Redstate

...why you think that, say, Giuliani's weaknesses would doom him in the general election?

Whatever you might think about him and his record -- which, to his credit, he isn't running away from like one or both of his "Big 3" competitors are -- the CW is that Rudy's problem isn't so much with the general election, but with the primary.

Granted, the CW is often wrong. But it seems to make sense here. If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, he would be the first (openly) pro-choice candidate since Roe v. Wade to do so. I'm not saying that's a good thing -- I'm not pro-choice. But he would certainly be bucking a pretty solid trend.

However, many political observers think he'd be very tough to beat in the general election. And I think they're probably right about that. He likely doesn't take any of GWB's red states out of play and just as likely does put some blue states back into play for the GOP.

I forgot about Gilmore who has a much better shot than Cox. Thanks. Personally I don't know a whole lot about him (Gilmore) so feel free to add info on him.

But I expect that many here have different goals.

I'm not convinced that HRC will be the Democratic nominee. The left wing activist types can't stand her, and a lot of people on the other side really detested Bill.

It is impossible to try to predict at this stage who can or cannot win almost two years from now. Gary Hart was the Dem frontrunner in 1988, until scandal brought him down.

Hunter is a Vietnam vet, and his son was a Marine in Iraq. If we are going to try to rally support for the war it would help us to have somebody with that type of background on the ticket. If you are a hawk on the war, why would you not support him?

Tancredo was one of the ten GOP Congressmen to buck the WH and vote against both NCLB and the Medicare bill. If your thing is fiscal conservatism, Tancredo should be your man. He is a thousand times better on fiscal issues than anyone else out there. (Except maybe Paul, but he has problems with the war.)

There is a lot more to the second tier candidates than the caricatured images people have of them. Their supposed drawbacks look pretty good compared to those of McCain, Romney, and Giuliani.

...is not to win it?

Mmmm...what is it then? To prove a point?

Elections -- particularly presidential ones -- are one of those things where there are no points for 2nd place. There are no moral victories, even if you come close. The nearly-victorious Al Gore is just as much a presidential loser as the blown-out Barry Goldwater and Walter Mondale were.

A lot of conservatives, in retrospect, laud the 1964 candidacy of Sen. Goldwater. In fact, somebody (I forget who, GFW maybe?) said after Reagan's victory in 1980 that Goldwater actually won his election, he just had to wait 16 more years for it.

Heh. I wish I could agree with that -- because we got saddled with a whole bunch of leftist garbage in the intervening years...including LBJ's Great Society programs. And, contrary to some popular opinion on the right, Reagan did not end much, if any, of it.

I'm not sure there was a GOP candidate around in 1964 who would've beaten LBJ. Probably not. But the point here is that we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A corrolary to that, especially as it relates to politics, is that usually you're forced to choose the least bad candidate....especially when the most bad candidate has a really good chance of winning.

I don't care who the Democrats nominate. I know, for a fact, that they'd be worse than any of our candidates on all the important issues.

And to those for whom it's less important whether we win or lose in '08 than that we nominate somebody who properly reflects conservative orthodoxy, I'd just warn that you'd better watch out what you wish for.

...I can sympathize with the apathy about "the Big 3" from conservatives. Really, I can. But they aren't going to be overcome. So it seems a bit pointless to me to be lamenting reality.

I learned a long time ago that we should only spend time and mental energy lamenting those things which we have a realistic chance of changing. The "Serenity Prayer" (one of my favorite) asks God to grant us the wisdom to know the difference between those things we can change and those things we can't.

I won't make a guess as to who's going to win the 2008 GOP nomination. But I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty who isn't -- every single person that Mike lists here. And I don't think that's so much a media thing, as he alleges, as it is a political reality.

It takes a number of things to get over the hump for a presidential run. And, also, it's different in the GOP than it is in the Democratic Party. A Republican version of Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter would never have stood a chance, for instance.

First is a certain telegenic magnetism -- you have to be able to "connect" in a way that's hard to describe in a brief blog post. And this isn't an intellectual connection as much as surfacy and superficial (sad, but true) -- as evidenced by the fact that GWB was a legitimate presidential contender but Newt Gingrich never will be.

You do have to have some bona fides, of course. You also have to have the capacity to raise a lot of money -- and this requires something of a national political essence or an accessible existing network.

Another thing is that you can't be looked upon as a single issue candidate -- nor can your reputation be as a strict ideologue.

And there's some others. And, while it's understandable that people who yearn for more from their presidential choices would lament these realities -- that doesn't stop making them realities. Taken together, it ought to be obvious that the Huckabees, Hunters, Tancredos, and Gingriches of the world fall short on one or more of these critical factors.

I think it's wonderful to support whomever you want in a primary -- even if it's a longshot (I was a Steve Forbes supporter in both '96 and 2000...knowing full well he didn't stand a chance). The critical thing is that you show up on election day in November -- even if you have to hold your nose to do so.

Because the cost of being ideologically pure, loyal, and rigid can actually be higher to your ideology than being a bit more flexible and realistic.

It would not be good for the conservative agenda if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were to be elected president.

What is the attraction of Pence to people here at Red State? I'm not knocking him, he is a pretty good Congressman. But Tancredo and Hunter are better in many respects. So what is it about Pence that makes people swoon?

Pence was one of only a handful of Republicans out in front of the 2006 election. He consistently criticized the Republican Party for its fall from Conservative principles in recent years and publicly campaigned for a return to principle.

There is a reality to Conservative voters that very few members of the party leadership appear to get even after the 2006 election. Conservative voters do not vote for Republican candidates in order to acquire bribes or earmarks. We do not vote for Republican candidates for empty promises. We do not vote for Republican candidates in order to see our taxes raised.  We do not vote for Republican candidates because the MSM adores them.  We most certainly do not vote for Republican candidates so they can act like democrat lite.

Conservatives vote for candidates who are animated by the "Sprit of 1776." We support candidates who work to make sure that our posterity will enjoy liberty (economic, religious, political, etc.) and prosperity We support candidates that are into good governance.  We distrust candidates who appear to be corrupt (which is why even a hint of scandal can doom a Republican Candidate).

In essence we support candidate who are conservatives themselves.  We also know what Conservatism is and are hostile to those who chose to redefine it for political expedience (see here and here). We know what Conservatism is (see here,here, here,and here) and we want to see Conservative government. When the Republican Party establishment turns its back on Conservatism many of us just do not vote (see 1992 and 2006).

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I know Ridge drives the social conservative wing of the party off the edge, but I sure like his personal story as a real war hero to a governor to the first head of Homeland Security.

I doubt he will run, too busy making up for years of governement service by being in the business world, but would make a heck of a President or VP in my book.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

with Republicans here in South Carolina. He and the GOP led legislature still have a lot of making up to do.

He has also said repeatedly he will not run for office in 2008 (1/2 way thru his present term as Governor). He has young children and it is widely though that he will take some time off after his term expires in 2010 to watch them grow up.

Hunter has been impressive here in South Carolina and I think if he could do well in Iowa (top 3), he'd be on his way. At this point, I'm leaning towards Hunter of those announced.

Tancredo would too, if not for the fact that he'd be so easily pigeon-holed by the MSM.

Mitt still has my support among the "big 3" (despite my sharing many of Erick's misgivings), but I keep wishing that Hunter would gain some traction.
______________________________________
"Our job is to bash the president"
Newsweek's Evan Thomas, on the role of the MSM

with lines like this:

You see character does count. For too long we have gotten by in a society that says the only thing right is to get by and the only thing wrong is to get caught. Character is doing what's right when nobody is looking. "

Thats Reaganesque.

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

The man is too smart to get back into politics.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

tcgeol,

So we going for 1972 levels of defeat or what?

While Hunter would probably not repeat the level of defeat by the Democrats of 1972 in the general election, Tom Terrific of "Fortress America" probably would test the lows achieved by George McGovern in the general election. About the only other politician that could do a better job of testing that record of defeat would be Rick Santorum.

Hold your nose, vote for any Republican over Hillary!

Hey, a new campaign slogan for the '08 Presidential election. Might not work however, the "We suck less" slogan of the November election did not work very well come to think about it.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

I don't expect either Tancredo or Hunter to run a credible campaign, so its pretty unlikely that it will matter. Its just that of the top three, my early favorite is Romney, and that only by default since I don't really like any of them. At this point in the race, we have the choice of a moderate, a moderate, or a social liberal who claims to be (and hopefully is)a Constitutionalist. I don't hate them, but there just isn't much in there to make me want to really work.

"Hey, a new campaign slogan for the '08 Presidential election. Might not work however, the "We suck less" slogan of the November election did not work very well come to think about it."
In the minds of a lot of people, that is exactly what the Republican slogan might as well be - "Vote for me. At least I'm not Hillary." While there may be a lot of merit in that, it isn't exactly inspiring.

Tancredo has some devoted followers and a great many people care a LOT about immigration. I can easily see him doing well in Iowa and getting a bounce out of that.

Of course, the primary timetable gets more frontloaded every time I look at it, so a bounce out of Iowa may be way too late. This time candidates are going to need a huge infrastructure in place coast to coast long before the Des Moines Register gets round to making its endorsement.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Q.

Your comment "Tancredo has some devoted followers and a great many people care a LOT about immigration." caught my attention.

There's an allusion there I think that only those from the "Fortress America" wing of the Republican party and supporters of Tom Terrific care a LOT about illegal immigration, and I think that assertion is one of the things wrong on this side of the ditch on the issue.

Many who care a LOT about immigration think the likes of Tancredo and JD Hayword do more harm than good when it comes to actually getting something done in a legislative sense about the issue of illegal immigration. The assertion that you must support the positions of Tancredo et. all. or not care about immigration is something I would strongly disagree with.

Results count, and Tancredo and the "Fortress America" crowd offer no solutions that stand a realistic chance of being passed into legislation. Supporting politicians who are all about sound and fury, signifying nothing isn't my bag.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

or simply a new way of denouncing anyone who wants to defend the borders from illegals?

Just wondering...

I actually stole that line from Mort Kondracke. Not sure he qualifies as a Democrat, but the shoe does fit the foot.

Now I started this sort of kind of thread jack, so I hereby raise my Murtha flag and will re-deploy from the combat zone.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

all social issues and pick the Judges.

is a pretty small token and cannot be said to mean much. Candidates can promise anything they like, but VPOTUS has almost no constitutional functions. A VPOTUS with the strength and relevance of Cheney would be one thing. Another Quayle would be meaningless.

With the general trend towards more powerful VPs, people may assign more significance to such a choice in the future, but I doubt it will matter much in 2008.

If Giuliani really wants to reassure conservatives, his best choice would be Dick Cheney. If he can convince Cheney that he is offering him a real role in the administration, that would probably reassure a great many people.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

if McCain's at the top of the ticket. McCain would be the oldest major-party presidential candidate in US history. Born Aug 1936, he would be 72 at inauguration -- 3 years older than Reagan was in 1981.

McCain would be 76 when running for re-election in 2012. There's a very real chance that the VP could become President.

So, people would probably pay more attention than usual to our VP candidate.

and most of the GOP, will be to promise to build the wall, oppose any new federal gun laws, and state that he knows Roe was wrongly decided just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her confirmation testimony.

If Rudy, a reagan DOJ lawyer cannot state that Roe was wrongly decided, then he will not get the nomination. His recent H&C appearenece was a disaster precisely beacuse he defelected the question in a very un-Rudy-like way.

Or was it un Rudy like. when I heard that NOW language about a vague "right to choose" and the "he's not gpoing to put women in prison" canard and then to hear him duck Roe but predict precedent will prevail and the court would only tweak Roe, I thought I was listening to Bill Clinton. And I knew I was listening to a loser.

He sounded like a

LIBERAL writ large. The language was just too limp wristed liberal talking point bilge.

The more I hear Rudy, the more I think he's running for talk show host. He recites the days events and history that we all already know until his times up
instead of telling us what he will do.

Plus that damn litmust test crap. He better have some litmus tests.

I predict he will get his mind right.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

on fighting terrorism. He just doesn't want us getting unnecessarily entangled in the insane conflicts of the Middle East (Israeli v. Muslim, Sunni v. Shia, Arab v. Kurd, Arab v. Persian).

I'd be delighted to see Ron Paul as President. IMHO, of all the members of Congress, he's the single most principled, honest, and consistently committed to following the Constitution.

But I don't think it's realistic for Ron to win the White House. We should definitely elevate him to the Senate, sure, but nominate someone who's more nationally electable for President.

Ron Paul has a very, very weird opinions on what the constitution says that Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Bork, and even Edith Jones (who once donated to a campaign of his) would all vehemently disagree with.

Paul believes in fighting Islamofascism reactively instead of proactively. And even then, only if it doesn't involve spending any money at all. I hear Paul talk about America engage in empire building! EXCUSE ME!? Can't take someone like that seriously.

We have MUCH better and much stronger candidates for the U.S. Senate here in Texas, thank you very much. Jeb Hensarling would be my first choice right now.

. . . that far too many “conservatives” or “libertarians” make – they define as “unconstitutional” any policy that they disagree with or throw in irrelevancies (like Washington’s warning about “entangling alliances”) as if it has any bearing on what the Constitution does or does not allow.

Also his voting record may be regarding as “principled” by some but a lot of us have no use for a member of Congress who believes in making the perfect the enemy of the good on issues like Social Security reform or liberalizing trade.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

There is nothing libertarian about Rudy's positions on social issues. They're simply liberal.

I honestly don’t see anything “libertarian” about Rudy Giuliani unless the standard for “libertarian” is now “supports a woman’s right to choose and doesn’t hate gay people.”

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

eric

Simple reason, he knows he can't win, and his ego is not such that he must throw his hat in the ring to validate his beliefs.

I agree with you however that Dana is a great Congresscritter, and I hope one day he decides to run for a state wide office in CA. The Republican party out here in CA is just pitiful when it comes to running any sort of candidate that actually has name recognition and an actual chance of winning.

Can I have an amen for Governor Rohrabacher ?

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!