Charlie Cook: Fatal Flaws For 2008 Front-Runners?

National Journal ^ | November 23, 2005 | Charlie Cook

[George W. Bush]

Also if a Rice or Guiliani got elected President they would still be appointing federal & supreme court judges from a pool of candidates proposed (read vetted) by the GOP.

Like pro-abort Miers? We put our foot down or they would have stabbed us in the back again.

I have never understood the desire to let the 'perfect' be the enemy of 'good enough'. We got in this predicament incrementally and that is the only way we can successfully 'walk back the dog' !

I know these nostrums make liberal Republicans feel good but they're silly. Abortion-on-demand was introduced in one fell swoop. We'll get rid of it in largely the same way with perhaps a little intro music in a few cases. You can argue the merits of incrementalism on many issues but not on abortion. Or gay marriage.

If Rice or Guiliani are the Veep candidates then the 'religious rights' desire to sit out is even sillier !

No one, repeat, no one ever votes based on VP. At most, a VP can get you an extra 5% in their home state. If you're lucky.

If you are fervent in your antiabortion believes a Guilliani (or Rice) as President is at least going to allow you at the table to discuss your views.

If they are pro-abort and elected, they will move within one year to make the entire party apparatus pro-abortion. Just like the Dims. That's how it works.

Your place at the table will disappear the second the election is over.

BUT first you have to win or everything else is academic ! Of course one can whine & claim that you would be voting against your convictions. I say all you are doing is feeding your own ego,you would be basking in your own self-satified sense of moral superiority (Like liberals do !) BUT actually doing nothing concrete to advance your goals. (Again like many liberals do !) Sometimes one's convictions must take the long view and success doesn't have to occur in one's. lifetime. What is key is the direction that the cente-of-mass that the cultural takes and whether you are supporting candidates that keep the momentum going ! Self absorbed temper tantrums advance the enemies agenda not ours !

More bilge. See Encylopedia Brittanica under the entry Harriet Miers.

The Moonbat wing of the dummiecrats understand that key fact !

No they don't. And Republicans win across the board on many issues. Taxes, guns, defense and abortion. And those are all red-meat constitutiencies who won't back down. And the GOP still knows better than to challenge that in any serious way.

Let me break it gently: Guiliani and Rice will never be our candidates in '08. Nor will they be VP candidates. It would guarantee a GOP defeat.

[spintreebob]

Look at the pro-life run polls on pro-life sites mostly frequented by pro-life conservatives.

Consistently, Rice runs strongest. Consistently when Rice is out of the list, Rudy runs strongest. (When Rice is in the list, she takes most of Rudy's support plus significant support from every other candidate in the poll, including Brownback.)

The reality is that unlike the pro-abort faction most pro-lifers actually don't vote, especially in primaries (with Nov '94 the exception). The reality is that most voters, including more GOP primary voters are not single issue voters. They are pro-life. But it is not a litmus test for them. What is a litmus test for most voters is mean-spiritedness.

In 2002 IL primary pro-abortion Republican Woods was doing quite well in January, especially among the PTA moms (aka soccer moms). Then abortion extremists ran extremely strident pro-abortion TV ads. Immediately she lost half her support, especially from those PTA moms. she lost that support, not because of the position she took. But because her ads were so abrasive and rubbed people the wrong way.

The same was true of Keyes in 2004. A sympathetic reporter in Republican Bloomington IL asked Keyes "You were ambassador to the UN and have international experience. Tell us your views on Iraq and the international situation."

Keyes gave a hostile pro-life answer and did very poorly on election day.

The people on both extremes of the life issue do not realize that most people are neither truly pro nor anti-life. They want to avoid the issue, which makes them uncomfortable. They want to avoid any person who makes them uncomfortable in the way that he raises the issue.

[George W. Bush]

Look at the pro-life run polls on pro-life sites mostly frequented by pro-life conservatives. Consistently, Rice runs strongest. Consistently when Rice is out of the list, Rudy runs strongest. (When Rice is in the list, she takes most of Rudy's support plus significant support from every other candidate in the poll, including Brownback.)

If the GOP could dump the pro-lifers and win, we'd be dumped long ago. Certainly in '96 when Dole was openly expressing his disdain with us.

Your other points may have some validity but they're more anecdotal than comprehensive.

My central contention is remains that the GOP had better plan to win without the pro-lifers if they run a Guiliani or a Rice. If it's Guiliani, they can forget the pro-famiily (largely the same as pro-lifers) and the pro-gunners too.

Go ahead and dismiss the despised single-issue voters. But we ain't goin' nowhere. Just ask Justice Miers.

[Reily]

Still hung up on Miers ! Amazing !

I view the Miers nomination as Bush rewarding a loyal hardworking supporter. Now tell me thats not done in politics ! Also there is a long history of putting supporters on the USSC. I am unconvinced putting some legal academic or long serving federal judge is any better then a long time supporter.Miers probably would have been a average to above average justice. (Though I think there were better candidates !)
I supported the Mier nomination on the principal of never showing weakness in front of the enemy ! Showing division was just plain stupid ! It boosted dumbocrat morale and gave them energy. When you have the enemy down stomp him !

Also Miers had corporate legal experience, which in the long run would probably be interesting to have a business-oriented legal view on the court. (It would unique to have someone on the USSC bench who doesn't think environmentalists are automatic saints & businessmen are automatically evil!) The only way we can pull out the hammer & smash Roe Vs Wade is when we get 55-60 ironclad votes in the Senate. We are not there by any means ! I don't think the electorate is there in their thinking to elect that majority. You cite polls, polls can prove anything if you ask the questions right & bias your sample. The only poll that matters is election day. Right now I don't see the proof of your statement about wide spread support. If such an electorate existed that was opposed to Rose vs Wade in the numbers you say exist, then why did we almost have to learn to say President Gore or even President Kerry. I still see us at the tipping point in regards to the electorate. (Yes in both 2000 & 2004 there was considerable Dumbocrat fraud !< However lets not blow it out of proportion. There are still many 'stateists' & 'rent-seekers' out there !) It will take time and be a processing of persuading the electorate.

But you can remain pure if you want and demand an all or nothing approach. I think if the GOP tries that we will lose all. We as a nation will then be worse off on all counts. However you will be pure & that is all thats matters.

[George W. Bush]

I view the Miers nomination as Bush rewarding a loyal hardworking supporter. Now tell me thats not done in politics ! Also there is a long history of putting supporters on the USSC.

True enough. But the Left has placed very persuasive scholars on that Court and stacked so many precedents that wee cannot afford to place another weak-minded justice within their reach (Souter, Kennedy). If we succeed in remaking the Court, it will again become routine for presidents to place cronies on the Court if they are not from their home state.

When you have the enemy down stomp him !

We did. And unless she serves as an unswerving originalist judge on the federal bench first, we won't have to worry about her again. In fact, I think Miers should be appointed to the federal bench. I'd be happy to write my senators.

(It would unique to have someone on the USSC bench who doesn't think environmentalists are automatic saints & businessmen are automatically evil!)

I assume you mean the enviro-wacko business-hating justices like Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito?

The only way we can pull out the hammer & smash Roe Vs Wade is when we get 55-60 ironclad votes in the Senate.

We will get Alito after the Left fleeces its supporters of some cash. (That's a good thing in an election year.) And after we get one more justice, we won't have to worry.

But you can remain pure if you want and demand an all or nothing approach.

If they insist on a pro-abortion candidate, they know what a lot of their voters will do. Stay home. Or deliberately vote for a Dim to ensure that the GOP cannot win by stabbing them in the back by going pro-choice after leading us down the garden path for so many years. A pro-abortion nominee is one of the very few things that could make me personally consider voting for a Dim to deliberately defeat the pro-abortion GOP candidate. Where I live, Dims simply cannot be elected as true pro-choicers. And that's why. The only Dim elected statewide in the last decade was one who sponsored parental notification legislation and was soft on supporting abortion rights. And he's still on shaky ground and isn't trusted much.

I believe the GOP knows far better than you (or I) how to count pro-life votes. They would have dumped the pro-lifers long ago if it didn't mean an absolute disaster at the ballot box. I entertain no delusions that the GOP is loyal to any of its supporters. They aren't even particularly loyal to their big business interests who complain that they won't stay bought on a particular issue.

I think there are millions of very hard-nosed pro-lifers out there. You can go vote for any pro-abortion candidates you like. But I don't think you'll like the results: President Hillary.

[Reily]

Obviously you didn't read my post very well or you wouldn't have made this statement

"If they insist on a pro-abortion candidate, they know what a lot of their voters will do"

I only insist on fielding & supporting winning candidates. I am unconvinced there is any evidence their is enough pro-life support at the national level to do anymore then another coin-flip (ergo 2000 & 2004). In the midst of the war on terror and don't think we can afford another 'national walk-about-in-dream-land' with another democrat administration. The potential for another terror attack increases since I guarantee that a democrat administration will be all conciliation & kisses. National security will go back to be something to be 'snickered' when mentioned by the democrat administration beautiful people.

[carlo3b]

Dear Charlie Cook, and all other media representatives;
Please pay attention.. Let me see if I can make this as clear as possible.. Senator John McCain well never get past the GOP primaries, never, EVER! Got it?

Let it go, McCain stands a better chance getting the Democrat Presidential nod than becoming a Republican candidate for any national office! Thanks for your attention.. :)

[George W. Bush]

The party's platform is pro-life. It would have to be changed to allow a pro-abortion candidate for president. That's when you'd see many portions of the party disintegrate.

I only insist on fielding & supporting winning candidates. I am unconvinced there is any evidence their is enough pro-life support at the national level to do anymore then another coin-flip (ergo 2000 & 2004).

You get a pro-abortion Republican and you can kiss many states goodbye. The pro-lifers will not vote for a pro-abortion president. So you'd better figure out where you get your replacement voters. Hint: you won't get any from the hardcore Dim constituencies (blacks, Jews, eastern liberal types). And the independents will not necessarily respond to either position, being mostly like you, someone who doesn't care about abortion that much either way.

In the midst of the war on terror and don't think we can afford another 'national walk-about-in-dream-land' with another democrat administration.

We're already there. The ports are unguarded, the southern border wide open. Until very recently, those who swore to defend the Republic refused to even consider closing the border and finding out who is here and expelling the illegals, preferring instead to lecture us on the Sacred Rule Of Law and pass law after law to monitor everyone and destroy the last vestiges of genuine privacy.

The potential for another terror attack increases since I guarantee that a democrat administration will be all conciliation & kisses. National security will go back to be something to be 'snickered' when mentioned by the democrat administration beautiful people.

Forty million dead children. But you prefer to worry about a mere 3,000. You would have to wipe out the entire state of California and all its residents to equal the number of children this country has already killed.

I live in flyover country. So I don't lose any sleep over your dreaded terror attack. The liberal states are the prime targets, after all. A terror attack might actually improve their voting habits and prod our glorious leaders to take effective action. I consider that the vast expansion of federalism, the LBJ-style spending, the destruction of Christian values, infanticide, sodomy marriage, empire building, globalism, political correctness, crimes and the hidden costs of the invasion of illegal aliens, etc. to be far graver threats than a mere terror attack.

You're deluded if you think anyone is actually protecting you from terrorism in any significant way. There are plenty of remedies to the problems if there was any interest. But the ruling classes aren't interested.

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

"Secretaries of Defense or State? Yikes. The Dims got nobody to fill the jobs."

Yeah, they do! They have Janet Reno!

[George W. Bush]

How about Jocelyn Elders? There's a name that will cause flashbacks to many veteran FReepers.

[George W. Bush]

Haley Barbour would be a good pick and could win against McCain and Hilary.

I once thought Barbour a little too slick, too Beltway. But getting out of D.C. did him good. And meetinging Katrina up close probably helped his perspective quite a bit on the things that are important and the things that aren't.

I'd be interested in a Barbour run. Provided he's willing to campaign as a conservative. His record as governor has been very promising.

[Reily]

Again you didn't read my post !
I am simply saying that allowing a dumbocrat administration to be elected because you won't support Guillani or a Rice on the ticket is destructive in the long run to the values you claim to be for. I will say it again even though I doubt you will read it. (you had two previous tries!) I am pro-life BUT the goal will only be met in the long-run. Demanding instant gratification of those goals will mean they will never be reached. I argue that you are actually pro-choice since the result of your approach will be the same as those who are pro-choice.

Also about the statement that you live in fly-over country therefore you are safe. Yes you are safe for now. Put in a democrat administration & that will change. Regarding the ports & borders, the ports aren't as wide open as you think. The borders are still a problem. The problem there is too many GOP supporters & democrat supporters benefit from the cheap illegal labor. I think the tide in attitude is turning there. How will a democrat administration effect that, do you really believe a Hillary administration will improve that? Democrats need a restive underclass to feed tax dollars to and derive power from. So I don't see a border solution from a democrat administration. With enough pressure we will get one from the GOP continuing to control the executive branch. The executive makes policy, & enforces it. Thats why maintaining control of the legislative branch is not enough.
In your previous post, you seem to insinuate that the 'War on Terror' is some sort of PR ploy for beltway types. At best a minor irritation to fly-over country' but not a real war. True it doesn't map well to past modern wars, thats because there has not been a draft, an effort to go on a war industrial footing, etc. Also there has not been a Wake Island, Fall of the Phillipines, Java Sea, & Kasserine Pass, that is a series of military disasters to keep attention focused on the task. Just like WW2 was a war different from previous wars this war is radically different from all previous wars. Currently its not a war of massed armies, mass production, or one of attrition (Trading your soldiers lives for those of the enemy, hopefully they run out first ! Think Grant in the Wilderness,the Russian Front in WW2 & the Allied strategy in Europe. It works if you have more men & material!) This is a war of intelligence, small unit actions by highly trained special troops, also one of patience. Do you really think that a democrat administration will pursue such a strategy? Democrats think its all law enforcement (I think democrats think actual law enforcement functions like CSI or Law & Order. Sometimes I think the whole nation watches too much TV and hence thinks everything is solvable in 45 minutes!) Back to the subject at hand, law enforcement has a role in the WOT, but a subordinate role. Will a democrat administration strengthen tools for fighting WOT or weaken them. I think the answer is obvious. I don't like to think about this next statement because its too cold-blooded for my tastes, but maybe another successful terrorist attack is necessary to refocus attention.(Also military disasters clear out the 'Colonel Blimps' both on the military & civilian level. Our sucesses in the WOT hasn't allowed that to happen!) I am amazed we haven't had another significant attack. Simply on the basis of human nature[meaning humans no matter how well intended eventually make mistakes], odds [terrorist.. try enough times eventually there will be a success). I think the Iraq conflict is one of the reasons we haven't seen one. It draws the Islamofascists there to be killed by the military. I would much rather have terrorists challenging our military then our local police. A democrat administration will claim that terror is a diplomatic (meaning bleating at the UN) and a law enforcement problem. Has the Bush administration been perfect in the strategy or its execution on WOT? No far from it ! However no major attacks on our soil (so far!)a foreign policy that is has gotten Muslim nations on board to fight it also. (Some are fully on board, some fitfully, some superficially but the momentum is in the right direction!) What would a democrat administration do? Again the answer is obvious.
Also another period of 'national weakness' will embolden others, for example China ! A conflict with China will start out subtle and could easily ratchet up to a familiar conflict of massed armies. Again would a democrat administration prepare the nation for that conflict? Again and obvious answer !

{Democrats = National Weakness ! Its not even arguable ! It
almost mathematical in its accuracy!)

Again staying home on election day just to make a anti-abotion point about the ticket will not only make sure your goals are never met it will send the US further down the road to national collapse, strategically, militarily, economically as well as morally. A short term point in order to have some smug sense of moral self-satisfaction will not meet any of the desired goals.

[spintreebob]

My point was that on the conservative web sites that attract social conservatives, Rudy is doing extremely well... much better than the social conservative candidates.

This shows that most pro-lifers (like me) are not single issue voters. Most voters, regardless of their personal ideology, end up voting for the candidate that they feel most comfortable voting for and voting against the candidate that makes them feel uncomfortable.

In the mid-Iraq and post-Katrin months, "leadership" makes people feel comfortable. Lack of leadership made them feel uncomfortable. Things may change by 2006, or 2008. Economic issues or who knows what may be the comfort zone of the moment.

Sometimes it is just a quirk of pop culture that reinforces and brings out one of our mixed feelings. In fall of '88 the song constantly playing the radio was "Don't worry. Be happy".

[George W. Bush]

My point was that on the conservative web sites that attract social conservatives, Rudy is doing extremely well... much better than the social conservative candidates.

Polls this early mean nothing more than name recognition. And many of those polling might like what they know of Rudy in what he did for New York but most of them don't know where he stands on abortion or sodomy marriage.

Rudy and Condi will not be on the '08 ticket. Both are far too liberal on social policy, foreign policy and fiscal policy. In short, they're not conservative by any measure most of FR's readers would use. They're not terribly conservative even by Dim party standards.

[BransonRevival]

What do you think of Mike Pence?

[JSDude1]

I second the Mike Pence nomination! :-D!