|
|
Posted on 02/20/2007 5:37:09 AM PST by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON – Morris Udall. Dick Gephardt. John Kasich. Bob Dornan. Jack Kemp. James Garfield. Dennis Kucinich.
What these gentlemen have in common – other than having all served in the House of Representatives – is that each ran for the White House while he was still a congressman. Only one of them made it.
|
And he got shot.
Now that Duncan Hunter has taken the plunge for the Republican presidential nomination official, the Alpine congressman may soon encounter the peculiar challenges that face a sitting House member who wants to be president.
“Many House members feel the urge (to run) in spite of their public invisibility, lack of national stature and limited access to campaign funds,” said Thomas Mann, a presidential campaign scholar at the Brookings Institution. “History suggests they should resist.”
Be certain that Hunter, a former House Armed Services Committee chairman, has thought of all this. But he's betting that his conservative stands on defense matters, international trade and border enforcement will distinguish him from other Republican candidates now hogging the headlines, including a Sept. 11 hero (former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani) and a war hero (Arizona Sen. John McCain).
Plenty of sitting House members have aimed for the Oval office, some more successfully than others.
Morris Udall, the Democratic congressman from Arizona, may have run the most credible campaign in recent decades: He narrowly lost to Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential primaries. Experts attribute his success in part to his stature in the House, his famous sense of humor and his engaging, self-deprecating manner.
“He didn't come across as either arrogant or as a lightweight,” said David Rhode, a political science professor at Duke University. “He was a skilled politician, but he wasn't too full of himself. With just a little more luck, he might have been president.”
Having clout in the House offers no guarantee. Most people have probably heard of Richard Gephardt, the former House Democratic leader who tried twice to win his party's nomination. He was widely respected in Congress, had strong ties to key party constituencies and performed well in debates, but lost the nominations in 1988 and 2004.
The only sitting House member ever to win the presidency was James Garfield. Back in 1880, he was the Republican leader of the House, in a day when candidates were chosen within the party. Garfield became the dark-horse candidate when the Republican convention became deadlocked, and he won the White House in 1881.
Two months after his inauguration, he was assassinated by a disgruntled lawyer in a Washington, D.C., train station. Since Garfield's time, the nominating process has become public and the financial demands are enormous, requiring candidates to lure early “seed” money that might give their campaigns stature. While Hunter raised more than $1 million for each of his last two congressional campaigns, being little known outside his district will make it difficult to attract the $50 million to $100 million each presidential candidate may need to be a serious contender.
“Money is very important in the year before the primary, because it's used to judge the viability of a candidate,” said Stephen Wayne, a presidential scholar at Georgetown University. “He's going to have a tough time, because financial backers like to get behind people who have a chance.”
John Anderson, an Illinois congressman who ran for the Republican nomination in 1980, was in a situation that resembles Hunter's, experts say. But although only a third-tier candidate, he ran second to George Bush Sr. in the Massachusetts primary and second to Ronald Reagan in Vermont. Overnight, he became a household name, though he could not maintain his momentum in later primary states. In the general election, he ran as an independent against Reagan and then-President Jimmy Carter, taking 7 percent of the national vote.
Anderson's presidential campaign spokesman, Mark Bisnow, attributed Anderson's initial success to the campaign's media focus in early-voting states and to worry among conservatives about Reagan's movie-actor status.
“Even though he was one of the most respected congressmen of his day, a person of towering integrity, as articulate as they come and very moderate, nobody knew him outside Washington,” said Bisnow, who wrote a book about the campaign titled “Diary of a Dark Horse.”
“All the attention was showered on the people who were already well-known.”
The list of House members who sought the presidency goes on. There was Jack Kemp, the New York Republican winnowed out during early primary voting in 1988; Bob Dornan, the Orange County Republican who made a brief bid for the nomination in 1994; John Kasich, the Ohio Republican who faced a dozen primary candidates in 2000; and Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who placed far behind in almost all primary states in 2004.
Kucinich is running again and he believes national stature will matter less in the 2008 election than in the past.
“This goes beyond your rank in the political firmament,” he said. “This election is going to be about the war, and anyone who wants to be president will have to explain why they voted for the war.”
One thing that dark horses have going for them is that no one expects them to do well. It helps, Wayne said, if such a candidate “can do something in the beginning – like raising lots of money or performing well in New Hampshire or Iowa – something that makes the media and activists say, 'Wow, this person has really surprised us.' ”
“It happened with Jimmy Carter,” Wayne said. “And it happened with Bill Clinton.”
I've posed a question to Rudy supporters on a couple of threads, and out of only three replies, only one has even made a half-hearted attempt to address the question. Rather than answer it, they tried to alter the premise. I'll give it another shot for you to take a stab at if you're game.
The conventional wisdom is that Republicans lost their majorities last November because of the Iraq war/WOT. Many Rudy supporters say that us conservatives should overlook his socially liberal positions and support him anyway because he's "right on the war," and that's the most important consideration at this time. If his candidacy is anticipated to draw crossover votes from the left, how is that likely to happen if he's perceived as being in step with the party they voted out of power over the issue?
HEY! i saw that you little sneak :-)
That post made me lmao!
I hope he does too:)
Well, I'm waiting for the clean laundry
::taps foot impatiently::
;)
Hey, its all good:-)
Never said anyone was denegrating his service, didnt even think it. Its just a curious thing. Something the msm does often with Hunter.
HAH! Im holding them for ransom.
=loads machine with calpernias whites, holds red hand towel over washer=
PAY up or the socks git it!!!
ROFL!
No, I can't wear pink! I'll be accused of being a Rudy supporter!
People know we are at war against a species of barbarians that want to kill us at any opportunity. Giuliani articulates, and he is the only one electable on the Republican side who can so articulate, that we must fight that enemy constantly.
Bush is seen as a failure who is inarticulate and over his head. For many reasons, including Katrina.
Iraq is not seen as crucial to the "war on terror" because of how it has played out and it is generally perceived that Bush has botched the effort. Republicans will lose as long as the party is perceived as the Party on Bush's path.
Giuliani is uniquely positioned to remind Americans that we are in danger and he is capable of keeping us safe.
Americans still care most about security when electing a President. Giuliani's reputation allows the American people to put their faith in him, and hopefully his Party, - forgetting Bush's missteps.
Bwahahahaha!
=socks scream out in agnony as they are torchered with the damp red cloth=
Okay, okay, wouldnt want you to be accused of being a rudy supporter;)
=slides cleaned and happy laundry back to calpernia=
Off to the docs!
Your constitutional quote does not refer to Illegal immigration as states were assumed to be capable of doing that themselves. It was speaking of MILITARY invasion. States were so jealous of the federal government that it army was tiny and incapable of guarding any borders. State militias were the military powers in 1787.
People know we are at war against a species of barbarians that want to kill us at any opportunity. Giuliani articulates
I don't agree. I believe if they truly understood that, they wouldn't have fallen for the vacuous arguments of the left that were used to remove the Republican majorities. Just look at all the leftist events and programs intended to help us "understand" Islam.
and he is the only one electable on the Republican side who can so articulate, that we must fight that enemy constantly.
Well, for one thing, your use of the term "electable" is highly presumptuous, and frankly is at the very heart of the question I posed. If the people are not convinced of the threat, and they are convinced by their own party's talking heads that Giuliani takes the same position (whether true or not) as those they voted against, then I don't see him as electable.
I do agree with you that it is important for our candidate to be able to effectively articulate what we're up against and an effective strategy for it. I would reject the notion that Giuliani is the only candidate who can do this. In fact, I would say that Duncan Hunter is the MOST capable of doing this, given his military experience and prior position as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He can answer in far more detailed ways than any other candidate. You seem reasonable enough that I think you would agree on this point, so we come back to the presupposition that he is not "electable" as a reason you would not support him.
Bush is seen as a failure who is inarticulate and over his head. For many reasons, including Katrina.
Agreed. This is the perception, however inaccurate it may be in one area or another. This reinforces my point that it will not matter if Rudy has some strategic differences with Bush or Republicans in general on the war. He will be painted by the left as being part of the same "machine" because he supports it at all.
Iraq is not seen as crucial to the "war on terror" because of how it has played out and it is generally perceived that Bush has botched the effort. Republicans will lose as long as the party is perceived as the Party on Bush's path.
I agree only in terms of what we agree is the perception. However, the obstacle we face is that any and all effective means of waging the war in Iraq or the WOT are seen by the left as American bullying, intolerance, colonialism, trampling of personal liberties, etc. Consequently, there is no credible approach to the war that won't be painted as being "on Bush's path." I don't see how Rudy can portray himself as strong on the WOT without drawing the same fire. I simply think we have to accept that the hardcore left is going to wage the same battle against any Republican nominee. In my view, Hunter has the best means to deflect their assaults and counter-attack than any other candidate.
Giuliani is uniquely positioned to remind Americans that we are in danger and he is capable of keeping us safe.
In terms of his having been mayor of NYC on 9/11 and its aftermath, I agree about his unique position. However, I don't see this as overcoming the arguments that will be brought against his candidacy; especially to the extent that the left has watered down the significance of the WOT, and turned the finger of blame around to point at us.
Americans still care most about security when electing a President.
I simply don't know what you base that statement on. Unless they are convinced of the threat, they won't care. And if they were convinced, we'd have had a different result in November, and we'd be seeing much different poll numbers for Bush at the moment. They have to be made to care, and I believe that takes someone who's credentials go beyond simply having been in the place of having to clean up the mess from an attack. I don't mean that statement to minimize the challenges Giuliani faced in doing so, and I respect the work that he did in that regard. I just don't believe it translates into the perception of a fully-informed, pro-active Commander-in-Chief assigned to protect the entire nation from subsequent attacks.
Again, thanks for the response.
"I suspect you haven't been around long enough to recognize the media's games." LOL, I have understood its games for 40 years and am probably older than you. "They would like to destroy the conservative movement and the Republican Party." Of course, it would and the last thing it wanted to do was give Bush and Giuliani any publicity on 9/10 but after 911 it had no choice.
Newsmakers are not newsmakers merely because the media wants them to be but sometimes are DESPITE what the media wants. Giuliani it considered politically dead after a decade of attacks for his job as mayor when he refused to kowtow to it and regularly kicked its ass.
Giuliani's current popularity is because of his ability to communicate and that is what will carry him to the White House.
Americans would have to be dumb and blind to not appreciate the threats. I have more faith in Americans. The far Left crazies are irrelevant.
The Problem is that the country does not trust Bush's competence.
A prime example to prove my point is Lieberman. He beat the Left. He beat the Democrats. He is pro war but was not perceived, rightfully, as tied to Bush.
No particular argument there, but given how close we came to having Gore and Kerry as President, it's pretty obvious that there is an enormous dumbed down and deliberately blind contingent.
I have more faith in Americans. The far Left crazies are irrelevant.
Again I refer you to the last two Presidential elections.
The Problem is that the country does not trust Bush's competence.
A prime example to prove my point is Lieberman. He beat the Left. He beat the Democrats. He is pro war but was not perceived, rightfully, as tied to Bush.
But I don't think he could have done it if (a) he didn't have a long history of respected service in the Democrat party, including a place as Gore's running mate; and (b) he had actually gone as far as become a Republican. Consequently, I don't think Lieberman proves much of anything; not to mention the fact that you're not talking about a national race. You're talking about him being re-elected by the same people who had already elected him numerous times.
Actually, it looks like Super Tuesday is going to moved up to February 5 this year, if California and Texas follow through with their plans to move their primaries to that date. Essentially, the nomination could be locked up two weeks after the Iowa Caucus.
What that means is there is no time for the 2 per centers to build any momentum and fundraising after a nice showing in Iowa or New Hampshire. They already have to be campaigning and spending the big bucks in expensive media markets prior to that.
Usually, presidential candidates win their homestates and states that border their homestates, in primaries. Tommy Thompson will probably run and win the Iowa caucus, since Iowa borders his state, Wisconsin. Romney will win the NH primary. If Gingrich runs, he will probably win the SC primary.
On Feb. 5, primaries will be held in AL, AR, AZ, CA, MO, NM, NC, ND, OK, TX, UT, and WV. Hunter will win CA. McCain will win AZ. Paul will win TX. Brownback will win MO. In the middle of Feb., at least seven candidates will have delegates.
Well you were complaining about politicians having egos.
Your attempt to compare Duncan Hunter's honorable service in Vietnam to John Kerry's treason is despicable.
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.
