Skip to comments.Hugh Hewitt: Watching the Signs (The 2008 GOP Primary Is Already Underway)
Posted on 12/09/2004 1:27:11 PM PST by RWR8189
The race for 2008 is already underway on the Republican side, you just have to know what to look for.
NOT SINCE 1952 has a presidential election lacked a sitting president or vice president as a contestant, and Ike was about as close as one could get to non-official incumbent. Before that, it was the 1928 race, and there, too, Herbert Hoover was, like Ike, a figure of towering popularity. In other words, there has never not been a front-runner in at least one party in the modern scrambles for the presidency. Here is a bit of evidence that the race for 2008 also has a leader, one along the lines of Eisenhower and the Great Engineer.
The National Federation of Republican Women is one of those groups about which not much is ever written, but which functions as one of the circulatory systems of American politics. There's a Republican Women's, Federated in practically every county of every size, and their monthly gatherings are full of the stuff of Tocqueville. These are the precincts of the proverbial "blue haired legions," but also younger, more partisan activists as well.
I make a point of speaking to a couple of chapters of the Federation every year, more to listen than to inform. (These ladies have legislative chairman's reports that go on for an hour--and they take notes.) Last Monday, just before heading off on vacation, I went to Temecula, California to speak to more than 200 women from the Riverside County Republican Women, Federated. After a recap and an assessment of Arnold Schwarzenegger's plans for a special election in 2005 to confront gerrymandering, I announced the first straw poll of 2008. By a show of hands, I gave the ladies--and a handful of men who were their guests--four choices: Senator John McCain, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator Bill Frist, and "other." The results astonished me.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY is as "red" as any county in America, and getting redder. Before I spoke, the group had been entertained by the local home-schooling association's girls' choir, and many of the questions I received concerned illegal immigration and Hillary Clinton's ambitions. In other words--this is to use the title of John Podhoretz's invaluable book on places such as Riverside County, Bush Country.
Giuliani swept more than three-quarters of the votes, with the other three choices receiving smatterings of support. Keep in mind that this isn't an exercise in name identification--these women knew each of the candidates--as well as every possible name in the "other" category. This was an informed choice. I stopped what I was doing, repelled the audience, and then conducted a focus group.
Like many other pundits, I have been wondering whether Giuliani can escape the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008 given that Pat Robertson won the former in 1988 and Pat Buchanan the latter in 1992. Giuliani is too "moderate" to win the GOP nod, right?
Wrong, if these ladies are to be believed. Among the many praises that gushed forth: decisive, experienced, loyal to "W"--an interesting positive, that--funny and, crucially, tough enough to take on the Clintons. There were many praises for Senator Frist, and some for John McCain, but Giuliani has their hearts--already.
I long ago revealed myself as a single-issue voter: I favor the most conservative Republican in the primary most likely to win the general election. The GOP has never had many of what I call this orientation: principled pragmatists. In fact, a debate is raging even now among bloggers such as Patterico, PrestoPundit, CalBlog, In the Agora, and Interocitor, over the arguments for principled pragmatism that I laid out in my last book.
But if the ladies I spoke with on Monday are any indication of a trend--and there are excellent reasons to conclude that they are--the battle may already be over. For Giuliani to consolidate his position with the center-right would only require some deft appearances during the coming struggles over Supreme Court nominees. If he wades into the fray to help confirm the president's nominees, his personal views on abortion will matter far less than if he is absent from these fights. He would also find it useful to get on the side of allowing the people a vote on the defense of marriage amendment through the process of state ratification or denial of ratification to a proposed amendment.
Senator Frist seems to have sensed that the race for the 2008 nomination is already launched, and has responded with tough stands on the "nuclear option" for the judicial nomination process and a rousing defense of the Boy Scouts. Very sharp moves that reflect he is in this for good. The same cannot be said for Senator Hagel who only seems to make news when throwing stones at Bush or the Iraq effort. Bush is the unquestioned hero in the hearts of the activists, and while 2008 is a long way away, that course is much shorter than it used to be because impressions are made early.
A FINAL NOTE: There is little upside in being coy anymore. The candidates will almost all blow off the primary caps and raise money as Dean and Bush did in 2004, and that means an early launch in fundraising and organization. Candor is increasingly a valued trait, and the fan dance of yesteryear seems trite. I have blogged on the need for would-be nominees to scout out and sign the next generation of internet talent, especially in the area of fundraising and grassroots communication, and the Shrum Primary of 2003 may be replaced by the Ruffini Primary of 2005. We'll know for sure who is serious when the candidates launch their blogs.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a Giuliani blog up and running in January. The ladies of the Riverside Republican Women Federated would welcome it.
Hugh Hewitt is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show, and author most recently of If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends Upon It. His daily blog can be found at HughHewitt.com.
Jeb Bush/Condi Rice in 2008!
Hmm....Not from a lib or rino source, either.
Jeb is not running and he was pissed off at a poll today that said he was a good candidate for president. And I don't think Condi wants to either.
Frist, Guiliani, McCain, Other -- a pretty dismal list. I guess I would have picked Guiliani, too, given the choices. What's surprising is that the women "gushed" over him.
I just heard Neil Cavuto interview Tommy Franks. He asked the Gen. if a run in 2008 was in the cards. Gen. Franks said he didn't see it happening, but wasn't ruling it out. Hmmmm...
If it was a choice between the three of them Guiliani would be my pick!
Just more of the ol' brown-spoon stirring.
More to the point, why would anyone want Condi? She's not a politican and but rather a bureaucratic administrator.
Governor Tim Pawlenty if he wins in '06 or Senator John Thune.
I like Condi in the role that she has now but she is NOT presidential material.
eh...Hewitt's kinda conservative, it depends on the issue.
He is against CCWs for the unwashed masses.
He is against the Proposition / Initiative process in California (the same one that allowed us to oust the commie Gov. Davis)
He is an open borders guy.
Franks would be my first choice right now.
None of the early candidates mentioned really interest me like a Bush or a Reagan did in the past.
Our primary concern for 2008 is that at this time our top "candidates" are all liberals. I can see us in '08 making the same mistake that we made in '88, when we began to abandon the Reagan revolution and relegate conservatives to the fringe. The strength of the GOP is the conservative base. GOP leaders would do well to accept this fact.
I like it!
2 bushes are more than enough. and, i voted all 3 times for the bushes.
if hillary won in 2008, we could have 28 years of our lives run by the same 2 families.
in a country that rebelled against royals and aristocrats.
LOL! I hope Hugh meant that he repolled the audience, not repelled.
It is true that Hugh Hewitt is not a Lib or a RINO, but he is a man who thinks it is better to put loyalty to the GOP ahead of loyalty to conservative principle. For example, during the California recall he was a big backer of Arnold and was unsparing toward those who backed the more qualified, more intelligent, and much more conservative candidate for governor, State Senator Tom McClintock.
As for 2008, I sure do hope that a better candidate than those three emerges. Rudy is a liberal on social issues and a hyper-liberal on immigration. McCain seems to think his base is the press. Frist is a nice guy and fairly conservative, but he's a dull cipher. I think nominating any of these guys would be a disaster.
Here's what I think: if GWB has a very successful 2nd term, and at the end of that term people are wishing that he could continue as president, they will be in the mood for Bush III. I'm in Tampa and I wish very fervently Jeb would run. He's been a fantastic governor, he's right on all the issues, the Hispanics love him (he has a Mexican wife) and he would kick Hillary's ass all over the country. I would think REAL landslide this time. JEB in '08!
Hillary OVER Jeb I meant
Can You Say Darkhorse...
May God have mercy on us if that is the best list of candidates we can come up with. I will not participate in such nonsense next time around. Hillary can have the White House! I will not vote for Rudy or any of these other liberal trojans.
And he supported Specter for the head of the judiciary committee.
"He is against CCWs for the unwashed masses.
He is against the Proposition / Initiative process in California (the same one that allowed us to oust the commie Gov. Davis)
He is an open borders guy."
Agreed, and I'd probably agree with you as to the CCWs if I knew what that meant. He's become full of himself.
Which is more important, a staunch conservative or electability?
I ditto that. But I think Hugh has a good point: in order to blunt his "pro-choice" leanings, Rudy would need to weigh-in pretty heavily in favor of Bush's nominations to the court.
As it stands, I'm with you in spirit, if not in deed (i.e. I will very likely, even if reluctantly, vote 'R' while holding my nose, if need be). On the other hand, I sometimes wonder if we're just prolonging the agony by delaying the hoped-for conservative revival, which will only happen when or if the proverbial frog in the kettle notices that the water is getting too hot. Maybe Hillary is what it'll take to finally wake us up (Dear Lord, I hope not).
Condi is a bureaucrat, NOT presidental.
My first choice for a candidate would be someone who's actually been an executive: governor, mayor, etc. I have very little use for senators or representatives.
I agree that the base of the Republican party is conservative, but if these three mentioned possible candidates are too liberal, there needs to be a viable conservative to come out of the pack and run.
I'd pick Franks over Rudy, McCain, and Frist...
Guiliani is the only one who IMO would virtually be a lock in 2008. The dims will commit collective hari kari. It will be glorious.
if Guiliani would switch and become pro-life he'd be unstopable
Hewitt's a pragmatist. I think he would say that without the GOP, there is no real hope for the conservative agenda, politically.
good lord...don't we get ANY break from Election Season anymore?
We need to recognize that the top priority in 2008 may not be to push a conservative agenda, but to prevent Hillary from winning. At the present, Rudy seems the best bet to derail Hillary's express.
There's only one good candidate for Pres.: Congressman Roy Blunt-R Springfield, MO (House Majority Whip)
Unless one's standard-bearer is electable, being staunchly conservative is an exercise in futility.
Well taht depends, he's been real happy to back liberals and RINOs in recent years. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Richard Riordan come to mind.
I agree. Look at the kind of support he's getting with the label "pro-abortion" -- his support in the GOP would skyrocket if he switched his position. It's happened before.
This needs repeating on a daily basis.
I wouldn't be suprised if Giuliani changed some of his positions on some social issues for the base. In order to win in NYC, even Repubs have to be more leberal than elsewhere.
Would Giuliani be a little more acceptable if he altered a few of his positions?
I would vote for Giuliani in a heartbeat. He did wonders for NYC.
He threw Arafat out of the UN during a party because he's a terrorist and he told the Saudis to stuff their check after the 9/11 attack. Giuliani took on the mob.
He has cajones the size of the Jupiter's moons...
You mean again - the lesser of the two evils. Sorry but I'm not gonna buy that any more.
Why don't you just sell your soul to the Devil?