen or Giuliani or whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination in 2008? I doubt it.

Giuliani has sufficient name recognition and liberal enough politics to bring in lots of otherwise Rat voters, even without hard nosed campaigning. And that deeply saddens me.

5 posted on 09/28/2005 2:56:09 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

As the only antidote to the horror of Hillary, Condi WILL run (and win).


6 posted on 09/28/2005 3:00:44 AM PDT by omniscient
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
That leaves the Republican party with a lesser field of candidates: McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Virginia Senator George Allen, and a few others. All of them have distinct handicaps. McCain's is that many Republican loathe him. Giuliani is a social liberal. Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level. Frist has a soft and blurred image.

History shows that governors have better odds of getting into the Presidency than do other politicians. How does Barbour sound out on the issue? The press puns will be endless of course ("Hillary just had a close shave with Barbour").

7 posted on 09/28/2005 3:01:00 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBeaconNY
Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level.

He says that like it's a bad thing. I consider it a feature, not a bug. Easier to come in and clean house when you haven't become accustomed to the grime.

8 posted on 09/28/2005 3:06:28 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (What's taters, precious?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: omniscient
As the only antidote to the horror of Hillary, Condi WILL run (and win).

Just keep telling yourself that. She has baseball on her agenda.

9 posted on 09/28/2005 3:08:29 AM PDT by Jackknife ( "I bet after seeing us, George Washington would sue us for calling him 'father'." —Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

So how well known was George W. Bush in September 1997?


10 posted on 09/28/2005 3:11:34 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Congressional republicans seem to think they can just buy votes like democrats. Personally I'm prepared to vote for a democratic presidential candidate just to see an occasional veto.


11 posted on 09/28/2005 3:13:24 AM PDT by tcostell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level.

4 of our 5 last presidents had little to no experience on the national level of politics.

Beltway insiders rarely win elections, at least in recent times, case in point,  John Kerry, Algore, Walter Mondale, et al.

 

12 posted on 09/28/2005 3:14:11 AM PDT by RWR8189 ( Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcostell
That could work.

Of course, SCOTUS nominations could come from the 9th Circus, ACLU-approved.

13 posted on 09/28/2005 3:15:33 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (What's taters, precious?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

The first time my wife heard George W. Bush was thinking of running it was on the radio and we were in the car, and she turned to me and said she couldn't believe the old man was going to try and run for the presidency after Clinton beat him in 92, and then asked if he could serve one or two terms.

Most people had certaintly never heard of him.


14 posted on 09/28/2005 3:18:03 AM PDT by RWR8189 ( Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
This is such an "I got nuthin'" column, you wonder why Barnes bothered to write it.

The analysis is facile. The list is incomplete. And it's only 2005.

Just because Hillary! has been running for President since 1993 does not mean the Republicans should be following suit. The public will tire of The Beast long before 2008. No Republican wants to suffer a similar fate.

First things first. The 2006 mid-terms loom large. If the Donks want to expend all their time and money worrying about the next election, I say we let them. Further Republican gains in 2006 will make them even more shrill, more desperate, more beholden to the moonbat wing of the party, and push them farther from the main-stream. If somebody had said that George Bush was going to run for President in 1997, 99.9% of people would have wondered why Poppy was going to jump back into that meat-grinder at his advanced age. The only people who are thinking about 2008 now are the Clintonistas, but that will come back to haunt them.

The rough-and-tumble of the Primary process will select the next 'Pubbie candidate. Contrary to the MSM's belief, candidates who emerge from bruising primaries do much better than candidates who are "coronated". A contested primary is one long campaign commercial, with lots of free media and public interest. Sure it costs money, but it raises a lot of money too.

If a candidate wins the nomination early, there are months and months between the end of campaigning and the nominating conventions. Think of how John F'n Kerry languished between the time he sewed up the Democratic nod and the Donk convention in Boston. He was old news by July.

But the candidates who have done well in the last thirty years -- LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Dukakis (who did far better than he should have), Clinton, and George W. Bush -- all faced tough primary challenges that they beat back in the later stages. OTOH, candidates who had it sewed up early -- Ford, Mondale, GHWB, Dole, Kerry -- flamed out in the Fall. The one candidate in this group who actually won an election, GHWB, won on the strength of Reagan. All the other candidacies were completely devoid of interest and irreversibly stigmatized by the opposition campaign by the time the Fall campaign even got started.

The extreme example of this will be Hillary! 2008!!!. She will be such a known quantity by the Summer of 2008, she will be so negatively painted by all Republicans and the disaffected Donks as well, that nobody will even bother to give her a look. Meanwhile, the young and dynamic forces in the Democrat Party will be relegated to running for the VEEP spot on her losing ticket. It will have been 16 years since a genuine contender was allowed to emerge from the Donk field, and I don't think that party will benefit from the stagnation.

15 posted on 09/28/2005 3:18:52 AM PDT by gridlock (IF YOU'RE NOT CATCHING FLAK, YOU'RE NOT OVER THE TARGET...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

He has a point in that it'll take a good candidate to win in 2008. Bill Clinton won 2 terms because we ran 2 tired old men against him.


16 posted on 09/28/2005 3:19:39 AM PDT by libertylover (Liberal: A blatant liar who likes to spend other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

He speaks the truth.


17 posted on 09/28/2005 3:29:27 AM PDT by tkathy (Tyranny breeds terrorism. Freedom breeds peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

So the Republicans have a weak bench eh?
That must mean ipsofacto that the Dems have a powerhouse line up.
And just who are these giants the dems have lined up?


18 posted on 09/28/2005 3:31:54 AM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
So how well known was George W. Bush in September 1997?

About as well known as these two Republicans with lots of talent and good image: (former) Representative Christopher Cox and Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. Both should become more prominent.

19 posted on 09/28/2005 3:32:50 AM PDT by NetValue (No enemy has inflicted as much damage on America as liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NetValue
In 1977, Reagan was a parlor-room joke. In 1997, George W. Bush was a complete unknown. In 1965, Nixon was a disconsolate loser.

It's 2005! Why are we even talking about this!

20 posted on 09/28/2005 3:36:38 AM PDT by gridlock (IF YOU'RE NOT CATCHING FLAK, YOU'RE NOT OVER THE TARGET...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson