Holding on to the White House in 2008

Ready or not, the 2008 presidential race has begun, and it promises to be one of the most dynamic in history. With Dubya term-limited and Dick Cheney going home, the coming election will be the first in 80 years in which neither the president nor vice-president is running.

Without an heir apparent, each party’s primary should be wide open, making predictions this early especially difficult. With freshly inflated confidence, however — my column last week called the winner in each of the ten closest Senate elections — I will tell you over the next couple weeks how I expect those races to shape up.

It stands to reason that, having recently lost both houses of Congress, chastened Republican voters will ask themselves one question above all others when sizing up potential nominees: Will he win? (PC disclaimer: I use the pronoun he because no female Republican, including Condi Rice, has expressed any interest in running.)

Appropriately enough, the two men who consistently top the ’08 polls are America’s two favorite Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

Though Giuliani leads slightly in most of these, McCain is considered the frontrunner — and for good reason. While both men have developed reputations for political moderation, Giuliani’s liberal views on abortion and gay rights — not to mention his messy personal life — are unlikely to escape the notice of the increasingly religious Republican base.

John McCain is no darling of the religious right, either. In 2000, at the heat of his primary battle with George Bush, the Arizona senator famously called evangelical icons Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell “agents of intolerance.” He has also angered many conservative Christians with his support for embryonic stem-cell research (though, unlike Giuliani, he is pro-life). In anticipation of his 2008 run, however, McCain has mended fences with many evangelical leaders, even accepting an invitation last year to be the commencement speaker at Falwell’s own Liberty University. True, most evangelical Republicans will never adore McCain as they do the current president; but if they sufficiently fear the second coming of a President Clinton and think McCain has the best shot at preventing that, they may vote for the moderate but palatable Arizona senator.

Evangelicals, however, are not the only conservative Republicans who may be loath to support McCain. The political maverick has angered libertarian conservatives, economic conservatives, military conservatives and cultural conservatives, respectively, with his stances on campaign-finance reform (he co-wrote McCain-Feingold), tax cuts (he voted against both of Bush’s), torture (he led the call to ban it in the War on Terror) and immigration (he supports a bill that many say amounts to “amnesty” for illegal aliens).

McCain is also not getting any younger. By Election Day, he will have turned 72 (Reagan was 69 when he took office).

Presidential primaries are governed by market forces of supply and demand. With McCain the frontrunner, there will be ample demand for a younger, more conservative alternative to McCain — the only question is who.

With the self-destruction and ultimate defeat of Virginia Senator George Allen, previously considered the likely anti-McCain, the conservative generating the most buzz is Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Having elected not to seek a second term — a smart move, given what befell Republicans last week — the telegenic Romney will depart his job with an impressive record. In four years, Romney turned a 3-billion dollar deficit into a 500-million dollar surplus without raising taxes and signed into law a market-based universal health-care plan that he crafted with the state’s Democratic legislature.

On paper and in person, Romney looks like a golden nominee, but he, too, has an Achilles’ Heel. He’s a Mormon — the splinter sect of Christianity that many Catholics and Protestants alike consider a cult. Romney has done his best to play his faith off, joking to Republican audiences that, though his state was the first to legalize same-sex marriage, “in my church, marriage is between a man and a woman … and a woman and a woman.” If evangelicals have reservations about Romney’s Mormonism, they may just turn to an ordained Baptist minister who has also held Bill Clinton’s old job for the past decade.

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has performed impressively on the job, last year being named by Time Magazine as one of “America’s 5 best governors.” He also has a compelling personal story, having lost over 100 pounds after being diagnosed with Diabetes in 2003. That might sound frivolous, but when the name of the game is geting noticed, it pays to have the most interesting stump speech (Remember John Edwards’s mill-worker father?)

McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee — those are the Republican names you’ll likely hear the most between now and 2008. Others will surface, of course: Senators Chuck Hagel and Sam Brownback, Representatives Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, New York Governor George Pataki, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have all expressed interest.

Gingrich will make a few waves if he runs — the former Speaker remains the most successful leader of the conservative movement since Reagan — but risk-averse (i.e. most) Republican primary voters will steer clear of this polarizing, albeit articulate, conservative icon.

The others, for a variety of reasons, are unlikely to make more than a few splashes: Frist is widely seen as a lightweight who underperformed expectations in his four years as majority leader; Pataki has Giuliani’s social liberalism without his star power; Hunter and Tancredo are lowly representatives and, thus, automatic longshots; and neither Hagel nor Brownback has the charisma to win a primary race, much less a general election.

Smart money says there’s at least a 90 percent chance that the Republican nominee will be McCain, Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee; at least a 70 percent chance that it’ll be McCain or Romney; and at least a 50 percent chance that it’ll be McCain.

Whether the Republican nominee wins will depend on whom the Democrats put up. Can anyone steal Hillary’s thunder? Hint: His name rhymes with “Osama.”

Ben Birnbaum is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at bhb9@cornell.edu. Infomaniacs Anonymous appears Tuesdays.

“A politician who for a decade gives rhetorical aid, comfort, and legitimacy to the pro-‘choice’ and ‘sexual orientation’ movements should not expect support from those who believe in protecting traditional family values
and prenatal children’s Right to Life.”

Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan

Mitt Romney: Vegetarian in Chief
by Gary Glenn

The Washington, D.C. conservative weekly Human Events last December listed Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at number eight on its list of “Top Ten list of Republicans in Name Only (RINOs),” with the following entry:

"Has said, 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.' Supports (homosexual) civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting Houston, he criticized the city's aesthetics, saying, 'This is what happens when you don't have zoning.'" http://www.humanevents.com/sarticle.php?id=11129

Romney should have ranked even higher. He famously tells audiences in Michigan and Iowa and South Carolina that being a “conservative” Republican in Massachusetts is like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.

I attended last fall's state GOP conference at Mackinac Island, where Romney continued his “conservative” masquerade, even daring to tell attendees: "I am pro-life" -- knowing full well that the term, as applied to his full record, did not mean what those listening would think it meant.

During Romney’s twelve-year political career, he has insistently supported legalized abortion-on-demand. In a televised 1994 campaign debate, Romney said: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. ...Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that." http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/02/romneys_revolving_world

Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign web site stated: "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues

Romney that year responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League's 2002 candidate survey: ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." Notably, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/03/clarity_sought_on_romneys_abortion_stance/?page=2

Not surprisingly, Romney's clearly stated support for Roe v. Wade and a woman's alleged “right” to terminate her prenatal child’s life won him the campaign endorsement of the pro-abortion Republican Majority for Choice PAC. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/national/02romney.html?ex=1280635200&en=936602baf674e081&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Romney was also endorsed, twice, by the homosexual Log Cabin Republican PAC, the same group that in 2004 spent $1 million in key swing states on TV ads that attacked President Bush for supporting a federal Marriage Protection Amendment. http://baywindows.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=008EC9FBCFF24AD18614290016BE1303&nm=Current+Issue&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=A0CA3688CCEA4B259FB5FE42F7DDC9B0

http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/articles/news_03112004.html

Romney said he believes the Boy Scouts should allow openly homosexual Scoutmasters: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." In a rare public rebuke, the national BSA criticized Romney’s stand. http://www.888webtoday.com/bresnahan6.html

Romney – like Jennifer Granholm -- endorses Ted Kennedy's discriminatory federal "gay rights" legislation, the state version of which forced Catholic Charities of Boston to process homosexual adoptions in spite of the Vatican statement that such adoptions do moral “violence” to children. http://baywindows.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=008EC9FBCFF24AD18614290016BE1303&nm=Current+Issue&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=A0CA3688CCEA4B259FB5FE42F7DDC9B0

Romney – like Jennifer Granholm – supports forcing taxpayers to subsidize homosexual relationships among state employees via tax-financed same-sex benefits. He even criticized some Democratic legislators for not supporting such "domestic partner" benefits.
http://baywindows.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=008EC9FBCFF24AD18614290016BE1303&nm=Current+Issue&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=A0CA3688CCEA4B259FB5FE42F7DDC9B0

Romney – like Jennifer Granholm – appointed homosexual activists to the bench; in fact, in Romney’s case, two, according to the Associated Press, who “have supported expanding same-sex rights,” one of which is a former board member of the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association. (See copy of Romney gubernatorial news release below.)

In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized so-called homosexual "marriage," Romney denounced as “too extreme” the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual "marriage," civil unions, or same-sex public employee benefits – despite being advised by the news media that his own wife and son had just signed a petition to place it on the ballot. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/03827930.asp

These days, after deciding not to run for reelection as governor, Romney travels to Michigan and Iowa and South Carolina to say that he's now "pro-life" and boast about fighting homosexual "marriage," saying that at age 59, his positions on such issues have recently "evolved." After a political career stretching from his late 40s to his late 50s, Romney asks pro-family conservatives to believe that he's only now, finally, figuring out his core beliefs. http://newsbusters.org/node/4190
Unfortunately, there’s no record of any flip-flop or “evolution” on Romney’s stated support for homosexual Scoutmasters, forcing taxpayers to fund spousal benefits for the homosexual "partners" of state employees, or Kennedy's discriminatory federal "gay rights" legislation.

Most pro-family voters don't believe in the Theory of Evolution anyway, including as it applies to politicians whose “evolving” seems so conveniently timed to produce political benefit.

Gov. Romney can tell all the cattle-rancher-at-a-vegetarian-convention jokes he wants about Massachusetts. But they're going to fall flat when social conservatives learn -- and they will -- that his twelve-year record on abortion and major elements of homosexual activists' political agenda has been closer to that of Vegetarian in Chief.

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.