Posted on 12/27/2007 4:54:38 AM PST by Kaslin
The end of the year is always a treacherous time for columnists, for we know that our readers expect us to tell them what is going to happen next year. And not unreasonably -- after all, we specialize in forecasts. But year-end prognostications are particularly likely to be remembered, since they tend to be sweeping.
So I have decided to limit my risk by concentrating on one particular set of events that is sure to happen (one way or another) in 2008: The presidential nominations of the two major parties, and the outcome of the general election in November. You are free to tear out this column and hold me responsible for my blunders one year from now. Those who live by the sword must expect to die by it.
Take the Democrats first. Just now there are two major contenders for the nomination -- Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- and one somewhat more remote possibility, John Edwards. The winner, it is important to remember, will be determined by the outcome of the various presidential primaries, and not by the polls that are so ubiquitous these days. On that basis, my money is still on Hillary. It is true that Obama has been narrowing her lead in state after state (according to those polls), and that part of this is owing to her own rather cold personality. But the flip side of that coin is that nobody seriously disputes her basic competence. She has the kind of fortitude and determination that are among the first requirements in a president.
Obama is a more attractive personality, and the fact that he is black is a plus in a candidate for the Democratic nomination. His problem is that he is relatively inexperienced (he only entered the Senate, his first federal office, in 2005) and looks it. The American people would have no problem at all electing a black president (Colin Powell would have made it look downright easy), but they aren't likely to abandon all other criteria in order to do so. And Obama simply needs more seasoning.
Under these circumstances, the Democrats simply don't need John Edwards -- which is in many ways a pity, since he is an attractive candidate. They will therefore, I conclude, opt for Hillary.
As for the Republicans, the race is practically a free-for-all. John McCain has staged a bit of a comeback recently, but hardly enough to make him the front-runner. Right now that title belongs to Rudy Giuliani, who has surprised me by his staying-power. Mitt Romney, however, is a formidable rival, with fewer rough edges than Giuliani. Conservative Republicans were allegedly dissatisfied with all of these choices, and that ought to have been a golden opportunity for Fred Thompson, whose conservative credentials are gilt-edged. But it hasn't proved to be one -- probably because he is simply too laid-back to try hard enough. All in all, therefore, I tend to think that Romney will get the GOP's eventual nod.
And where would that leave the outcome in November -- Hillary Clinton versus Mitt Romney? Here I must confess that, important as personalities are, I believe the chief factor in 2008 is likely to be the cyclical tug of war between the parties. In 2008, the Republicans will have held the White House for eight years, and controlled Congress for all but the last two of those eight. They have embroiled the country in a military venture in the Middle East that may well have been necessary, but that not even the most resolutely optimistic Republican could call popular. The economy is doing reasonably well, but there is no sign that voters credit Republican policies for this. Finally, neither Romney nor any other likely Republican nominee generates the kind of electricity that constitutes a winning argument on its own.
So I am inclined to think that the voters will yield to the instinct that tells them it's time for a change. Give the other guy (or gal) a chance.
Of course, unexpected events could render this calculation invalid. Another terrorist attack, along the lines of 9/11 or worse, occurring next September or October, could send the voters scurrying back to Republican protection from foreign foes. But failing that, it looks like "Madam President" to me.
She Who Must Not Be Named, in a walk.
But the flip side of that coin is that nobody seriously disputes her basic competence.
LOL! The guy’s a comedian.
Here’s my prognostication:
Democrat: Hillary or Obama. Both are weak candidates creating a probable Republican victory.
Republican: No winner going into the convention. The South and Texas will not give their votes to a Mormon from Massachussets so Romney would need essentially 75% of all other states to get the nomination. A few wins for Guilianni, Huckabee and Thompson outside the South will scuttle Romney’s chances.
I have to agree with the analysis and since Republicans are not in a compromising mood they will be the main factor in Hillary’s election. If we stood together we could defeat her but we won’t. In fact some Republicans actually think it would be better to elect Hillary over a “RINO” because then the country will see the error of their ways and come back to conservatism. They cite the 1994 Congress as their example. I don’t buy it. Times have changed and so has the population. Further, the ‘94 Congress didn’t last for very long and was outlasted by the Clintons despite even impeachment.
I don’t think that Romney is a player because of his conservatism. If he weren’t sitting on top of a personal fortune, if he had the resources of a Duncan Hunter, then he’d be at the back of the pack, too.
Thompson and Hunter are not hampered by desire. They’re hampered by cash. Who thinks they would not be running ads, appearing everywhere, organizing, etc., if they had the money to do so?
Giuliani and McCain both have enormous access to the media, and both have significant war chests.
At this point in time, after the endorsement of McCain in NH and the outing of Romney by the Manchester newspaper, I’d say that McCain is formidable.
I will never vote for Rudy for any reason in any election. Romney’s anti-life, pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-gun control positions have me close to saying the same thing about him.
Agreed. I'm done "crossing my fingers" and hoping that I will be pleasantly surprised by a candidate when everything about them suggests otherwise.
Both of your posts have convinced me that I’m correct. Hillary will win and Republicans will help her.
Really? Did Rusher suffer a blow to the head of some sort?
I dispute her "basic competence."
In fact I wonder if Rusher might list what he feels have been Hillary's top three accomplishments. Okay. Maybe he doesn't have to list three. What was her biggest accomplishment? Was it turning a thousand dollars into a hundred grand in the commodities market? Was it the great string of legal triumphs while she was at Rose? Is it never having been indicted? What?
ML/NJ
It will be worse for conservatism to have a liberal, anti-life, anti-family, anti-gun Republican win than to have Hillary win.
Such a win by a republican will teach the media that a strong, early media campaign to elevate the name of a liberal will always give them a choice between a liberal republican or a liberal democrat. That would be a win-win for them.
A radical socialist win by a Giuliani would pave the way for the destruction of conservatism in America.
Here’s the republicans I will take over Rudy/Romney/Huckabee:
Thompson, Hunter
I could hold my nose and vote for McCain because of his lifelong pro-life position, his lifelong support for a strong defense, his commitment to winning the war on terror, and the personal price he has paid which proves his defense positions.
The only person in the race with equally extensive foreign policy experience than McCain is Hunter.
Giuliani and Romney have zilch.
Thompson has his years as a senator, and that’s a plus for him in foreign policy matters.
The mantra is not “elect the democrat.”
The mantra is do not elect Giuliani by any means, and we’re just about to the same point with Romney and Huckabee, too.
That leaves Hunter, Thompson, McCain, and Keyes.
Thompson and McCain are the leaders of that group.
Huckabee would be better than a democrat, but I honestly don’t consider him to be electable. (The same with Giuliani, btw.)
Romney is unfathomable. His flip/flops make it impossible to determine what he’d do. That’s why he is so dangerous. He floats with the wind.
I’m surprised you give McCain so much of a pass.
Hillary qwll crush Obama, won’t even be close unless you listen to the media who are hoping and praying for a “race”, but it’s already over on the Dem side.
For the GOP, Rootie is still and has been the overwhelming favorite - that has not changed with the huckster and Mclame enjoying their 15 days of fame. The only person standing in the way of a Rudy Guiliani nomination is Mitt romney, we’ll see what happens but it’s uphill for Mitt.
I could hold my nose and vote for McCain because of his lifelong pro-life position, his lifelong support for a strong defense, his commitment to winning the war on terror, and the personal price he has paid which proves his defense positions.
The only person in the race with equally extensive foreign policy experience than McCain is Hunter.
I agree with you on CFR. I also agree that his recent conversion on illegals is suspect. If he were sincere about it, he’d be fighting in the Senate to get the Fence funded and finished.
I disagree with you about conservative judges. He did not prevent their being appointed. In fact, his actions probably made the appointments of Roberts and Alito possible.
His intent was to preserve the filibustering option for republicans when we were in the minority. I still disagree with filibustering judges, but now that the Dems have the majority in the Senate and a small chance of winning the presidency, we might as well use the filibuster, too.
Rudy is simply out of the question. He is not even worth discussing. He would be a disastrous win for the Democrats. Hillary could run against Giuliani as the “clean” candidate. That’s how dirty Giuliani is. And we’ve not even gotten to talking about his radical liberalism.
Romney is such a flip-flopper that no one knows what he believes. Just the other day, he came out again IN FAVOR OF the gay agenda.
That’s why I’m looking at the record and no longer listening to what these men are saying in recent months.
Romney’s record is as an extremely liberal Rino.
I will vote for any of the three you mentioned if they can win the nomination. I’m more interested in what they say they want to do in the future. I’ve seen how “records” are twisted all the time by the other campaigns. I also know that what works in cities or liberal states is not what necessarily works for the country as a whole and I’m convinced the “RINOs” know that too. Yeah, maybe I’m just fooling myself and I’m humble enough to admit that may be the case. I’m not too worried about it as I know I would be very, very unhappy with the Democrats in control. Like I said, I have fewer “out of the question” candidates than you do.
By the way, do you think when we filibuster the Democratic judges that the Democrats will hesitate to use the “nuclear”...er...”constitutional” option? I don’t for a second. This time I bet McCain doesn’t step forward to make nice-nice and prevent the Democrats from getting their way.
I will vote for the others but will think long and hard about it before I do.
I'm almost to the point of doing a write-in vote. I'm that disillusioned with the VAST majority of the Republican candidates.
I think there will be pragmatic democrats just as there were pragmatic republicans, and they wouldn’t want to lose that filibuster.
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.