Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Republicans: After Bush, who?
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, July 11, 2006

EJ Dionne takes a look past the '06 midterms at the not too distant '08 open-seat presidential election. As he points out, with no heir apparent, a diverse group is considered to be in the running for the Republican nomination. And the top 4, at least now and per Dionne, are McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich and Romney. His assessment of them:
Paradoxically it is McCain, Bush's leading antagonist in the presidential nominating contest of 2000, who may at the moment be the closest thing to a Bush legacy candidate. McCain is playing down his maverick image and pointing to the ways he's been a Bush supporter, especially on Iraq.

McCain, who voted against Bush's tax cuts, told Bloomberg's Al Hunt last month that he now favors making them permanent. That McCain is willing to risk being branded as the candidate who was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them is a sign of his eagerness to court the president's core constituencies — and his success so far in doing so.

But when someone with as complex a relationship with Bush as McCain's emerges as the candidate of continuity, it suggests the limits of the president's imprint on his party.

Giuliani has strongly backed Bush in the war on terror. But as a past supporter of abortion rights and gay rights, Giuliani would be the most socially liberal candidate to have a fighting chance in the GOP primaries in decades. Contrast that with Bush's strong ties to religious conservatives. Gingrich has made clear he would run against Washington, which at the moment is Bush's Washington. "Neither party currently is where the country is,'' Gingrich has said, hardly an endorsement of the status quo.

And Romney, his party's most interesting new voice, could be expected to run in part as a problem-solver who worked with Democrats in Massachusetts for a bipartisan approach to health care. This would mean arguing for a break from the bitter partisanship of the Bush Era.
Frankly I'm not much enamored with any of them, but if I had to pick one of the four, I'd most likely go for Giuliani.

Why?

I've never, ever been a McCain fan. McCain strikes me as wanting it too badly and I'm naturally leary of anyone who wants the presidency that badly. McCain has also said some things which scare me (if you think the Bush presidency is "imperial" try McCain). First there is McCain-Feingold to consider and then there are statements like this:
"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform... I know that money corrupts... I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."
McCain is trying to shed his maverick image because when running for president, that has limited utility, especially when you're asking establishment Republicans for their backing. That's why you see McCain talking about permanent tax cuts (a thoroughly bedrock Republican issue) after voting against the tax cuts when proposed. It's the old story of presidential aspirations forcing a candidate to the middle when, in fact, that's not his natural place.

Giuliani is, in Republican eyes, a fairly controversial figure because he is more socially liberal than any of the others. But while that may be detrimental to his chances for the nomination, it would actually make him a strong contender for the presidency should he secure the nomination. Much of the uncommitted middle's problem is with the inflexible social conservatism of many Republican candidates. And a more socially conservative VP candidate could make a Giuliani candidacy more acceptable to Republicans. He certainly brings a wealth of experience in terms of leadership and governance (and would seem to be the natural heir apparent to continue the WoT). NYC is bigger than some states. So he comes with the defacto bona fides of a small state governor. And governors are usually the people's pick over Senators.

Speaking of governors, there's Mitt Romney. What he has to defend is exactly what Dionne points out: his health care plan in MA. Dionne characterizes it as "bipartisan approach to health care". Many Republicans will characterize it as a sell-out to the left and the implementation of government health care, an anathema to fiscal conservatives. Having suffered through the expansion of government under George W. Bush, Republicans are going to be very unlikely to embrace a candidate seen as someone who agrees with an increased governmental role in health care. Romney, in my estimation, has a lot of explaining to do (and how he spins it will be interesting to watch ... on the other side, how it is spun against him is pretty predictable).

That leaves Gingrich who will, if you can believe this, run as an outsider. Gingrich is one of those politicians who you either like or hate. He has negatives akin to those of Hillary Clinton. Given those negatives and coming off of 8 years of an unpopular Republican administration (which will cause a certain level of "Republican fatigue") Gingrich is not the candidate of choice. He's an idea man and where Newt Gingrich could best serve the Republican Party is a role such as the head of the RNC. But he'll never be the party's presidential nominee.

Left out of Dionne's calculation is Sen. George Allen. He must not think he's a strong enough contender yet, and he may be right for the moment. Because of the emergence of James Webb as his Democratic opponent in his upcoming VA Senate race, Allen hasn't had the opportunity to do what some of the others mentioned here have been able to do and that is visit some of the early primary states and begin the long process of wooing primary voters. While he's expected to beat Webb, that will, I think, keep him busy in the near future.

Dionne concludes:
And so while Democrats decide in the coming months what they think of Hillary Clinton, Republicans already are moving beyond George W. Bush. The debate in the GOP will be over how far to move — and where. The Republican argument is potentially more divisive, but it may be more interesting.
I agree. But it won't begin to percolate until after the midterms. With the spread of idological beliefs and approaches to government and governance, there is going to be a pretty big argument as to how to proceed after the Bush era. And, other than Gingrich, there's not a conservative among the 4 mentioned by Dionne. How divisive the argument gets is obviously up to Republicans. Whether Allen will emerge as a strong candidate is yet to be seen. But, as Dionne notes, the upcoming battle within the Republican party certainly has the potential to be both divisive and interesting.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
But, as Dionne notes, the upcoming battle within the Republican party certainly has the potential to be both divisive and interesting.
Interesting for all parties (see: Lieberman, Joe for an example of the fun on the left)

I really doubt Hillary can win. 4 years of George H.W. Bush. 8 of Clinton. 8 of George W. Bush. That’s 20 years being governed by a Bush or a Clinton. I really can’t see this country going back to the well for another 4-8 years (sorry Hillary and Jeb)

For the 1st time in a long while, the presidency is totally open- no incumbent or incumbent VP running. Issues like Iraq and illegal immigration adding fuel to the fires.

What a free-for-all it’s going to be.

I say Rudy takes it all
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Well, guess I’ll be playing einy meeny minie again in 08. If Dionne’s predictions of the final contenders for the Republican nomination come true, I guess I’ll be left without a candidate again.

As you pointed out McQ, each of the candidates has major flaws. On a personal level, I really like Giuliani. I think he was a great mayor of NYC, possibly the best person who could have been in office during 9/11. I also think that, if elected, he’ll be a good president. If I voted for him, however, I’d be a hypocrite. While my political views may be open to debate and compromise, my conscience based views are not. Giuliani’s social views make him unacceptable to me.

McCain, as you rightly point out, stinks of desperation for the Oval Office. His best chance was in 2000. He should stick to what he knows now, which is the Senate, or maybe run for Governor.

Mitt Romney is another guy that I kind of like on a personal level, but I think that he will be another advocate for big government neo-con conservatism. If elected, I see higher taxes and Hillary care (or Hillary care lite) in our future.

Newt is another Karl Rove. A good strategist, and possibly a good counterweight to Howard Dean if Gingrich were appointed head of the RNC, but Newt’s character issues paint him as a hypocrite if he wants to run as a social conservative.

So, if these are my options, I may be voting for Michael Badnarik in 08 (if the LP nominates him again). Or heck, maybe I’ll vote for Ralph Nader, just to be a smart aleck.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
More than likley to be McCain or Giuliani. I’d refer you to NRO’s "The Corner" for a blurb on just THIS topic. They each score about 30% in Republican Primary Voters. The betting money is that front-runners win, so which front-runner will it be? Personally Gingrich and Allen are NON-STARTERS. Gingrich has the negatives of Hillary and very little of the "Upside"-the Government Shutdown and his Legislative "Line in the Sand" on Disaster Relief Aid convinced me that he couldn’t actually govern. Allen is a Senator as is Frist, when was the last time a Senator won an election, 1960? And even then he was a war hero, a REAL one, as compared to more recent "heroes."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Not McCain the Tyrant. Not Romney the RINO. Certainly not the Gengrinch. Giuliani might have a chance. If he pursues a fiscally conservative line to rein in government spending, I would hold my social conservative nose and vote for him. Especially if he made some campaign promises not to pursue social policies I don’t like. Give me some moral wiggle room here Rudy.

On the other hand there is no way I’ve vote for Hillary or any Democrats on the horizon. So depending on who wins the primaries I may opt to not vote for a presidential candidate for the first time ever.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
Joe... if that’s your sole reason for opposing Allen, then would it help for you to know that Allen was a Governor before he bacame a Senator?
 
Written By: Watcher
URL: http://www.watcherofweasels.com/
What? No Condi? Talk about winning in a walk ... she’s probably the only (putative) candidate that could. Except for Colin Powell.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
“Give me some moral wiggle room here Rudy.”

Rudy Giuliani would be pretty much unbeatable if he couched his social views in terms that would be palatable to state’s rights conservatives.
 
Written By: Watcher
URL: http://www.watcherofweasels.com/
Joe... if that’s your sole reason for opposing Allen, then would it help for you to know that Allen was a Governor before he bacame a Senator?
Well, possibly BUT what has Allen done? that’s what sinks Senators...almost ALL of them, D or R have had their "I voted FOR it before I voted AGAINST it" moments. That’s the problem with being a senator, was Allen a sets the world afire Governor of Va?
What? No Condi? Talk about winning in a walk ... she’s probably the only (putative) candidate that could. Except for Colin Powell.
That IS funny and I assume you meant it as such. I don’t understand this love of Condi, yes she’s bright, attractive, Black, BUT SHE’S NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE BEFORE. I just don’t see how anyone could expect her to do well in a grueling 18 month campaign.

I might not like respect her or agree with her, but in a head-to-head between Condi and Hillary I know who I’d bet on winning, Hillary. She’d mop the floor with Condi, Hillary has been a part of many campaigns, first at the state and then the National level, culminating in her own campaign for the Senate. She’d moiduh Condi, IMO.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Besides. Condi’s said over and over that she does NOT want the big chair.

While that adds to the reasons she’d be a good occupant, the woman is adamant - not even Veep.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
> She’d moiduh Condi, IMO.

I’m not so sure about that. Standing up to D’s (or R’s if you are of the opposite persuasion) is a cakewalk compared to staring down Putain, Assad, Annan or some other feckless, unaccountable world leaders.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
BUT SHE’S NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE BEFORE. I just don’t see how anyone could expect her to do well in a grueling 18 month campaign.
Plus and a minus, IMHO. Once upon a time, the Secretary of State office was the spring-board to the presidency. Obviously, mastery of foreign affairs and diplmtaic messaging are important skills for running an administration. But they’re also important skills for the political campaign as well.
Besides. Condi’s said over and over that she does NOT want the big chair.

While that adds to the reasons she’d be a good occupant, the woman is adamant - not even Veep.
Yeah. Yeah. So a guy can dream, can’t he? :^]

Besides, none of the current crop of hopefuls inpsires much of anything in this voter. Looks like just more of the same. The Democrats are going to have to screw up pretty badly to lose the ’08 election ... not sayin’ that they won’t, just that the Republicans don’t have much of anything to offer.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
I’m not so sure about that. Standing up to D’s (or R’s if you are of the opposite persuasion) is a cakewalk compared to staring down Putain, Assad, Annan or some other feckless, unaccountable world leaders.
Campaigning is dealing with Voters and the Press, not Assad and it’s different, think of any of our recent Secr. States and tell me who would have been good on the campaign trail?
BUT SHE’S NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE BEFORE. I just don’t see how anyone could expect her to do well in a grueling 18 month campaign.
Plus and a minus, IMHO. Once upon a time, the Secretary of State office was the spring-board to the presidency. Obviously, mastery of foreign affairs and diplmtaic messaging are important skills for running an administration. But they’re also important skills for the political campaign as well.
Nuance is NOT the same thing as "Perception" and "Image" and I’m not sure that being Sec State is going to prepare Condi for the job of being "on message" 24-7 X 365, tipping the wait staff, not talking about "Apu" and how all the 7-11’s in Delaware LOVE you, that sort of thing....It’s like taking a talented HS player and expecting him to be a MVP in the NBA Finals, in their first year.
Besides, none of the current crop of hopefuls inpsires much of anything in this voter. Looks like just more of the same. The Democrats are going to have to screw up pretty badly to lose the ’08 election ... not sayin’ that they won’t, just that the Republicans don’t have much of anything to offer.
What are you talking about? Hillary, the D leader, has HUGE negatives, a liberal voting record in the Senate, and the baggage of "Bubba" she is QUITE beatable. Yes she wins the nomination, but the November Election is ENTIRELY another matter.

I think a positive, smart campaign will defeat her. Let the "Clinton-haters" and Freepers send out the negatives, to keep the "Broken Glass Republicans" stoked, keep quoting the "Take from you in order to further the common good" speech thing, focus on economic growth and the success in Iraq (something both candidates will be wed too) and you have the real possibility of R victory in 2008. Bottom-Line: Tax cuts GOOD, Clinton AGAINST them. We both agree on Iraq, so "laissez les bon temps roulez." Plus sotto voce: Remember Billlllll.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
At least with McCain re tax cuts, he can at least claim to have changed his mind now that they are working...

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2006_07_09_chronArchive.asp#115253716060332649
Thanks to the many readers who’ve pointed out the story in the New York Times headlined "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit," which begins with this lede:

"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief."

"Surprising"? "Unexpectedly"? To the Times perhaps — but not to this blog or to many conservative and supply-side commentators who knew that the 2003 tax cuts would stimulate enough growth to offset much of their apparent "cost". It would be an amusing exercise to list the cavalcade of predictions from the Right of precisely what has happened here, and predictions from the Left that it was impossible. Amusing — but too easy. So instead, take a look at this post on the new Reality is Unreal blog, in which Robert Ferguson uses this story to take a top-down look at the inherent silliness of the business of economic forecasting, whether by the media or by politicians.
*****

As to the potential choices for Presidential candidate...

Guiliani - if he believes and can state that social issues are the pervue of the states and the people.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
If Dionne’s predictions of the final contenders for the Republican nomination come true...
I wouldn’t put too much stock in his predictions. "McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich and Romney" sounds like the candidates Dionne himself would like - if he were a Republican. But he’s not. I don’t think his impressions say much about who GOP primary voters will actually prefer.

Besides, this early in the race, the collective media drives the polls from which columns like these are written. The results naturally reflect the predilictions of folks like Dionne. Such natterings are pretty worthless until we see some real GOP primary voters expressing their preference.

I think Giuliani is the only one in the group that has a decent chance. Here’s what he needs to do:

1. Stake out a strong enforcement position on immigration. That’s a natural fit for his crime-fighting background.

2. Back a partial Social Security privatization. This would get the conservative think tanks to accept him and neutralize one of the most important issues more conservative opponents might use against him. Every election cycle makes this a more important issue.

If Giuliani does just these two things, then I think his chances become pretty decent. Speaking personally, I’d still have reservations about him, but I think those actions would mollify the conservative base enough for his other attributes to win the nomination.

As others have said, he’s almost a lock against anybody the Democrats put up, because he’ll likely take New York. I can’t see any conceivable scenario that allows a Democratic candidate to win without New York. Even against Hillary, she’ll have to spend so much time defending New York that I think she would get creamed.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Guiliani - if he believes and can state that social issues are the pervue of the states and the people.
That’s an excellent point, Keith. It might sell politically.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Oh yeah...

And McQ for Senate!!!
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Nuance is NOT the same thing as "Perception" and "Image" and I’m not sure that being Sec State is going to prepare Condi for the job of being "on message" 24-7 X 365, tipping the wait staff, not talking about "Apu" and how all the 7-11’s in Delaware LOVE you, that sort of thing ...
Well then, apparently neither does being a Senator for twenty-some years. The only real weakness that I can see to being Sec. of State is that she’s not as prepared to deal with domestic issues. But, by the same token, neither is a governor prepared to deal with foreign policy issues. To me it’s a wash.

As for campaigning, it’s not like Karl Rove is going to retire anytime soon. Candidates are made, not born.
It’s like taking a talented HS player and expecting him to be a MVP in the NBA Finals, in their first year.
So, "dealing with the U.S. electorate" = "NBA Finals"; "handling all relations with foreign nations" = "being a talented high school player." Really, really bad analogy, Joe.
Besides, none of the current crop of hopefuls inpsires much of anything in this voter. Looks like just more of the same. The Democrats are going to have to screw up pretty badly to lose the ’08 election ... not sayin’ that they won’t, just that the Republicans don’t have much of anything to offer.
What are you talking about? Hillary, the D leader, has HUGE negatives, a liberal voting record in the Senate, and the baggage of "Bubba" she is QUITE beatable. Yes she wins the nomination, but the November Election is ENTIRELY another matter.
I point out that Repub’s have little to offer (thus my discussion of a Condi-candidacy), and you respond with "Hillary ... has HUGE negatives," etc.

So what? Personally, I have a hard time seeing getting the nomination, but if she did that would qualify as "Dem’s screwing pretty badly." Moreover, Hillary is a more formidable candidate than I think she’s given credit for, especially with the current "Bush fatigue" felt by much of the country.
I think a positive, smart campaign will defeat her.
Uh huh. Here, pull this one —> OTHER LEG
Let the "Clinton-haters" and Freepers send out the negatives, to keep the "Broken Glass Republicans" stoked, keep quoting the "Take from you in order to further the common good" speech thing, focus on economic growth and the success in Iraq (something both candidates will be wed too) and you have the real possibility of R victory in 2008. Bottom-Line: Tax cuts GOOD, Clinton AGAINST them. We both agree on Iraq, so "laissez les bon temps roulez." Plus sotto voce: Remember Billlllll.
So much for that "positive, smart campaign." These are exactly the idiots that will sink a Republican candidate.

If Hillary is nominated first, I think that a more moderate Republican voice will emerge as the leading candidate. If the idiots you allude to hold sway in the Republican primary, Hillary will win.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
If Giuliani wants to run, he should have a tell-all interview with a friendly media outlet, much like Clinton did in 1992. Giuliani has to talk about his divorces because all of the ugly stuff that might be under seal will come out, thanks to precedents set by news organizations in CA and IL. He must discuss his finances (and his divorce settlements - big money involved). He will have to explain his connections with Bernard Kerik (an embarassing episode for him). He will have to repeat his discussion about his father (who allegedly was a petty criminal). Additionally, Giuliani will have to defend his positions on abortion, gay rights and other issues which do not really jibe with those held by most Republicans.

Good luck to him if he can do it. Both parties need vigorous primaries. Primaries sharpen the messages and the messengers. 2008 should be interesting.

chsw10605
 
Written By: chsw10605
URL: http://
I wouldn’t put too much stock in his predictions. "McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich and Romney" sounds like the candidates Dionne himself would like - if he were a Republican. But he’s not. I don’t think his impressions say much about who GOP primary voters will actually prefer.
While I tend to agree with your point about the possible candidates, his point about the discussion (argument?) that is going to take place in the party is true. And it is going to provide some interesting moments and does have the potential of becoming divisive.

However, based on Dionne’s opening paragraph, I’m not so sure he really believes the potential for divisiveness is there or not:
As it looks beyond the elections of 2006, a Republican Party known for ideological solidarity is on the cusp of a far more searching philosophical battle than are the Democrats, historically accustomed to bruising fights over the finer points of political theory.
One of the things I’ve come to believe is that Republicans are much more of a homogeneous group than are Democrats. And that has to do with at least a semblance of cohesive ideology to which all buy into at some level or another. Democrats, on the other hand are more heterogeneous, more of a collection of groups than a cohesive group with a common ideology. So I wonder if a divisive fight is really in the offing at all.
I think Giuliani is the only one in the group that has a decent chance. Here’s what he needs to do:

1. Stake out a strong enforcement position on immigration. That’s a natural fit for his crime-fighting background.

2. Back a partial Social Security privatization. This would get the conservative think tanks to accept him and neutralize one of the most important issues more conservative opponents might use against him. Every election cycle makes this a more important issue.
As I’ve been saying for a couple of years, immigration (and border security) are going to be one of the keys to victory in ’08.

I’d add Keith’s point to the Giuliani list (social questions belong to the state and should be settled there), and add a strong social conservative from the west as a VP candidate, and I think he’d have a legit shot.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
“That’s an excellent point, Keith. It might sell politically.”

Thought I already made roughly the same point about 6 comments above Keith’s, but I’m glad that you agree. ;-)
 
Written By: Watcher
URL: http://www.watcherofweasels.com/
Well then, apparently neither does being a Senator for twenty-some years. The only real weakness that I can see to being Sec. of State is that she’s not as prepared to deal with domestic issues. But, by the same token, neither is a governor prepared to deal with foreign policy issues. To me it’s a wash.

And that’s where you’re wrong, at two levels. FIRST, Bush and Reagan could claim SOME experience with dealing at foreign affairs as Governor’s of Large and Productive States. Secondly, to you and I, Foreign/National Security Affairs may be the area where a President is Supreme, to the VOTING PUBLIC, Domestic Affairs is where it’s at... taxes, gay marriage, gun control, the health care, the domestic issue du jour. Bottom-line: knowing Assad is no big shakes to John Q. Public, UNTIL Assad sends a bomb to the US, but a President’s stand on abortion, gay marriage, the availablity/portability of health care, and a host of other issues determines who gets the vote-even if these are issues that the President has far less control over.
As for campaigning, it’s not like Karl Rove is going to retire anytime soon. Candidates are made, not born.
Untrue, if there is "No there, there" you have no campaign, ask Bob Dole OR John Kerry, there is a phrase, "you can polish a t#rd, but it’s STILL a t#rd" Rove can not save a campaign that will not listen, Rove can’t stop the Senator from Delaware about discussing his mutual admiration society of Apu’s dining in the local Dunk’in Donuts.
So, "dealing with the U.S. electorate" = "NBA Finals"; "handling all relations with foreign nations" = "being a talented high school player." Really, really bad analogy, Joe.
You may not like the analogy, but substantively it’s true. Tell me does Assad VOTE in the US? So if Bashir Assad LIKES Condi or HATES her who cares? BUT if 51% of the US voters hate her it matters... So yes dealing with the US voter is FAR more important than dealing with Assad. Sorry we are talking about DOMESTIC politics here and getting elected. The november Election IS the last game fo the NBA Finals, nothing else matters. Lose THAT game and who cares how well you played the rest of the season, no ring for you.
Moreover, Hillary is a more formidable candidate than I think she’s given credit for...
What, half of the R party is quaking at facing her and she’s the FRONT-RUNNER, I think she’s very well-handicapped as a campaigner!
I think that a more moderate Republican voice will emerge as the leading candidate. If the idiots you allude to hold sway in the Republican primary, Hillary will win.
Moderate... What do you mean? Bush 41 MODERATE...Bush LOSES to Hillary. "Kinder, gentler America" moderate? "Oh I’m not certain that a Marriage Amendment is necessary" moderate? "I PERSONALLY against abortion, but I won’t force my views on others" moderate? OK, the R Base stays home...and the D candidate wins, Hillary or otherwise.

I say "moderate" as Keith posited... "I believe each state eally needs to determine if gay marriage is acceptable or not" "I will seek to appoint judges that will NOT mandate Federal solutions to local problems, such as abortion or gay marriage" could work. Someone who talks about Hillary’s ADA rating and how she would wreck one the most productive economies in the world could work. If that’s "moderate" to you then OK. Otherwise, IF the R’s adopt any other defintion of moderate they’ll lose their base and Hillary wins. Because Hillary’s base, Michael Moore and evereyone to the Right of that WILL turn out, to drub the mean-spirited, Extremist, Right-Wing Republicans, you can make book on that.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
“That’s an excellent point, Keith. It might sell politically.”

Thought I already made roughly the same point about 6 comments above Keith’s, but I’m glad that you agree. ;-)
Yes it is, but in politics, getting the message across is the key. :)
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Thought I already made roughly the same point about 6 comments above Keith’s, but I’m glad that you agree. ;-)
Dang, Watcher ... sorry about that, somehow missed it completely. Great point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But McQ Keith proposed you for Senate and Looker did not... remember that!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Watcher, Joe, Watcher ... and I didn’t want to make it too obvious that I’m open to flattery (although "If nominated I will not run and if elected I will not serve" would be operative in that case). ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Are you so sure it’s flattery to recommend someone for the Senate... ;)

I didn’t see the original comment either.

I think Guiliani would make a good leader for our country, despite the policy issues I have with him. He might not be the best politician there is, but I for one, am tired of politics as usual.

Here’s to hoping that the next Republican nominee for President doesn’t believe in keeping the status quo going.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
why the west? Wouldnt the social conservative south be a better VP pick?

Also, I’m interested in any bad points about Giuliani from a libertarian standpoint. And also the same with Newt. I’m not old enough to remember a lot of the "scandals" and other things that make him unelectable.

Right now, I’d vote for Giuliani, and then Allen. Can anyone tell me why I should[n’t]?
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Guiliani - if he believes and can state that social issues are the pervue of the states and the people.
That’s an excellent point, Keith. It might sell politically.
SocialCons: What about {gay marriage, stem cells, abortion, etc.} ?

Guiliani: Tenth Amendment.

SocialCons:



yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
For what it’s worth:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/11/100659.shtml?s=ic
New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg can win the presidency in 2008 if he runs as an independent, says political strategist Dick Morris.

Not only is the billionaire Republican a viable candidate for the White House, but the time has never been better for an independent to triumph in the general election, according to Morris.

If Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination and a staunch conservative like Virginia Sen. George Allen defeats John McCain or Rudy Giuliani for the GOP nod, "the way will be wide open for a strong independent candidate,” the former White House adviser writes in the New York Post.

"Both parties seem hell-bent on nominating extremely vulnerable candidates who cater to their ideological peculiarities more than to the broad middle of the American electorate. As a result, the time is riper for victory by a third-party candidate than it has ever been in our nation’s history.”
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Sounds to me like there is a competion of ideas in the Republican party. You’ve got the Republican Study Committee staking out the conservative end of the spectrum. Here is a "moderate/centrist" PAC. And then you’ve got places like the Club for Growth, and such...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/11/153953.shtml?s=ic
A politician traveling to New Hampshire can only mean one thing - a presidential bid is imminent. Not so, says Republican Christie Whitman.

The former New Jersey governor said Tuesday that she will travel to New Hampshire later this month as part of her effort to help moderate Republicans take back control of the GOP. She will raise money for local and state candidates, something she’s been doing this summer with her political action committee It’s My Party Too, or IMP-PAC.
http://www.mypartytoo.com/about_us/platform/
IMP-PAC is an umbrella organization that provides a place for moderate Republicans to reach out to one another and support those who believe in basic Republican principles such as:

* Recognizing that tax cuts not only leave money in the pockets of those who earned it, but, when combined with restrained spending and balanced budget, help to stimulate the economy;

* Supporting an engaged foreign policy and a strong national defense;

* Continuing the Party’s recognition that government does have a role to play in protecting our environment; and

* Respecting the individual as evidenced by limiting government interference in their lives.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Billy Hollis - I wouldn’t put too much stock in his predictions. "McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich and Romney" sounds like the candidates Dionne himself would like - if he were a Republican. But he’s not. I don’t think his impressions say much about who GOP primary voters will actually prefer.
Those that favor Giuliani perhaps have a little too much NYC media watching behind them and are focused a little too much on 9/11....which Giuliani didn’t have much control over other than reassuring the populace that a very localized attack was overcomable(only 15 acres of land 1/70,000ths the total area of NYC were physically affected, after all). He did help create the Cult of Cop and Firefighter Worship to compliment the Cult of Victim Families, America already kow-towed to....But pre-9/11 Giuliani was a Gentile version of Schumer...the type only electable in NYC. Dripping with cronyism, spiteful to the max, brash, pushy, arrogant, gay-loving, gun-banning, fiscally dangerous, a master-panderer. He was hated by half of New Yorkers, his great accomplishment lowering crime at a time when crime fell nation-wide but since the media sees NYC as the center of the universe, Rudy’s doing..

The Republicans won’t get anywhere by replicating the Democratic love affair with Northeastern liberals. Rudy’s star is tied to 9/11, and 9/11 is becoming ancient history.

Romney is a can-do person with a string of major successes as an executive leader. He is electable if he can get the dispensation the Religious Right has already granted to some Jews and Catholics. Not a Northeast liberal, but a pragmatist. Romney is the most accomplished of all the Republican candidates. The most personally conservative in his own life, except for George Allen.

BTW, George Allen was a successful governor before he ran for Senator. Evan Bayh is another fairly successful Governor-Senator, and Bayh might be the most electable candidate the Dems have.

I like Newt, and one of the many screwups of the reactionary, corporatist, bungling Bushies was not taking any of Newt’s brilliant reform ideas and implimenting them in favor of their "more government, more tax cuts for the wealthy, more entitlements & pork, global war on evildoing" Administration. 8 years. No reforms or improvements whatsoever. But the guy has as many, if not more, skeletons in his closet than Rudy. Newt has the intellectual power to shift the whole direction of the Republicans away from pork and K-Street trough-feeders to truly revitalize the Party as RNC head or as a Veep. He should run though, to force the leading candidates to accept or reject his 10 points to renew and recover America.

McCain is like Kerry. Been a Senator too, too long, amazingly self-centered, so in love with the sound of his own voice, and may have enough Vietnam baggage that he gets his own "Swift Boating" if he runs. RINO maverick who is mostly a media creation who has had his shot at Prez several times and come up with snake-eyes. The Senate is not a Presidential farm team and the longer a person is there and not leading but pontificating to TV cameras, the less likely they are to be seen as a possible President by people outside the media and Party Bases, IMO. Frist and Santorum are too much Religious Right bootlickers and panderers to have a shot.

MichaelW - What? No Condi? Talk about winning in a walk ... she’s probably the only (putative) candidate that could. Except for Colin Powell.
Rice has never run for elected office, not even in grade school. She has never held an executive position until her 2004 appointment as Secretary of State. Which if you believe a cabinet post makes a superb President, I give you Madeline Albright, William Rogers, Norm Mineta. Yes, Condi is black and smart and the media likes her. But if Party Activists believe the appropriate combination of affirmative action bonus points and life story non-sequiters makes for an unbeatable candidate for the Presidency or a SCOTUS spot - "Shes black, she’s smart! She’s a woman! Who iceskates and plays piano!!" She’s a sharecropper’s daughter! What higher SCOTUS credential can anyone have!"

Well, then, why not run Oprah? She’s black, she’s smart, the media loves her. And she’s a woman. And she was abused as a child and has weight problems - which beats ice skating in "diversity points". AND...."She knows domestic issues better than Condi does foreign policy issues. AND she has 30 years of executive experience building a multi-billion dollar media empire!"

Oprah! Oprah for Prez!
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Just my two cents, I went from a Giuliani hater (back in the 1980’s I thought of him as just an overambitious DA hack) to a great admirer. The social issues don’t bother me since I am somewhat libertarian and besides he supports strict constructionist judges.
I will vote for him in the primary, If he does not win I will probably stay home, I don’t see how I could possibly vote for a democrat the way their party is currently in the throes of extreme leftism. But I am fed up with most of the Republicans.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
I am just glad to read that at least a few of the contributors (Republicans, I believe) have stated that will REMAIN HOME in the general election, given certain outcomes. I have read that refrain often (I won’t vote, etc.)

President-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton will be inaugurated in January, 2009: as President George W. stated so eloquently: "BRING HER ON!"
I believe if George W. can "rule" with only backing of 30ish percent, President Hillary Clinton can lead with the same 30ish (or even 40) always "hating" her!

By the way, (AND IMO) the person among blacks, (and more than a handful of whites), more popular than Oprah and Condi Rice combined: PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON.

Ruth Crocker, Garland, TX.
 
Written By: Ruth Ann Crocker
URL: http://
Guiliani.

I like him. I like the idea of a non-southerner being president for once in a while. I like the idea of a socially liberal Republican.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
C. Ford - I grant all your points except that I think you’re overselling Romney. I didn’t posit that Giuliani has a decent chance because I like him. I think he has a chance because of the dynamics of this election - assuming he does the things I mentioned above (stake out an enforcement position on illegal immigration and present a SS privatization plan).

I don’t care much for him either, but I think McCain would be worse. Jon Henke and I have both discussed his "great man" complex.

Romney, Gingrich... Well, they would not be any worse than Bush. George Allen maybe a bit better. If Bill Owen has not fumbled a few things, I might have a candidate I could be excited about. But I’m resigned to just watching the show in 2008.

There hasn’t been a main party candidate I’ve felt good about pulling the lever for since Reagan. Not that he was perfect, mind you, but at least he was prepared to stake out a "government is more likely to be the problem than the solution" position. Bush "read my lips, but don’t pay attention to what they say" the elder, Michael "tank commander" Dukakis, Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton, Bob "tax collector for the welfare state" Dole, Al "tree hugger" Gore, George W. "when people are hurting government has got to move" Bush, John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry - what a litany of poor candidates.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I believe if George W. can "rule" with only backing of 30ish percent
Funny I vaguely recall the number 51% being bruited about in 2004...
By the way, (AND IMO) the person among blacks, (and more than a handful of whites), more popular than Oprah and Condi Rice combined: PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON.
And this signifies? I don’t believe Bill Clinton will be running again. Or is this the "Buy one, get two" theory? Because if it is, the Broken Glass Republicans will be glad to vote AGAINST Ms. "C" in order to prevent this. Bill might do best to raise money and just keep a low profile.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider