Well my first choice was Jeb Bush but W has destroyed the Bush name. Then Allen until he macaca'd himself out of existence. Now, I lean towards either Romney or Giuliani. I could live with McCain. All three could win the general election. Hunter as no more chance than Dennis Kucinich. If Hunter gets to 25% in the polls, then maybe youve got a one in a lifetime deal. But when you are one percent in the polls, if that, dont tell me the media and Dems are very afraid. It just undercuts your argument.
And dont assume that being Committee Chairman gives you brownie points with the public. Committee chairmen, especially those with R's behind their names are not in very good esteem among the public. They are viewed as synonomous with the failed Republican congress that just got the boot.
Being a vet carries A LOT of weight with the public. Notice how the Demonrats parade Webb out all the time! And Kerry tried to play the 'hero' role until his treason was exposed by the Swift Vets. And Hunter's chairmanship will show that he was MORE than a 'backbencher' in Congress. He is in a leadership role and especially on defense issues. Hunter is also an outstanding communicator.
Okay, here's the deal, to cut through multiple back-and-forths and go straight to the core.
First of all, a lot of time is being wasted on the threat of Hillary and Obama. The biggest danger is a Bill Richardson ticket, especially if he pulls Obama in for the VP slot. Any ticket with Hillary is unlikely, because (a) on top of existing negatives she already carries in the minds of many voters from both sides of the political spectrum, more are likely to be emphasized during the primary races, tainting her in the eyes of the less fanatical Democrats and weakening her support; (b) I think the party itself will recognize her as a loose cannon, and undermine her candidacy; and (c) in addition to her ego not allowing her to accept a VP slot (especially behind a rookie like Obama; and let's not forget the documented Clinton racism), no Democrat who rises to the top will be willing to have her behind him with a knife in her hand. Richardson, on the other hand, has been getting a lot of positive press, and truth has established a reputation for being a good governor in New Mexico. Add his Hispanic heritage, and he gives the Dems that first-minority-in-the-White-House moral victory.
So then it becomes a question of what sort of candidate can beat that. It won't be easy, but you certainly won't beat it with a candidate who is 75% in line with the Democrat platform. The appeal across party lines believed to be embodied by Giuliani, McCain and Romney will be trumped by the desire of Dems (and their sympathizers) to make history by electing a Hispanic to the Presidency, and possibly a black man for VP. What would be the incentive for anyone left of center to vote for a "moderate" Republican under those circumstances? Absolutely nothing. The "moderate" Republican could perhaps have taken previous elections. He will not take this one. The dynamics have changed too much. And this is all without even considering the prospect of some conservatives not turning out to vote because of dissatisfaction with the nominee. That would only make the defeat worse.
Granted, it will be a tough campaign for a rock-solid conservative, as well, but at least then you've got more of an evident contrast and choice to present to the public. However, it will be critically important for the candidate to clarify that choice, and its consequences, at every opportunity. Taking the "high ground" of waging a nice, friendly campaign by avoiding clashes over the importance of the differences will surely lose the election. The friendly approach almost cost Bush both elections. Just running a conservative won't be enough, but running a "moderate" will most certainly be too little.
And I say all this without needing to denigrate any of the perceived GOP frontrunners on any sort of personal level. They simply don't offer anything to attract crossover voters, and they will surely not have universal Republican support.
So now we come to the question of who the best candidate is to carry the conservative banner.
I think Tancredo would be a good choice; however, his national name recognition at this point is with a failed campaign, and (rightly or wrongly) immigration is the only issue he's widely associated with. The MSM have tarred him a bit, but not so much that it couldn't be overcome if he were to make a strong showing in other respects.
Ron Paul I simply don't know enough about. To the extent that national name recognition is an issue, he seems to be at a very real disadvantage. Coming from Bush's home state will certainly not help him with crossover voters.
Mike Huckabee - again, rightly or wrongly - will carry baggage from the fact that his background is as Arkansas Governor. Too many bad associations of that office with Clinton, I believe; in addition to a general suspicion of historical governmental corruption in that state.
Sam Brownback seems to be a reasonably good candidate; however, what would in other circumstances be a strength in such an election, will on balance be a weakness in this one. His positions on free trade and immigration would likely appeal to crossover voters; however, they will alienate some of the conservative base. Add to that, again, the fact that voters won't have to cross over from the left to have a candidate with those positions, leaves a net loss of support.
I was never so impressed by a politician - even counting Reagan, to be honest - as I was when Newt Gingrich first addressed the incoming Congress after the '94 election. I became an instant fan of the way he was able to articulate the issues and goals ahead. Then, like many others, I felt he let us down in a huge way with his personal behavior that led to his removal from the Speaker's chair; and if there's one distinction I draw between Republicans and Democrats, it's that we are willing to clean our own house (no pun intended). We don't sell our souls to keep in power the likes of Clinton, Rostenkowski, Barney Frank, et. al. We will repudiate those who bring disgrace to the party. Consequently, despite his admittedly top-notch intellect and eloquence, I can't justify supporting him for a run even in the VP slot. Aside from my personal views, however (shared by many in the party), the MSM has already turned his name into a pejorative in the minds of many whose votes we would need to capture the White House. I just don't see him overcoming that negative name recognition.
So now we come to the candidate that I'm supporting, Duncan Hunter. Only the most uninformed and/or irrational Freepers have challenged his credentials as a conservative, so I'll focus on other reasons that he allegedly "can't win."
He's a Congressman, and only one President in history has ever been elected from a seat in the House. True enough. But no woman, black man, or Hispanic has EVER been elected; yet that prospect is very real, and is the fundamental reason why we're debating these details. Just quoting history is useless if you are unwilling or unable to understand it. There are reasons why Congress hasn't historically produced presidents, and there are reasons why those reasons aren't relevant to this election.
The only argument of substance that has been made against Hunter's candidacy is his lack of executive experience. Fine, I'll acknowledge that experience as a mayor, governor, or even corporate head would be a great addition to his resume. However, it is extremely foolish to think that experience will trump position on the issues in this election. Also, if you're going to cite history as an important factor on the one hand, you need to acknowledge it on the other, as well. Consider the various presidents whose backgrounds have been simply as Senators, ambassadors, cabinet members or war heroes.
Regarding the name recognition issue, there's still plenty of time for Hunter to make himself known. Consider how well known Carter, Clinton, and Bush were known this far ahead of their respective elections. I remember at this stage prior to the 2000 election, I was saying, "So why all this business about George W. Bush? So he's the former president's son? Why does that automatically make him the favorite?" Many things can change between now and then. Surrendering to Hillary early and letting the MSM pick our nominee for us is foolish to begin with, and will be especially so if she ends up not being on the ticket and it's too late to modify the strategy.
Finally, here's why I believe Hunter has a solid shot, and it comes down to math. There are essentially two mindsets in play here. There's the most-important-thing-is-beating-Hillary-whatever-it-takes idea; a position I find ultimately a bit like the notion of eliminating crime by making everything legal. You've simply tried to define the problem out of existence. What possible good does it do for the party to win the election, if along the way we shed everything that defines the party and are left with only a name tag?
Then there's the mindset of those who will only support a solid conservative. I admit to being one of those who would likely vote for Giuliani, Romney or even McCain if it comes down to that in the general election. I just don't think it's ordained from on-high that it will necessarily be that way. And I have to say that, while there seem to be a good number of solid conservatives like me who are willing to vote that way, I don't see any indication of that same flexibility in the "Hunter can't win" camp who sometimes even go so far as to say "He'd be great, but..." If there's a shred of sincerity in that, I'd expect the person to vote for Hunter in the primary and then see where the chips fall. But I have yet to see a posting from anyone saying "I don't think he can ultimately win, but I'll vote for him in the primary." That's a contrary view I'd respect.
So it appears as if there are two mini-conventions shaping up during the primaries. One will choose a preferred "moderate" candidate; and the other will choose a solidly conservative one. Acknowledging the limitations of using FR as a microcosm for the party, I nevertheless don't see much support here for McCain, so it seems to me that the group favoring a "moderate" will be split mostly between Giuliani and Romney. That means that Hunter's real competition is among the other conservative candidates. If he can top them, and especially as they begin to drop out of the race, that leaves the possibility that later primaries could come down to a essentially a three-way between Giuliani, Romney and Hunter, with Hunter collecting a solid conservative vote while Giuliani and Romney have to split the "moderate" vote, probably fairly evenly. I'm not so sure that formula will readily hand either of them the nomination.
Yes, I fully recognize that it's an uphill battle with many challenges. But I completely reject those who think they have it all figured out this far ahead of time. I also admire a saying, though I don't know who the originator of it was: "It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't know what you can't do."
Okay, I've got a full day ahead and can't devote time to individual debates. Dave S, Cold Heat and the rest of you will just have to absorb this and argue it with those who agree with me.
Cheers.
DH4WH
See my post #406