here
Posted on 09/28/2005 2:47:53 AM PDT by Crackingham
THE Presidential election of 2008 is a long way off, but Republicans better start worrying about it now. The 2006 midterm election? Republicans are likely to hold onto the Senate and House. But 2008 is another story. In the midst of a Republican era, Democrats stand a good chance of taking the White House then. Even Senator Hillary Clinton of New York--or perhaps I should say especially Hillary Clinton--has realistic prospects of winning.
What's the problem for Republicans? There are at least five of them. The field of Republican candidates is weak. Democrats will have an easier time than Republicans in duplicating their strong 2004 voter registration and turnout drive in 2008. Democrats, despite their drift to the left and persistent shrillness, barely trail Republicans at all in voter appeal. Besides, they may sober up ideologically in 2008. And the media, unless John McCain is the Republican nominee, will be more pro-Democratic than ever.
Let's look at each of these reasons briefly. The strongest potential Republican candidates are Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. None of them is running and Cheney and Rice are downright adamant about it. I've asked Cheney about 2008 on three separate occasions. He gives absolutely no indication of changing his decision not to run. And he says his health isn't the reason. He just doesn't want to be a candidate and won't do it, he insists, even if President Bush asks him to.
Rice is just as negative on the idea of seeking the presidency. And aides to Jeb Bush say he has no desire to run in 2008, but might consider it in 2012. Besides, he looks worn out after so many crises (hurricanes, Terri Schiavo, the 2000 recount) during his two terms.
That leaves the Republican party with a lesser field of candidates: McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Virginia Senator George Allen, and a few others. All of them have distinct handicaps. McCain's is that many Republican loathe him. Giuliani is a social liberal. Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level. Frist has a soft and blurred image.
The second reason for Republican anxiety about 2008 is organization. Democrats, with millions of dollars from limousine liberals such as George Soros, paid for thousands of campaign workers to sign up voters and get them to the polls. They produced a much larger Democratic turnout in 2004 than in 2000. Republicans used an army of 1.5 million volunteers to increase the Republican vote by even more. It was an enormous political feat.
But in 2008, there's a reasonably good chance Democrats will able to produce another great field operation. All they'll need is another infusion of money from rich liberals. But Republicans will have a harder time. The 2004 volunteers showed up because of their strong personal commitment to President Bush. Will so many volunteers work so hard for McCain or Allen or Giuliani or whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination in 2008? I doubt it.
In 1990, did anybody outside of Arkansas know who the heck Bill Clinton was, except as the guy who gave the worst nominating speech ever at the 1988 Democratic convention?
The Rats had a "weak" field in 1992, and look what happened.
}:-)4
You sound like that rat that was carrying that sign the other day that said he was a disgusted Republican. But, all his political donations were to liberals.
Virginia Senator George Allen deserves a close look. Will need a female vp IMHO.
"This is such an "I got nuthin'" column, you wonder why Barnes bothered to write it."
You have hit the nail on the head with that statement.
Hillary? I've seen a number of 'Dean/Obama 2008' stickers around Vermont over the past few months.
And the media,------, will be more pro-Democratic than ever.
LOL! Sorry, that's just not possible unless they come right out and announce they are the prpoganda arm of the Dem party.
Giuliani?
Bill Clinton was President because The Little General ran a campaign designed to siphon off Republican votes. You should remember that Clinton never won a majority of the vote.
Good analysis. Including this: "Further Republican gains in 2006 will make them even more shrill, more desperate, more beholden to the moonbat wing of the party, and push them farther from the main-stream."
Many people I talk to fear a Hillary candidacy, while, at the same time, overlooking 2006. First things first. Let's clobber them in '06.
The republican congress was more effective under Clinton than they were under Bush because at least then they could be against something.
The SCOTUS issue is a big one I'll grant you, but at the rate the republicans are going I'm not convinced it's worth it anymore. Besides, Roberts wasn't a conservative appointment, he was a compromise. I may be wrong but it seems to me that when you hold both houses and the executive, it's not the time to compromise with the opposition, it's time to squash them like bugs. But not Bush...
It's true, I'm fed up with being ignored, but I don't see how staying faithful to the party line has gotten me a damned thing. He may have cut taxes, but he dramatically increased spending. So he took his hand out of my pocket and put it into my child's. doesn't sound like a bargain to me.
As for the war, it's a decision I've supported since the beginning. I escaped the trade center by the skin of my teeth on September 11th, and had friends of 25 years lose their lives that day. So your insults don't hold much water.
If you don't like that I don't want to tow the party line you can take your opinion and shove it.
Rudy will also 'turn' off many pro-life, pro-gun voters. While I have great respect for Rudy, those are my reasons for looking more closely at George Allen. Bill Frist is my senator, but I don't see him as presidential material. I don't want to have to 'hold' my nose and vote in '08, and I suspect a great many others feel like I do and would choose to sit home instead.
You hit the nail on the head there. As lacking as the Republicans are in leadership the Democrats are in worse shape.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hillary will not win the dem nomination, no chance. She is the most polarizing and divisive politician in America today. Liberal moveon.org types don't trust her because of her vote for war in Iraq, and more moderate dems don't trust her chances of winning because they know she won't be able to take away one Red State. While it's way too early to predict who the nominee of each party will be, I'll go out on a limb with these picks:
Evan Bayh or Joe Biden for the dems
John McCain or George Allen for the Repubs.
I support George Allen, but I fear McCain will try and possibly succeed in wooing some conservatives by standing very tough on federal spending.
Giuliani would crush all Dem candidates...yes, even Shrillary. Everyone likes Rudy... even the conservatives like me who disagree with him on social issues. The libs of course would dredge up all of Rudy's private peccadilloes, but after Clinton, who are they whine about private lives?
After that, who knows. Maybe the Donks will re-group and finally realize that their dalliance with the Clintons has been one long, sleazy, slow-motion nightmare. But I just don't see that happening. The worse the Donks do, they more they will be driven into the arms of Hillary!
Unless Hillary! loses to Jeanine Pirro for Senate in 2006...
If that happens, Hillary! will become the emblem of Donk failure, and they will finally break the spell. Much as I relish the thought of the Donks falling into irrecoverable Clinton-induced dementia, putting a stake through Hillary!'s chest (figuratively speaking, of course) might just be worth it.
Condi will not win, she will not even run. I would never vote for a woman for president.
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.