Posted on 07/08/2006 3:53:39 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller
So, is anyone else baffled by the fact that John McCain is listed as the "strong frontrunner" among GOP 2008 presidential hopefuls? The political pundits all have him as the head honcho (usually followed by Romney and Allen) as evidenced here, here, here, here) and in the most recent National Journal 2008 Republican Insiders Poll.
This was not always so . . . just a few months ago to a year ago Allen was leading in that Insiders Poll (actually, you can look at the figures and find that Romney has been gaining the most, percentage-wise, of any candidate.)
However, most self-proclaimed conservatives have major reservations about McCain. McCain does much better in cold-call phone polls than he does in Convention or Online strawpolls. His recent positions on the wrong side of the immigration bill and Marriage Protection Ammendment will give GOP primaries pause. I feel that McCain looks so strong now because of four things: 1) great name recognition 2) his great relationship with the mainstream media (MSM) 3) his strong polling against Hillary 4) a promise from GW Bush that if McCain sat out in 2004 and campaigned for W, that the favor would be returned in 2008 (Oh, THAT IS WHY HE KEPT CHENEY ON AS VP!) Bush may not be many things, but he is a man of his word.
Many have speculated on this fourth claim before . . . but two recent pieces seem to be putting the picture together pretty clearly now. First, a piece in the Washington Times called "McCain sitting pretty for 2008 race" starts out:
Some top Republicans at odds with Sen. John McCain on core conservative issues say privately that the party's 2008 presidential nomination is "his to lose." They cite the Arizona senator's head start in fundraising, a primary calendar that is shaping up in his favor and a growing belief that he enjoys the tacit support of President Bush.It then goes on to discuss former TEXAS Senator Phill Graham's support for McCain, despite not agreeing with him on some issues.
"There are plenty of things I don't agree with John on, but I don't think they are important, compared to things I do agree with him on," the former Texas A&M University economics professor said.
Later . . .
"What I've heard seems plausible to me -- that a deal was cut that if McCain supported Bush in 2004, the Bush team would get behind McCain for 2008," Republican media consultant Tom Edmonds says. Among those who have signed on with Mr. McCain are Mark McKinnon, Mr. Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaign media strategist, and Terry Nelson, Mr. Bush's 2004 national political director. A senior Republican senator from a Western state who opposes Mr. McCain says privately, "Look at who he's got in his camp and look at him in the polls -- I'm telling you there's no one out there strong enough to beat him. It's his to lose."
Sounds like a challenge to me!
Further information confirming the McCain-Bush alliance comes from a recent piece titled "Landing Big Campaign Finance Fish" found at Chris Cillizza's Political Blog "The Fix" hosted by the Washington Post.
Bush asked affluent individuals not simply to donate to the campaign but also to round up thousands of dollars in contributions from friends and colleagues. A tiered system was created to reward the most effective of this lot; "Pioneers" raised $100,000, "Rangers" $200,000, and "Super Rangers" $300,000.
It lists who McCain has signed up already from this group of Bush donors:
Wayne Berman, lobbyist (D.C.) RANGER Fred Malek, Thayer Capital Partners (D.C.) Carter Pate, PricewaterhouseCoopers (D.C./Texas) RANGER Bob Mosbacher, Mosbacher Energy Co. (Texas) Tom Loeffler, lobbyist (Texas) RANGER
Notice anything interesting? They are all from D.C. and/or Texas! The Bush team is obviously strongest in D.C. and Texas. I do not see this as coincidental since, although McCain is oft called a "Maverick", his political record puts him more in line with a northeastern GOP Senator than a Texas-styled GOP Senator.
What is even more interesting is that Romney has already signed on 12 (count them, TWELVE) of these major Bush donors. This group is the largest and most geographically diverse of all, thusfar:
Peter Karmanos, Compuware Corp. (Mich.) David Fischer, Suburban Collection (Mich.) PIONEER John Rakolta, Walbridge Aldinger (Mich.) RANGER Dave Phillips, Phillips Industries (N.C.) RANGER Tom Tellefsen, Tellefsen Investments (Calif.) PIONEER Anne Dunsmore, Capital Campaigns (Calif.) RANGER Hadi Makarechian, Capital Pacific Holdings (Calif.) Herb Collins, Boston Capital Partners (Mass.) PIONEER Jim Sims (MA) GEN3Partners (Mass.) Joe O'Donnell (MA), Boston Culinary Group (Mass.) RANGER Tom Foley, NTC Corp. (Conn.) PIONEER Eric Tanenblatt, McKenna Long Aldridge (Ga.) RANGER
Frist has a strong team at 7, but it says:
We hear that Virginia Sen. George Allen and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani are huddling regularly with the whales but have yet to sign any of them up.
So, going back to my list above of the four things that makes McCain the frontrunner now:
1) This will become a non-factor as the campaign wears on 2) Romney's charisma, great interviewing skills/telegenicity, and the controversial Mormon issue may turn him into a favorite among many in the media . . . though the MSM "powers that be" will untimately look to destroy a true conservative like Romney. 3) There are a lot of options to beat Hillary . . . McCain is not the only choice . . . Giuliani and Romney would be able to do this hands down. 4) Although Bush seems to have pointed the closest in his political machine in McCain's direction, it looks like the financial donors are thinking more independently.
This Bush-McCain "back-room deal" of trading support will not sit well with the media or the GOP electorate . . . it may just turn out to be McCain's "back-fire deal."
Does anyone one think that being a Mormon will be a significant liability for Romney the way that being Catholic was a liability for Kennedy (my Grandfather thought that Kennedy was going to take orders from the Pope).
I think both "big fish" in this race are swimming upstream only to get snatched out of the water by a conservative grizzly bear and eaten regardless of faith.
history repeats itself. think big ed muskie in '72, evrybody except the voters supported him.
Is this Bush/McCain crap true?
If the MSM likes or recommends the GOP candidate ---- then ignore her/him.
Indeed. If it's any of those three, my vote goes third party.
Indeed. If it's any of those three, my vote goes third party.
translation: i wan't hillary to be my president.
JMHO
True. His co-sponsorships of McCain-Feingold and current Senate immigration bill, just to name two.
But Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee in '08? What are his conservative credentials? Surely not his monstrous Taxachusetts health care plan!
From the top...
SENATOR McCain will have difficulty winning the election if he indeed is the nominee because he is a SENATOR.
The last Senator (or former Senator) who won an election against a non-Senator was Truman, who obviously had the power of the incumbency behind him, in the infamous "Dewey Wins" election.
Before that, you need to look at Warren G Harding in 1920 for a sucessful run for POTUS by a Senator or former Senator.
The reason McCain matches up well against Hillary is that... drumroll please... SHE'S A SENATOR!!!!
The raw data from the last 100 years:
* * *
Harding - Senate to POTUS, 1920
Truman - Senate to VP, POTUS via death, last POTUS to win vs non-senator Dewey in 1952.
Kennedy - Senate to POTUS, 1960 (ran against Senator Nixon)
Johnson - Senate to VP, POTUS via death, (beat Senator Goldwater in re-election)
Nixon - Senate to VP to unemployment to POTUS, 1968 (lost to Sen Kennedy, beat Senators HHH and McGovern in elections)
I agree, I don't like voting for Washington insiders who have already done enough damage to the country. I will hold my nose and probably vote for Rudy.
This is 1964 all over again. The conventional wisdom was that the GOP nomination was Rockefellers to lose. But nobody was listening to the base, and Goldwater got the nom.
I'm hoping we have a TRUE conservative on our ticket, not John McCain. I will vote third party is McCain gets the nom.
"However, most self-proclaimed conservatives have major reservations about McCain."
Ditto that for Romney. Just another RINO. And he will peak way too soon. Once people learn about his wishy-washy views on abortion and his support for gays, over the boy scouts, he's toast.
I'd rather have a DemonRat who is at least honest enough to run under that name.
"Truman defeated Dewey in 1948, not 1952. But your point is well-taken, though hardly original."
Thanks for the correction... I knew that of course, but was one of those editing deals.
I posted that info to an Ann Arbor, MI Craigslist, and got roundly condemned for saying that Hillary wouldn't win unless she was opposite another Senator. The rant from the guy who was a PhD in biology was enlightening, let me tell you. Finally, someone who'd taken an poly sci class sided with me.
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.
