Rough Road: Republicans should be worried about their White House prospects for 2008.

Weekly Standard ^ | 9/28/05 | Fred Barnes

[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.

[kcbob]

The 2004 volunteers showed up because of their strong personal commitment to President Bush.

Count me as one of these, I voted Catholic and Not Kerry because of W's pro-life position. In 2008 if the Republicans and Democrats both have a pro-choice nominee I may have to hold my nose but I'll probably still vote Republican for other reasons, but I will NOT be a phone bank, church captain, precinct captain, or a 72 hour volunteer. Count me out!!

[gridlock]

If you don't like that I don't want to tow the party line you can take your opinion and shove it.

I agree that the Republicans haven't been everything we want them to be, but they are better than the Democrats on almost every issue. On issues, such as illegal immigration, where the Donks are making better noises, they are faking it. There is no way on God's Green Earth the Donks are going to do anything about illegal immigration.

The one thing that really sets them apart, though, is the War on Terror. On this, there is no comparison. And on this, I am pretty much a one-issue voter.

My hope is that the Republicans finally realize that border control, fiscal discipline and a conservative Supreme Court are necessary components of a successful War on Terror, and unite behind these issues. Then I will be a truly happy camper.

Until then, I pull the (R) with some regret. But I still pull the (R).

[Coldwater Creek]

Everyone does not like Rudy. He would never get the conservative christian vote. NEVER!!!!!!!!!

[gridlock]

Pretty sorry state right now. The democrats best hope is a narcissistic, socialistic felon that has wanton lust for power and absolutely no credentials or experience for the office she/it seeks.

I'm sorry, could you be more specific? That barely narrows down the field...

[Echo Talon]

They certainly don't give a damn about my concerns on immigration

Yea, and voting for Hillary is going to fix this problem. /s

[dufekin]

What about Governors Rick Perry (R-TX), Haley Barbour (R-MS), or Mark Sanford (R-SC)? I know that Bill Owens (R-CO) seems to have family issues. Don Siegleman (R-AL) favors higher taxes. Jeb Bush (R-FL) is too closely related to former governor George W. Bush (R-TX). I haven't heard all that much stellar about Sonny Purdue (R-GA). Roy Blunt (R-MO) seems attractive. Has anyone asked Secretary of Agriculture [former governor] Mike Johanns (R-NE)? Or former governor Frank Keating (R-OK)?

How about General Tommy Franks? Or any of the other generals running the war on terrorism? C'mon, folks, we've got to have a candidate!

[Prophet in the wilderness]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420497/posts

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I think many of us are frustrated and disappointed that the Republicans are not living up to what we voted them into office for, but, still ?
Republicans not doing their job is better than having Hillary Clinton become President.....

that should be a sobering reminder if anything.


Yes, I am disappointed that they are not doing anything about the immigration issue, or our open borders, or spending more they what they should, but, we will have to look at what could happen to this country if Hillary and the Democrats get back into power, and believe me, it will get even worse.

[sgtbono2002]

The media keeps trying to push McCain down our throats--wishful thinking I guess.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

What about Margaret Thatcher if she was younger, and a born US citizen ?

[tcostell]

Well putting Hillary in charge doesn't put the Democrats back in power. In other words, while I agree with you in principle I'm not sure that it makes that big a difference in practice.

Lets think for a minute:

If Hillary is in charge she'll be proposing things like punitive taxes for the rich, wholesale accommodation of terrorists domestically and overseas, dramatic retreat from support of our allies and appeasement of our enemies, banning of all Christian ideals from public discourse and wholesale intrusion of the government into the private lives of every American. While I can't get behind any of that, I also don't imagine the congress will either. What will inevitably happen is that the congress will be forced to act out of idealism for conservative principles as an offset to her shrill brand of socialism.

In short, they will do to her what they did to her husband, they will shove conservative reforms down her throat and let her take credit for it, just like Newt did with welfare reform etc.

Personally I think it's the only way we will ever see any principled behavior from republicans, and to get that, I'm willing to roll the dice. I voted for Bush twice and he's turned out to be a loser for conservative ideals, maybe going the other way is worth a shot.

[tcostell]

Oh and one more thing... remember ... this is a Clinton we're talking about. She may have ideas about how to change the country but when the poll numbers come in and indicate that her marxist embrace du jour is unpopular she'll turn on a dime.

In the end I think it's a better bet than Bush has been.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

" The 2004 volunteers showed up because of their strong personal commitment to President Bush. " .............
Part of that is true, however ?
You had the Amish come out in droves to vote for President Bush because of the " SAVE MARRIAGE AS A MAN AND A WOMAN " issue, and they came out to defeat John Kerry just for that reason.
Another reason people came out to vote for President Bush was ? they did not see John Kerry as a person to be trusted, and they could not trust John Kerry to continue the war on terror or national security.
We need to still make those 2 issues even in 2008, the WOT and the SAVE MARRAIGE issue.
Many other voters came out to vote because they did not want to see John Kerry as President, and his traitorous actions during the Vietnam war, and after the war.
Yes, there were many who came out to vote for President Bush who were loyal to him, but, there were those main issues that brought many people out to vote.

[conservativecorner]

"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."

I think he's wrong on several counts, but this is way off base. Does he really think that conservatives will stay away when you have the Hildabeast as the demoncratic nominee? I'm backing Allen at this point, but it's still early in the game.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Ain't that the truth.

[Coldwater Creek]

NOPE! Just rake a look at Gov. Blanco, and how she reacted in an emergency. Women deal with crises with their emotions.

[LS]

I continue to maintain that we have not yet "seen" the GOP nominee; that it will be some "dark horse"; that it will HAVE to be someone VERY strong on immigration.

To me, this is the elephant in the room that addresses terrorism and judicial activism as well as economic and cultural issues. It has, IMHO, become much more important than "pro-life" for the mainstream GOP voter, and will be THE issue of 2008. ANY candidate, Dem or Republican, who gets on the right side of this and explains it clearly and forcefully will win.

[wolfcreek]

I smell something burning!

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I have a great article for you to read about George Washington.
Not only did he have to endure the cold winter of 1777-1778, BUT ???? he had to deal with traitorous fractions by some on Congress AND ?? from those who had their OWN agenda from over seas.
It's worth it to read it.
I don't know what conclusions you would get from it, but, in spite of how you feel about the current situation in the Republican party, and our Republican leaders, I ask you, and many others here to persevere, like George Washington did, and don't give up on the cause.
I take it, that you are a Christian ?

If this link don't work, I'll send it in a separate post.

In 2008, my vote is going to George Allen of Virgina.


http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/holidays/july4/winter.htm

[Prophet in the wilderness]

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/holidays/july4/winter.htm