November 15, 2006
Presidential Programming Note
I've been meaning to get to a post naming my preference for the GOP nominee for President in 2008, and my reasoning therein. Because of a hectic schedule, I haven't gotten to it quite yet, but do want to throw out two ideas:
One, the Washington State primary may prove to be a valuable part of the nominating process, whose 2008 calendar is still in flux after the venerable states of Iowa and New Hampshire. If Washington ends up with a decent place on the primary calendar, we may be a notable battlground state, as we were in 2000. Indeed, it is somewhat of a lost fact that in 2000, Washington actually provided George W. Bush with important momentum in his primary campaign against John McCain.
Readers may recall in 2000 that Bush rolled through the Iowa Caucuses, which McCain did not contest, then stumbled to a second place finish in New Hampshire (and then picked up a little watched victory in Delaware). He regained his footing with a win in South Carolina, then faced primaries in Arizona and Michigan. Arizona was an obvious McCain victory, but Michigan also became McCain territory, supposedly because of the "independent" streak of that states' voters that was thought to favor McCain, though either way it was another clear setback for Bush.
Next in the Presidential primary line-up were Virginia and Washington on February 29th. Bush was expected to win Virginia, but based on results in New Hampshire and Michigan the media narrative of the campaign had come to question whether Bush could win a primary (excluding Iowa's caucuses) in a non-Southern state. Washington State was thought to have the same independent voters that would tilt toward McCain over Bush. Pundits were even beginning to discuss that McCain might do well also on the March 7th Super Tuesday primaries in eleven states, leaving Bush to rely on a March 14th "southern firewall" with primaries in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas, to finally secure the delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination, if he could win it at all. This temprorarily was an amazing turn given that Bush was the heavy favorite entering the primary season.
Joel Connelly picked up on some of this pro-McCain enthusiasm in his coverage of post-Michigan momentum as McCain campaigned in the Evergreen State. That coverage, though, included mention of a notable McCain stumble on the topic of removing the Snake River Dams. His equivocating statement, rather than the pro-dam support that was a fervent Republican position of the time, was rapidly turned into an effective radio ad in Eastern Washington from the Bush team, all part of a rebounding campaign on both sides of the Cascades. What happened next?
Bush won. More importantly, he didn't just win the Republican ballots (with a crushing pro-Bush vote from Eastern Washington) that selected delegates for the national convention. He won the total vote tally over McCain 402,287 to 399,980, which included the combined results of the Democratic, Independent, and Republican ballots. Suddenly the national media narrative changed, Bush had pulled off an unexpected victory, while McCain had lost a state he was expected to carry. Bush was back.
From there, with renewed momentum and deeper pockets, the Bush campaign steamrolled through Super Tuesday, capturing seven of eleven states, including delegate-rich California, Missouri, New York, and Ohio. McCain won only in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The primary battle was thus essentially over before reaching the "southern firewall." So, Washington Republicans take a bow, you did more than you might have known to help Bush in 2000.
My second point for raising the whole notion of who I'll be supporting for President in 2008 is to pose another question: we'll be hearing a lot about who people like in this evolving and soon to be crowded horse race. For now, please discuss who you DON'T LIKE, and why, in the rumored Republican Presidential field. I'm curious.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 15, 2006
08:19 PM | Email This
McCain is too liberal on the environment/global warming.
Guiliani is too socially liberal.
And I have to admit that a candidate's religion plays a role in my vote.
John McCain: McCain-Feingold. 'Nuf said.
Rudi Guliani: Anti-gun, anti-baby. Don't really care about his position on gay marraige, one way or another. Without 9/11, he'd be a shoo-in to replace Pataki. Honestly, I'd hoped he'd run against Hillary this year.
Mitt Romney: again, anti-gun. My biggest issue, after national security.
Thank God none of the front-runners are evangelicals.
If we are lucky enough to get a non-evangelical nonimee, the Republican party won't be able to count on the God-squad to vote in droves as ordered, so the candidate will have to be able to attract cross-over votes to win. McCain is clearly the best candidate by that measure.
Here is the list of major runners (in my opinion).
Don't forget, Republicans are looking for the next Reagan
Cheney- Too old, won't do it (even though I would vote for him)
Guliani- What did he do?(besides get through 9/11) Too moderate.
McCain- Turning left, too moderate, maybe in 2000, but not now
Romney- Probably the best candidate, very popular, has the issue of health care, recent governor, greatest downfalls; LDS membership, and moderately conservative on some social issues, but by far the best candidate, in my opinion.
Gingrich- Would be good, articulate, contract w/ America, has not won an election lately, maybe in 2012, or 2016
Brownback- Nobody knows him
Allen- Not after 2006 elections
Rice- Won't do it
Pence- Good Vice Presidential Candidate, Very Conservative.
Any of these people would be better than a democrat, even John McCain
5. McCain. Why am I not surprised? You're so not Republican.
6. Romney's chair (or co-chair) here in WA is millionaire and uber democrat donor David Nierenberg of the 17th District Democrat House Burkman debacle. That scratches him of my list.
My favorite candidate is a long shot and unfortunately as we've seen with the recent scandals Conservatives are held to far different standards than liberals.
My favorite is Newt Gingrich, who I believe to be in the Reagan mold. Newt has been slowly, cautiously and very articulately putting himself back in the public eye. Of the major players, he is the most consistantly conservative. I think as more folks hear the common sense Conservatism from and of him he will be a force in the future... at least I fervently hope so.
If I was forced to choose between a RINO (McCain) and a social liberal (Guliani) I would choose Rudy, because he has proven his leadership abilities not only in the 9/11 crisis, but in the way he so radically turned around a failing and ugly NYC.
I agree with the pundits that lay some of the blame for our election losses on McCain. I do not like that man... or at least the image he projects. Granted, in very recent days he has appeared almost reasonable, but he just comes off as completely self-centered as opposed to party-centric. Some would say that's a good thing.
I don't know enough about Romney, but I heard a pundit say today (maybe Medved) that with Reid (who is also a Mormon) now majority leader the opposition couldn't use his religion against him.
It's too bad about the Santorum loss.. he would have made a great VP candidate.
8. Mccain has such high negatives among Republicans that if he somehow managed to get on the ticket... you thought 2006 was bad? Watch what happens in a McCain 2008.
9. I agree with Jookie. We need a good solid, blond haired, blue eyed, bible thumping wacko to run on the "hell fire & damnation for all who don't hate gays and support the war in Iraq" candidate. How about James Dobson or even an rehabed Ted Haggard? We lost this last election because we're not ideologically pure.
4 once I'll try and follow instructions, and stick with the DON'T LIKE list like Eric asked:
George Allen --- crashed and Burner, no recovery after losing in his own state.
Sam Brownback -- reality check: In a national race against Hillary (or Obama), he gets crushed.
Jeb Bush ------- Said NOT going 2 run... Means it.
Bill Frist ----- Nice guy; well respected in the Senate; a doctor not a lawyer; but to some extent another Bob Dole (ho-hum). Can't beat Hillary or Obama.
Rudi Giuliani -- Would probably run a decent race against Hillary nationally, but being against the grain on not just some but many (R) issues, how does he ever win the nomination after the star power wears off and the press (and opponents) start getting into details; both political and personal ?? I think Obama beats him in a national race. And *TWO* New Yorkers running ??.. nah...
Chuck Hagel ---- A thoughtful guy; well-respected on both sides of the isle in the Senate. But again (to some extent) the Bob Dole factor:
Doesn't beat either Hillary or Obama.
Duncan Hunter -- Great guy technically on complicated defense issues. Might be good guy for Secretary of Defense. But same as above:
Doesn't beat either H. or O.
Tom Tancredo --- GREAT guy on the ''We've GOTTA get control of our borders'' issue, but ditto above: Doesn't beat either H. or O.
Tommy Thompson - Doesn't beat either H. or O.
11. I don't get the bases irrational hatred of McCain.
While I like Guliani, I would not vote for him. That goes triple for McCain.
We need another Ronald Reagan, and unfortunatly there are none to be had right now
13. i think that you guys are overlooking that the republicans NEED and WANT to win in 2008. People are going to send into the general election who ever is going to get the most votes. This will be self evident its going to be a McCain Romney ticket and you wont regret voting for either!
Who do I not like and why?
Rudy: both because of his social liberalism, and his personal family failures. I appreciate his security credentials, but I just can't see supporting him for President.
McCain: I could overlook his mavrick ways if it weren't for McCain-Feigngold. Look at what is happening to free speech here in Washington with the radio hosts. This would never have happened without McCain.
Hutchinson: I've been hearing things that say he isn't fiscally conservative. I want a fusionist candidate, not someone who sets the West against the South.
Tancredo: One note wonder, not viable.
Brownback: I like him as a person, but I feel he doesn't appeal enough to the fiscal conservatives. We need someone who can unify the party.
Frist: Nice guy, but not very effective as Majority leader.
Allen: After losing Virgina? I don't think so.
That leaves me with Romeny and Gingrich, both of whom have flaws:
Gingrich is the true fusionist, but his personal baggage gives me pause. Plus, he still has huge negatives. I'll probably support Romney, but I'll keep an eye on Gingrich.
Romeny: What can I say, he's the solid B, mabe B+ candidate. He's not perfect, but he'll deliver enough to satisfy. He's also has a stable model family, which goes a long way with me. Plus he has his charm which will be usefull. Someone up above said he's anti-gun, I've never heard that before- I'd like some more info on that. As for being Mormon, well, we'll find out in the S. Carolina primary if that will make a difference or not.
Jeb Bush would be the perfect choice if not for the last name.
Rice would be an inspiring choice, but she's been firm about not running.
Don't know enough about the other possibilities.
I was an ardent McCain supporter in 2000 but his recent shenanigans (McCain-Feingold, border security) have changed my mind.
While Guliani would be great at a lot of things and has been (not just 9/11 but cleaning up NYC as was mentioned above) he hasn't held any post above mayor (even if it was NYC mayor) so presidential aspirations are a bit high. I'd definitely support him as VP.
Brownback? Who's Brownback. No offense to the guy. I'm sure he'd be great, but when was the last time a Senator from a ho-hum state like Kansas got elected. Just look at what happened to Bob Dole in 96.
Mitt... Of all the front runners I like him the best but joined with Guliani the ticket would be too New England heavy. Plus, he's LDS, not that I have a problem with that. Toby and Kathy are both LDS and they're two of my favorite electeds, I just don't think the country at large would go for an LDS candidate.
Who does that leave? Well, I really wish we could convince Condi. She, paired with Guliani, would be unstoppable. They'd take NY and CA, something that hasn't been done by a GOP nominee since Reagan and also lock up the South. Plus, the NAACP-Dem alliance would be shut down for good. The only way I see this happening though is if Bish fires Cheney (don't get me wrong, I like Cheney, but it would definitely be taking one for the team) and moves Condi up to VP (and I've even heard, straight from the horse's mouth, from a certain junior Democrat senator, that several within her party like Condi and she'd clear senate confirmation hearings in a day).
I've also heard Huckabee's name thrown about. Besides having a ready made slogan in "I heart Huckabee" he's also a great blend of charisma, conservatism and self-control.
But who really knows? I'd say we're at least six months away from a viable field to choose from.
No negatives on the three main frontrunners from me.
They all have the proper credentials for President, which the Democrats have no one with.
They are tough on crime, tough on terrorism, they are not nutroots and all impressive in public. End of story.
Newt won't get it, but.... I'll leave that out till we deal with a positives article.
"I don't get the bases irrational hatred of McCain."
That word "hate" gets bandied around too much these days - especially by libs. We don't hate McCain, we DISAPPROVE of him.
Why? McCain-Feingold for most of us. And it goes 'way beyond the infringement on freedom of speech. When the (GOP) Senate leadership sent McCain to deal with Feingold on the first version (1997 - the one that didn't pass), he was given one instruction: "Give up whatever else you have to, but make sure the rules apply to unions, too". He didn't do that. The bill came to a vote with unions still exempted from its provisions, and he lobbied for its acceptance. Not only did he fail in his mission, he apparently didn't even try. He allowed himself to be intimidated by the Ds - or else he was so enamored with having his name on the bill that he didn't care. Either way, that's not a recommendation for President.
There are different forms of moral courage. McCain displayed both in his conduct in the POW camp. But the moral courage displayed there apparently doesn't translate to moral courage when negotiating with Dems.
Here's a brief, yet radioactive, list exemplifying why Mr. Maverick is the leftist media's favorite Republican loose cannon:
1) McCain-Feingold: An unconscionable piece of legislation infringing upon our free speech and really buggering up an already fetid election cesspool (better known as the Incumbent Protection Act)
2) Gang of 14 Charter Member (not to mention a 20% partner in the Keating 5): An irresponbilble collection of "moderates" who torpedoed Republican chances to crush the Left on Supreme Court nominations (emphasis on "gang")
3) Leader of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" in the Senate just a few months ago (read Comprehensive Amnesty): He led a most grotesque and treasonous perversion under the ruse of "immigration reform". Witness John McCain, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, giving a brow-beating to his colleagues that anyone who could not see the great inherent goodness of bribing illegal aliens with the American Citizens' Social Security benefits and EITC tax-credits, was tantamount to cruelly forcing illegal aliens to “ride in the back of the bus”. Absolutely Sickening..
I don't buy any of this wonderful "Moderate" nonsense - he's clearly too mentally unstable and hence too dangerous to ever be considered for President of The United States of America.
Wake up - John McCain is a very dangerous political clown for many reasons - I'll NEVER vote for him for any office let alone for POTUS. (try picturing Uncle Fester crossed with Dr. Strangelove..)
19. Personally I thought a version of McCain-Feingold was needed...while I disagree on donation limits it seems that most people have found loopholes in that legislation by donating to the party or 527's. I do feel that running for political office should not entitle you to a giant personal slush fund from anonymous donors.
Since we have six months or so to figure this out, I recommend we start reading up on these people, here is a list of books I have read (except for Hugh Hewitt's book, which isn't out yet). Please add other books on candidates you like or dislike. There are a few people mentioned above of which I know next to nothing, anything good written on or by these people?
"John McCain: An American Odyssey" by Robert Timburg
"Man of the People: The Life of John McCain" by Paul Alexander
"Worth Fighting for: The Education of an American Maverick and the Heros who inspired him" by John McCain
"Leadership" by Rudy Giuliani *Great book, made all managers in our companies read this one.
"Turnaround: Crisis, Leaderhip, and the Olympic Games" by Mitt Romney
"A Mormon in the White House? 10 things every Conservative Should Know About Mitt Romney" by Hugh Hewitt
before adding Rudy to the don't like list...
How would he handle the border?
How would he handle Iran/NK?
What's his Iraq strategy?
Could he disarm the pro-abortion nuts?
Could his star power win back some global respect?
I'll take Rudy over Hillary.
I think Newt is the best man for the job- but I don't think he can win unless he steps up now with an iraq plan that turns things around NOW- otherwise he'll be viewed as just another cronie who let us get into a mess with a foreign war---or that's how I percieve the middle 10% will percieve him.
22. I don't get the bases irrational hatred of McCain.
It's just that, irrational. It can't really be explained.
Allen: I knew he'd be bad before he crashed and burned. No doubt of that now.
Tancredo: If I wanted Pat Buchannan, I would have voted for him in 2000. He's like Buchannan, but louder.
Huckabee: Nice guy. OK Governor. Lightweight. Weird looking. No way to win nationally.
Brownback: Great Senator. Would make a good President. Has absolutely no chance of being elected to the job on his own right. Might be a good VP pick though, especially if Giuliani or McCain is the nominee.
Frist: He's like Bob Dole, but better looking.
Thompson: He's like Bob Dole, but younger. Executive experience is a +, but it's not enough.
Giuliani:Great Mayor, would be a great CiC. He'd also win the general easily. However, unless he finds a way to moderate his stances on abortion and guns, he could cause longterm damage to the party. I'll hear what he has to say, and what he'll do as far as judges, but I can't see supporting him in the primaries.
McCain:I don't think his temperment is the best to be President. I also think he's got an ego problem. That said, he's pro-life, and would be a great CiC for the WOT. With the appointment or Gates, I now trust him more on Iraq then I do Bush. He's also be spectacular at fighting spending, which is absolutely key. Spending and the WOT are the two most important issues to me, along with Judges. He'd be good on all 3. He's not who I'd pick in a perfect world, as the Federalist Papers say, if all men were Angels, no Government would be necessary.
Romney:More and more impressed with him. Other then McCain, he's the only guy who's pro-life that has a chance of winning. He looks great. He's a good speaker. He builds up consulting firms, saves the Olympics, and Governs the most liberal state in the nation in his spare time, and does so in a remarkably conservative manor. He had to kind of flex his positions on some things to get elected in Mass., which could cause him problems, and certain irrational people won't vote for him because he's a Mormon, but I think he'd be a very good President.
Bottom line: Romney or McCain are the only two options I can see as being viable that I can live with. I'll vote for Giuliani in the general, but unless he really can convince me he won't move us backwards on abortion and gun control, I can't support him in the primary. The rest of the field is VP picks at best.
23. I could overlook his mavrick ways if it weren't for McCain-Feigngold. Look at what is happening to free speech here in Washington with the radio hosts. This would never have happened without McCain.
That's wrong. The No New Gas Taxes lawsuit had nothing to do with McCain/Feingold. They sued KVI for in-kind contributions, which had laws regulating them long before McCan/Feingold. Completely separate. Has absolutely nothing to do with that case.
And even if it did, did you vote against Bush? Because he signed the damn thing.
"And even if it did, did you vote against Bush? Because he signed the damn thing."
Haven't you figured this out yet Cliff. Bush gets a free pass from conservatives, which makes very little sense to me because he's not a conservative.
25. The Washington State primary may prove to be a valuable part of the nominating process
Haha, that will be the day. Half the candidates are out and most are on their way out by the time Washington's Primary rolls around. At least it will be competitive this year.
I remember going to the GOP primary with my parents in '88 when all the Pat Robertson nutzos showed up and hijacked the primary in this state. Man, if you want to see the death of conservatism in this country, keep electing the religious whack jobs.
I don't like McCain. He's never turned down the chance to tell a microphone or camera what's wrong with the Republican Party.
Don't like Huckabee. Big-government conservative, tax-hiker.
Don't like Brownback. It's all about the social issues with him. Ever hear of the war, Sam?
I'd tell you here not only who I support, but who's going to win. But I can't. Because it's beyond what Eric's called for.
27. Don't like Brownback. It's all about the social issues with him. Ever hear of the war, Sam?
Like I said before, I don't think Brownback can win a nationwide campaign, but part of the reason is for this impression of him.
I just wanted to point out that this perception of him is largely a media creation. Yes, he's big on social issues, and he's to my right on certain social issues, but it's not the sum total of the man by any means. He's done quite a bit of FP work, tax work, etc. the media just doesn't cover it much.
I certainly would trust him in the WOT. He'd be terrific. I just don't trust him to win a nationwide camapaign.
"I don't think Brownback can win a nationwide campaign"
Actually, I know next to nothing about him. But who in 1990 thought Bill Clinton could win the Presidency? I suspect people in 2008 are going to be looking for new faces as a follow-up to the backlash to "business as usual" we saw this month (I think they just traded one "business as usual" group for another - worse - one, but that's a different discussion).
For that reason, forget anybody who's spent a long time in Congress - they'll be viewed as part of the problem. Giuliani might be considered a fresh face - even though he's been in the public eye a lot for a long time - but I have concerns about some of his positions; not a #1 choice for me.
Aside from that, who don't I want to see? Anybody who could reasonably be called a Republicrat. I don't need ideological purity, but anybody who won't buy into the baseline that Republicans stand for - limited government (which automatically means limited taxation and spending); strong defense; sovereignty of the people, not the government; and so forth - should be eliminated from this competition.