Great tactical political thinking. Myself I will vote for Mrs. Clinton.You've been here since 1997 and you're voting for da Beech Hitlery??? :^O
Posted on 06/19/2005 6:13:28 PM PDT by Tall_Texan
Some dominoes of Texas politics fell into place in the last few days or, more correctly, did not fall out of place as many thought they might.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson chose not to run against incumbent governor Rick Perry next year. She will instead run to keep her seat as a Republican in the U.S. Senate, a race she will almost certainly win. One of the reasons given is that Hutchinson is reaching a point of seniority and leadership in the Senate where she may be able to help Texas achieve some legislative perks.
I think there is another reason she decided (or was persuaded) to remain in the Senate. I think there's a chance she will be on the 2008 ticket if a few other things happen.
While Hutchinson is not an ideal Senator by conservative standards, she doesn't stick her neck out far from the party very often. She's a coalition type of politician, one who doesn't prefer to bludgeon her opponents with rhetoric but maintains a civil and reasonable tone. Her voting record is often more conservative than her speech. Her lifetime ACU voting score is 91, although she has scored an 84 in 2004 and a 75 in 2003.
In one sense, she embodies what irritates many conservatives about Republican senators, rarely criticizing or admonishing the excesses of Democrat tactics and rhetoric, choosing to make and keep friends on both sides of the aisle. She is proud of what she considers the "women's caucus" in the Senate made up of members on both sides.
In short, here is someone who comes across well, is not easy to demonize and cannot be easily pigeonholed as a rubber stamp, an extremist or an ideologue. These are reasons I think she has viability as a 2008 running mate.
This early in the race, it would be hard to predict who will be the Democrat nominee but the assumed frontrunner at this point is another member of Hutchinson's womens club, Hillary Rodham Clinton. No doubt many in the GOP do not want to see Mrs. Clinton going up against whoever comes out of the Republican convention with the nomination. They know the media will be solidly in her corner and believe she will return to the bloodsport days of stolen FBI files, secret committees and plans to convert us to one nationalwide government health care.
Should Mrs. Clinton win the nomination and the Republicans nominate a male, the GOP may crave a woman to "balance" the ticket and blunt some of the hysteria over a woman being at the top of the Democrat ticket.
Before going into where Sen. Hutchinson fits in, let's look at what other women might be called instead:
* Sec. Condoleezza Rice. The current Secretary of State and darling of some conservative groups, the biggest liability for Ms. Rice is that she has never run for political office. She would be a complete blank slate with regards to some political issues (particularly social ones). Being the first of her race on a major party ticket would steal some of the thunder from Hillary being the first of her gender to lead a major party ticket but could also lead to claims of "pandering" if she doesn't come across as a credible candidate. As John Edwards' recent campaign illustrated, a vice presidential nominee has to be able to assert themselves yet not upstage the top of the ticket. Any gaffe no matter how small will be blown out of proportion and the liberal attack machines will be in full force. We simply don't know how well Ms. Rice would hold up to this.
* Sen. Elizabeth Dole. There has not been a national Republican ticket in over 30 years that did not have a Bush or a Dole on it and, at first blush, some might think "Liddy" would be a more natural choice than Hutchinson. There are similar appeals. Dole is also something of a moderate Republican from a southern state. The major differences are tactical. While Mrs. Dole has the experience of her husband's campaigns, her term as Senator would be up for re-election in 2008 and the Governor's office is presently controlled by a Democrat, meaning that Republicans could lose that seat in more than one scenario should Sen. Dole be nominated for vice president.
* Gov. Linda Lingle. The Hawaii governor broke through in an impressive way to win in a state that votes heavily for Democrats. That shows promise but will Hawaiian values translate well to the heartland and will her presence on the ticket create a vacuum for GOP prospects in Hawaii?
* Sen's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. The pair of Maine senators would likely be considered too liberal for the party faithful, particularly after taking part in such party-angering exercises as the joining "the McCain Compromise" regarding Senate filibusters.
* Laura Bush or Lynne Cheney. While each has their fans both would likely be thought of as place holders for their more famous spouses. It would be charged that the women were figureheads for the husbands who are no longer able to run for the job.
There are probably a few other names that I have left out but these are the top women in the Republican Party who might be able to fill the 2008 ticket.
Mrs. Hutchinson has some qualities that might make her the most ideal woman the GOP has on their bench. A former cheerleader, she is not unattractive. She is not the spouse of a politician. She has waged and won three statewide campaigns in Texas and will win a fourth in 2006 now that she plans to seek re-election. She has survived a legal dogfight against Travis County (TX) District Attorney Ronnie Earle over alleged mishandling of funds while State Comptroller back in the 1990s so she knows how to stand up for herself. Her Senate seat will be safe if she is called upon yet loses a vice presidential bid until 2012. The Governor's office is presently in Republican hands and will likely stay that way so the GOP will probably retain that Senate seat were she to get the VP nomination and win. Her Senate record will likely be picked apart but it will be hard to find anything that stands out as so exclusionable that either party could use it to vilify her.
Whether Hutchinson has the desire or ambition for a national campaign would remain to be seen. She would be age 65 in 2008. I do believe, however, that she could be seen as "Hillary insurance" for a male GOP presidential nominee in 2008, particularly a northern candidate like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty.
Some things would need to happen for this to come about but they are fairly easily reached. If the GOP nominee is male. If the Democrat nominee is Mrs. Clinton. If Hutchinson retains her Senate seat in 2006. If the Republicans keep the Governor's mansion in 2006. Should any of those four things fail to happen, Hutchinson would not be a likely option. If all four happen though, I see it as a distinct posibility.
Sen. Hutchinson represents a relatively safe option to balance a ticket and blunt some of the buzz over a Clinton candidacy. She's a veteran campaigner from a safe state who establishment Republicans can certainly get behind.
You make some good points. It would be interesting to see just how racist the Democrats would get campaigning against her - saying all the right things while spreading outrageous lies under their breaths.
As a former Keyes supporter, I have no problem voting for a black candidate and never met anyone who openly said they could not. Some attacked issues, yes, but no politician should be insolated from issue attacks. Same with women candidates. I have voted for many and voted against many. Who they are and where they stand is what matters to me more than gender or race.
I'd like to think everyone is that way although I know it's not true. I hope with the passage of time, it will be an issue to fewer and fewer.
Two highly inept campaigns cured me of that.
About Keyes specifically? Yes. Ditto.
At least Louisiana kept it close.
I've voted for people of all races and ethnicities in my 4 election years starting in 98. I really do not want to agree with you about this, but there's this nagging doubt in the back of my mind as well, and it doesn't apply to just the South. Blacks seem to do well in lower profile mid level and local offices (Sec of State, state rep/senate, State Supreme Court), but do not win senatorial or gubenatorial races. Illinois(Obama/Braun), Virginia(Wilder), and Massachusetts(Ed Brooke) are the only states since reconstruction to do so.
In 1986, Bill Lucas(R) ran for governor in Michigan against incumbent Jim Blanchard(who was ousted in 1990 by then unknown John Engler). Lucas(who was black) was Wayne County Sheriff and switched parties not that long before his gubenatorial run. Now he wasn't our best candidate, but we did not expect a disaster on this level. It was an approximately 67-34% defeat statewide, and a worse thrashing than even what John Engler did to Geoff Fieger(who even lost Ann Arbor). Some of that was the normal democrat vote, but even sacrificial lamb candidate usually hold the democrats under 60%. Keep in mind that most statewide races here are within 5% as well.
We may have a candidate for senate here who is the most qualified individual IMO of those who have announced their candidacy. He happens to be black. I think he has a shot to win, if he can get his message out to people. Can he get the message out, and will people listen? How far as Michigan come since 1986? That's a good question. I know what I'd like the answer to be.
In all honesty, I don't know of a high-profile Republican woman who isn't regarded as "pro-abortion" depending on how you define it. A Veep would have little if any effect on the national policy unless the front of the ticket died in office and she became president. I do agree, however, that many pro-lifers would care about the Veep's position and might even stay home if they disagreed with it unless the presidential candidate was clearly pro-life.
Remember, too, that the Veep is usually the nominee's choice, needing only a rubber-stamp confirmation at the convention (I've yet to see a convention reject whoever the nominee chose). If the nominee wants Condi Rice or Kay Bailey or whomever, the party will go along and my guess is that few would choose not to vote for the nominee solely on the choice of running mates.
But he was a light - skinned guy from India.
Illinois(Obama/Braun), Virginia(Wilder), and Massachusetts(Ed Brooke) are the only states since reconstruction to do so
Yes, but those examples are either yankee, democrat, or both.
So you are saying that in 2008 Alabama would vote for a Dem ticket with Hillary on it instead of a GOP ticket with Condi Rice as the VP candidate because Condi is black?
Utter nonsense.
You seem to be quite the apologist for Mrs. Clinton, routinely arguing a political equivalency (outside of judicial appointments) between her and President Bush. Have you forgotten the institutionalized corruption brought by her and Bill? Rifling through all the FBI files on political opponents at the WH residence? Webb Hubbel? Removal of the levels of security clearances at Savannah River? Los Alamos? Loral, its uber-DNC-doner head Bernard Schwartz, and the overriding of Defense Dept objections to shift missile technology sales to Commerce? China's subsequent decade+ leap in their missile program that suddenly allowed them to accurately target them and reach the US with their nukes? They just did a new test fire a few days ago, one would think that might remind you of the heavy downside price one has to pay when dealing with the devil out of bitter spite.
You seem to be rather confident that Hillary is going to be nominee, that no one is going to fight her for it.
That makes the assumption that despite their disarray, all Democrats everywhere will coalesce around her early, and all the other ambitious Democratic politicians (including Landrieu and Lincoln) will put aside their personal ambitions for the "good of the party"
That doesn't hold up to the political smell-test. Hillary will have opposition, and she (like Allen and McCain) is at a disadvantage because everyone knows she's running, she's not exactly sure who'd oppose her, and so her enemies can run a much more effective digging up dirt campaign against her then she can against them
What did in Gary Hart?... the fact is, Gary Hart was presumed to be a likely nominee from 1985 onward, and that gave everyone who wanted to be President the time to dig up the goods on him, and he certainly didn't help anything by taunting the press. The press had to a large degree, hyped him as the guy, he started to believe his own hype and that's why he made the mistake he did.
If I bet on things such as this, I would be willing to bet good money Hillary doesn't win the nomination.
Boy... you really go out on a rope here.
You know how to complete that saying about someones teeth being on fire?
This isn't by any chance a story about Kay Bailey Hutchison (only one 'n') is it?
KBH was an early staunch supporter of McCain-Feingold!
How much more liberal would she have to be to be completely unsatisfactory to conservatives?
Great tactical political thinking. Myself I will vote for Mrs. Clinton.You've been here since 1997 and you're voting for da Beech Hitlery??? :^O
Then what are you doing at Free Republic?
I don't think Condi is a viable candidate because she has never held an elected office.
Give her 4 years as governor somewhere in the south and she will blow the competition out of the water.
Why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
