Skip to comments.Filibuster battle altering '08 presidential landscape
Posted on 05/29/2005 2:33:50 PM PDT by strategofr
Last week's Senate compromise that averted a showdown over filibustered judicial nominees was actually the opening salvo of the 2008 presidential campaign, several veteran political observers say. The unexpected consequence of the filibuster compromise is to give a boost to the presidential prospects of Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican. "Allen was very vocal in support of changing the rules to eliminate the filibuster of judicial nominees and took the right position in condemning the compromise," said Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich. Conservatives have strongly condemned the compromise as a politically motivated gambit by Arizona Sen. John McCain, key Republican broker in the deal that ensured confirmation of three of President Bush's nominees to federal appeals courts. "George Allen is helped to the extent that the other potential [Republican] nomination competitors are not helped," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "Allen was on the right side and said the right things."
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
Nope, Allen can't win. No senator can.
The only chance the Repubs have of holding on to the presidency is Condi, She will bring the Women and the Blacks and and she has true credentials on a global level.
We don't need another Bob Dole who gets to run just because its HIS TURN.
Here comes the anti senator wing of the FR. Condi doesnt guaruntee she'll bring the blacks or women and she has no elected experience. Not to mention shes pro abort and pro aff action which will hurt her with the base. This whole a Senator can't win was only brought up and hammered relentlessly through the 2004 campaign so republicans could feel better about themselves when Kerry was nominated. Kerry was a looser candidate who'd compromise and flip flopped on dozens of issues throughout his tenure as a Senator and he came 100k votes of the presidency.
George Allen is no Bob Dole and to compare him to Bob Dole is an insult.
Condi will cost you the pro-life vote. If you want to throw the election to Hillary, nominate Condi. She has also said repeatedly that she has no interest in running.
Allen was Governor before he was Senator. Right now he's looking like the best we have.
I don't know about Allen--
The theory that I have heard about why Senators don't get elected as POTUS is because they have a voting history that can trip them up--plus, they don't have the experience of "running" a city or state, which would give them executive experience...
I think that fact that George Allen has only been a senator for a short time, which gives him a short voting history, plus the fact that he was a Governor, like George Bush, and Bill Clinton, gives him a leg-up over other senators...
My gosh, the MSM has already crowned Mrs. Bubba, and she is a senator...but hasn't been even a mayor, let alone governor!!!
This conversation is really getting old!!!!! Dr. Rice has absolutely no qualifications to be President. She does not want to be President.
1808 and 1912?
To compare G. Allen to Bob Dole is an insult!!!!!! Isn't that the truth!!!!!!!!!!
wilson was gov of NJ not Mass
I honestly dont know why everyone's so keen on Condi for president. NObody knows her stance on most of the issues besides foreign policy and thats why i think she'd make a good veep choice. Plus do you really want to put somone in there who has 0 campaigning experience?
On a side note i read an article a few months back in the WaPo and heard drudge also mention it that the DNC has a huge file on Condi i wonder whats in there.
the first one has to be Monroe, because he had a virtual sweep, which means the second one is Coolige, which makes sense because Coolige was the former MA gov
On a side note anyone know how much Mitt is worth? I know hes loaded but i can never find a figure.
1820 & 1924.
Not only those but since she has no experience running for elected office she doesn't have a Rolodex of donors. Her chances of raising the kind of money needed to get the nomination are zero and none.
Add to that the Republican party will NEVER run a pro-death candidate just like the dims will never run a pro-life candidate.
We'll have a better fix on the horse race by next year when we see who's able to get the heavy donors to whip out the checkbooks.
With Drudge you can never tell. I have never heard anything out of the way about Condi. I really believe that she is above board, I just do not want a woman as CIC.
Not if she defaults to a position of federalism on Roe vs Wade. That is her weakest issue and if she resolves it then she is our only shot IMO to win in 2008.
No but he is worth quite a bit. He doesn't take a salary, if that is any indication. He doesn't need it, however, he is also anti gun, pro gay even though he says otherwise.
Since so many states allow crossover voting in primaries it may be possible for a pro-abortion candidateto win the nomination, but I doubt Rice could win the general election. No doubt she would pick up many black and pro-abortion moderate votes that a white pro-lifer would lose. But once her pro-abort stance becomes widely known I don't believe there would be enough of those to offset the millions of votes she would lose among conservative evangelicals and devout Catholics.
I for one will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate for any local, state, or county office no matter how much we may agree on other issues or how awful the opposition candidate may be. Anyone who believes it's OK to kill innocent human beings in the womb for any reason other than to save the mother's life doesn't have the moral integrity to govern a county, state, a nation.
That doesn't necessarily mean I would vote for the opposition, it just means I would leave that part of my ballot blank.
The same strategy Shirley Chisholm used to win the Presidency!
yea but the point is that she wouldnt, as she was stated that she has the inherent position that a woman has an inherent right to choose - there is no room to wiggle out of that one.
It'll be a complex primary because the moderates(guiliani,mccain etc) would have a better chance in the general, but then its a matter of what are we winning if the moderate is in power. however, if we take control of this and guide a strong conservative, we are toast if the dems nominate someone other than hillary(Bayh,Richardson etc)
She isn't stupid. If she even tried to run then she would find a way to appeal to moderates and the base. She self styles herself to be a libertarian and federalism is pretty libertarian because it allows each section of the US to be more self deterministic.
The results of the last election pretty much bear that out Rove's strategy; the dims bought their workers, the republicans were almost an entirely volunteer effort, all with passion. Karl Rove may be smart, but he can't take the place of 3 million volunteers that wouldn't turn up to lick an envelope for Dr. Rice.
Welcome to FR.
Maggie Thatcher was a good one, Golda Meir did fine. I am fascinated by Condi--she has a certain cool, analytic style which would serve her well in a crisis. And her personal life reflects an emotional detachment which could only help when ordering troops into harm's way. Plus, to be an accomplished concert pianist requires an element of inner discipline rare among the run-o-the-mill politicians we usually get to choose from.
They did alright, BUT they were not the leaders of the Free World. Sorry, I just do not want a women as head of this country.
LOL! I remember her. She had the highest IQ in the House! Shirley had three problems though--she was a leftwing crackpot, she never DID anything, and she was born 40 years too soon.
I DK either but his father Goerge, before he became a pol, was CEO of American Motors back when AMC made money. No doubt Mitt is quite comfortably endowed.
You support her position on taxes, social security reform, border control, medicaid reform, funding for the NEA, tort reform and expansion of government?
Absent knowing what her position on those and another three dozen issues I think I'll hold back, thanks.
This is in fact the only rational position for a president to adopt, given that it is the only alternate position that has a ghost of a chance of replacing Roe. EO's about abortion in the military, foreign aid, etc, are good, but mainly serve as moral statements. They probably save few lives.
Encouraging courts to throw the issue back to the States, where it belongs, is the best thing a President realistically can do for Life.
I wish GW had taken this position and held to it from the start. His argument about changing hearts is a long term recipe for healing, but it doesn't move the ball at all. The federalist option as you call it, is principled, politically viable, and based on a sound understanding of the founders' intentions.
"My gosh, the MSM has already crowned Mrs. Bubba, and she is a senator...but hasn't been even a mayor, let alone governor!!!"
Let alone any sort of distinguishable Human Life Form. ;)
If the Republican party is stupid enough to nominate a candidate for President who cannot even deliver his own state, then they deserve the total disintegration that will follow such a move.
Fine by me. George Allen was my pick before all this filibuster stuff hit the fan. Bright, young, looks good
in a suit and is conservative. Everything we thought we'd get when we voted for Bush.....
"My gosh, the MSM has already crowned Mrs. Bubba, and she is a senator...but hasn't been even a mayor, let alone governor!!!"
Valid points. But Mrs. Bubba is rather ahem, persuasive...in a unique way, really. Course, Ron Brown never let himself get intimidated.
"(hint: elections are exactly 104 years apart)"
I love it, but could you ple-e-a-se give us "lazy &/or uneducated" ones the answer?
Of all of that stuff you listed as George Allen's strong suits that you THOUGHT you were getting with George Bush, just which ones did you think you'd get, but didn't?
"This conversation is really getting old!!!!!"
Yeah, just treat these comments as immaterial background noise.
Woah! Hats off to you. You sound like one of those dudes I like to be in the vicinity of when the Presidential returns are coming in.
"Allen would be one to look at, IMO (though what's that worth),"
Does anyone actually know anything about Allen, other than he did the right thing on filibusters. Not saying he's wrong to do so, strategy and tactics are important, but he seems to be playing the standard candidate early game---give them nothing so they can't attack. But us activist types don't want to wait till 7/08 to start learning about the guy, like the average American.
"It'll be a complex primary because the moderates(guiliani,mccain etc) would have a better chance in the general,
I disagree. "
With you. The Reagan/W.Bush analysis.
"Okay, I guess the 500+ volunteers I've talked to over the last 2.5 months.."
If you felt like saying, I'd like to hear about that. Also, were you one of the "72 Hour" Texans who went to battleground states in 11/2004?
"The federalist option as you call it, is principled, politically viable, and based on a sound understanding of the founders' intentions."
You got it. Did you happen to read Bork's Tempting of America?
Before this Border issue erupted, I felt the approach you are talking about was the key to GOP unity & victory. It still is, but the Border thing now must also be addressed.
The thing about your issue, the Right to Lifers need to get clear on the need for Strict Constructionist Supreme Court judges.
Here is part of an old post of mine on strategypage.com:
"...I have a strong feeling though, that there are a significant number of moderate Republican Senators who secretly like the idea that Specter will preserve Roe V. Wade.
To me, however, this badly misses the key point, which is the fight for strict constructionism. Because waht the Left is quite intentionally doing is outmanouvering the whole mechanism of government with the Supreme Court. It is a vast flanking movement, and from my perspective, Roe v. Wade is a smokescreen to cover that move. Because to the extent that the Left succeeds in this manouver, they have vitiated Democracy itself. And I do feel that this is the goal of the driving forces behind the Democratic Party, even though the rank and file of the party still believes in Democracy."
In addition, it would not surprise me if the Left supports Right to Lifers who want to put Supreme Court justices on the bench who will invent a "law" outlawing abortion to counteract Roe v. Wade. This was apparently McCain (the Mancurian Candidate's) position in 2000, according to an FR post I read. Theoretically, this would be "terrible" for the Left, because it would outlaw abortion. But I don't think the people really drivign the Hard Left care abput abortion nearly as much as destroying the Constitution. That would be the ultimate in 'political judo". To lose to the Right at some point and have them reinforce the idea that US Law is entirely the creation of Supreme Court judges.
"Maggie Thatcher was a good one, Golda Meir did fine"
Condi is no Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir. She was a good National Security advisor. But she is not even tough enough to clean up State, let alone run the gov't. not that cleaning up State isn't one of the toughest jobs imaginable. But I'm not seeing it happen.