Posted on 10/05/2006 1:41:42 PM PDT by Drew McKissick
At this point, the pending 2008 Republican nomination contest looks like it will eventually be a battle between two candidates: John McCain and the “anti-McCain”.
To some degree, McCain still has some work to do in locking up his end of the party, such as it is. He’s still being stalked by Rudi Giuliani, who keeps popping up right along with McCain at or near the top of early GOP horse race polls. The problem for McCain is that they both seem to be fishing in the same pond, so he will have to nail down his left flank before he can look to his right, which is where the vast majority of Republican primary voters are. But given that, it’s a virtual certainty – as sure as his ego is large – that McCain will be one of two serious contenders left standing by the time the primaries and caucuses are in full swing.
The real contest will be the “anti-McCain” primary – the preliminary battle among conservative candidates to convince the party base that they can 1) beat McCain and 2) beat the Democrats in the general election.
The list of candidates in the anti-McCain primary is large and growing. There’s Virginia Senator George Allen, (who must first win re-election this fall), Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, (who currently chairs the Republican Governor’s Association), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, (who would certainly make any debate more interesting), New York Governor George Pataki, Congressman Mike Pence and Congressman Tom Tancredo, (of anti-amnesty fame), just to name a few.
That list is no doubt overly exhaustive, and the mere march of time as well as pending events will trim it considerably.
For example, the South Carolina Republican Party will host the first nationally televised GOP presidential candidate’s debate in May of 2007, just five days prior to its state convention which will feature a presidential straw poll of the delegates. This will provide an early glimpse of candidate strength with a representative sample of the party base, and the people most likely to do the work in the coming campaigns. The Iowa GOP and a few other states will likely follow suite with other straw polls later in the year.
Then there’s the contest for staff, and there are only so many good local operatives in early primary and caucus states to go around. Some hires are already being made, but this will pick up in earnest when the 2006 elections are over next month, as the candidates will officially “come out of the closet”. For now, most people are being less anxious than the candidates as they try to evaluate who has the best chance of becoming the “anti-McCain” alternative.
Lastly, there’s the money primary. In short, given a frontloaded calendar with so many early caucuses and primaries, any candidate who hasn’t been able to raise about twenty million or so by Christmas of 2007 is probably wasting their time and will begin to hemorrhage support. Those that have money towards the fall will begin to attract still more money and volunteer support like a magnet.
Given these realities, who is the likely anti-McCain winner? Early money would be put on Allen (assuming he wins re-election) and Romney. Both can raise money, have large networks and appeal to the base on the issues. Not to say someone else wouldn’t sneak in, but it would be difficult.
Allen’s a solid conservative, with a record that’s acceptable to pretty much any element of the party. He’s a popular former governor, with a large network of support including other governors. Recently, former Bush advisor and national Republican Chairman Ed Gillespie signed on as Allen’s finance chairman for his political action committee, (the precursor to any presidential bid).
Romney also has good national connections and fundraising ability as well, in addition to good positioning on the issues. And yes, he’s Mormon, but there are questions as to whether it is actually proving to be the negative many pundits suggested it would only months ago. And don’t underestimate what some Republicans would overlook in exchange for beating McCain.
So how does it all play out? Despite continued references to Republican’s historical deference to candidates whose “turn” it is, McCain will not have an easy time. Any such benefit he may receive is offset by his repeated offenses against the party base on issues like campaign finance reform, judicial nominees, immigration, the Federal Marriage Amendment and, most recently, treatment of terrorist detainees. Not to mention his record of less than flattering statements regarding some conservatives.
From a tactical standpoint, he’ll find the state primary landscape more difficult this time, as some state GOP organizations, such as Michigan and South Carolina, are moving to keep Democrats from voting in their primaries. This would be unlike in 2000 when McCain benefited greatly from crossover voting.
A successful anti-McCain candidate will unify the social, religious and fiscal conservative elements of the party. And the quicker one of them stands alone against McCain, the better off they will be.
Like the second amendment? Or maybe homosexual congresscritters' e-mails?
The GOP is not going with a candidate who dresses up like a girl in 2008 unless it is a girl...
2000: Bush II (despite McCain scare)
2008: Bush III (despite McCain scare)
The left is more afraid of Jeb Bush than anyone.
If Jeb runs, he wins the GOP primary with 90% of the Republican vote...
2000: Bush II (despite McCain scare)
2008: Bush III (despite McCain scare)
The left is more afraid of Jeb Bush than anyone.
If Jeb runs, he wins the GOP primary with 90% of the Republican vote...
Dashwood old man, I think he's the strongest candidate the Republicans can field but questions about monarchial dynasties would not be without merit. He makes it a lot more palatable because he's a heck of a nice guy err good politician.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1714797/posts
Read this thread and tell me Condi will get conservative support.
Another Clinton would not be?
If it comes to Bush family values vs. Clinton family values, who wins?
They would be totally without merit... we ELECT presidents...
If I ended up with a primary election where the only choices were Rice and McCain (ugh), I guess I'd have to hold my nose and select pro-life, anti-affirmation action McCain over the pro-abortion, pro-affirmation action Condi Rice.
What a sucky election that would be.
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.