Rough Road: Republicans should be worried about their White House prospects for 2008.

Weekly Standard ^ | 9/28/05 | Fred Barnes

[Crackingham]

THE Presidential election of 2008 is a long way off, but Republicans better start worrying about it now. The 2006 midterm election? Republicans are likely to hold onto the Senate and House. But 2008 is another story. In the midst of a Republican era, Democrats stand a good chance of taking the White House then. Even Senator Hillary Clinton of New York--or perhaps I should say especially Hillary Clinton--has realistic prospects of winning.

What's the problem for Republicans? There are at least five of them. The field of Republican candidates is weak. Democrats will have an easier time than Republicans in duplicating their strong 2004 voter registration and turnout drive in 2008. Democrats, despite their drift to the left and persistent shrillness, barely trail Republicans at all in voter appeal. Besides, they may sober up ideologically in 2008. And the media, unless John McCain is the Republican nominee, will be more pro-Democratic than ever.

Let's look at each of these reasons briefly. The strongest potential Republican candidates are Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. None of them is running and Cheney and Rice are downright adamant about it. I've asked Cheney about 2008 on three separate occasions. He gives absolutely no indication of changing his decision not to run. And he says his health isn't the reason. He just doesn't want to be a candidate and won't do it, he insists, even if President Bush asks him to.

Rice is just as negative on the idea of seeking the presidency. And aides to Jeb Bush say he has no desire to run in 2008, but might consider it in 2012. Besides, he looks worn out after so many crises (hurricanes, Terri Schiavo, the 2000 recount) during his two terms.

That leaves the Republican party with a lesser field of candidates: McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Virginia Senator George Allen, and a few others. All of them have distinct handicaps. McCain's is that many Republican loathe him. Giuliani is a social liberal. Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level. Frist has a soft and blurred image.

The second reason for Republican anxiety about 2008 is organization. Democrats, with millions of dollars from limousine liberals such as George Soros, paid for thousands of campaign workers to sign up voters and get them to the polls. They produced a much larger Democratic turnout in 2004 than in 2000. Republicans used an army of 1.5 million volunteers to increase the Republican vote by even more. It was an enormous political feat.

But in 2008, there's a reasonably good chance Democrats will able to produce another great field operation. All they'll need is another infusion of money from rich liberals. But Republicans will have a harder time. The 2004 volunteers showed up because of their strong personal commitment to President Bush. Will so many volunteers work so hard for McCain or Allen or Giuliani or whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination in 2008? I doubt it.

[driftless]

Maybe not, but he would get a lot of Republican votes plus many votes from independents and even a number of Dems. Remember he was elected mayor of NYC a liberal Dem stronghold. Many people like his stand on terrorism. I'm not fond of his social issues either. But if it means keeping Hillary out of the White House, Rudy has my vote.

[wolfcreek]

Dr.Dyson: member since 9-26-05????????

[wagglebee]

Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level.

EVERY person elected since 1976 with the exception of GHWB was a present or former governor with no national experience. So this is a complete non-issue in my opinion. Allen's popularity is skyrocketing, he was a great governor and has become an very influential senator. He has everything necessary to be elected and I think he will win.

What this editorial fails to mention is that the 'Rats have NO present or former governors who are electable. In fact the only person they really have is Hitlery and she is the most polarizing person in political history.

[ops33]

Excellent point. If it wasn't for Perot,Clinton would never have been elected and re-elected. I always wondered what the leverage Clinton had over Perot to get him to run twice. That being said, who will be the 3rd party candidate to run in '08 so Hillary can win?

[ops33]

I have watched Mark Sanford for several years and think he will make an excellent candidate. Unfortunately, earlier this year he issued a statement saying he was not a candidate for President in '08. As far as General Franks is concerned, I think Generals tend make better candidates than they make Presidents.

[HoosierFather]

I agree that Hillary may not get the nomination. As the driving force for the DIMS will be electability, an anti-Hillary candidate will emerge. Since Hill can really only deliver NY and the traditional blue states, the party elders (if there are any grown-ups left) will realize that she cannot pick up any red states to win the general election. In order to WIN (the guiding principle), they will have to find an alternative. But, if not the Hildabeast, then who can claim the nomination?

If I were running the DNC, I would put together a Mid-West strategy for victory. The starting point of this strategery is that the typically blue states (on the West Coast and in the Northeast) will fall in line for any DIM ticket. The South will again be written off, but the Mid-West is the real battleground and the place to move a red state or two into the Blue column for victory.

So, with a Mid-West strategy in mind, the Dims would be smart to go with two candidates from the Midwest. The current short list would include Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack, and Russ Feingold. All are perceived as strong, reasonable leaders. Bayh is very popular in Indiana and would have a great chance there, but would also positively impact Ohio and Iowa (2004 Red States) and could strengthen results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota (weak Blue States for Kerry in '04). With Vilsack or Feingold on the ticket with Bayh, the DIM party could project the face of "mid-western values" that could sway independents and moderate Pubbies all over the country, but especially in the Mid-West. This is something that Hillary will never be able to project, no matter how many right leaning poses she takes.

If Hitlery does manage to get the DIM nomination, watch for her to pick one of these three as VP. She will have the same stategy, to move a Mid-West state into the Blue column.

[Sensei Ern]

President Bush got elected only 10 months ago. SHEESH!

We weren't wondering who was going to be the Republican candidate in 1997. We were hoping Clinton would resogn in humiliation.

I think it was 1998 before we heard the first Repub candidate, which, IIRC was Forbes. I don't remember Bush getting into the race until a few months before the primaries.

And, until I heard his profession that Jesus Christ was his guide, I paid him no attention. I was for Forbes until then.

Anyone who is panicking this early is paranoid.

[new cruelty]

Besides, they may sober up ideologically in 2008. And the media, unless John McCain is the Republican nominee, will be more pro-Democratic than ever.

Translation: crap-crap-crap-crap-crap-crap-crap.

Yeah, sure the dems are going to sober up in 2008. A sober dem is an oxymoron and the writer of this crap filled article knows it. And by 2008, the media that may be more pro-dem than ever will certainly be much less credible and influential than ever.

[GarySpFc]

How about General Richard Myers?

[new cruelty]

But in 2008, there's a reasonably good chance Democrats will able to produce another great field operation. All they'll need is another infusion of money from rich liberals. But Republicans will have a harder time. ... gosh... if only it was so that everything came up roses for the liberals and the Republicans would only get the shit end of the stick, please let it be so, please, please... please... oh g-d, oh g-d, oh ...

Dear fred barnes,

If you must touch yourself, please refrain from doing it in public.

Much appreciated.

[new cruelty]

Or how experienced for that matter?

[section9]

Firstly, I strongly believe that not only will Rice run in 2008, she will win. But she may not end up running against Hillary, which may seem odd.

Al Gore has been making rumblings. Hillary is stupid. She has none of her husband's political senses. Bill would never have allowed his friends in the media to oversell him like this. He had a sense of timing. Hillary has allowed herself to be nominated in 2005!

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

The Kossacks, the DU crowd-they don't really like Hilly, but they love Al Gore.

Gore knows this. And he's a mean bastard; he'll give Hillary every thing she can dish out.

Until then, Condi '08.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[RandDisciple]

I agree. I used to predict that the day Hillary announces there will already be an agreement in place for someone to run as a third party candidate to split the Rep. vote. She knows from experience how pivotal Perot's running was to her husband's election and she will want to have every advantage in place. I think people underestimate how easy it might be for someone as devious as Hillary to arrange for wealthy Dem backers to fund a third party candidate that would hurt the Republicans.

[democrats_nightmare]

A good analysis by Fred Barnes and highlights a looming problem. If it were not for the war on terror I probably would not care who gets the presidency for both parties spend money like a bunch of drunken sailors.

[Graymatter]

It's pretty scary. I look at it as another case of Republican fatigue, coming at 16-year intervals. A long Republican tenure (8-12 years) leads to tired blood in the body politic, and a fast-talking snake oil artist from the Dem party sneaks in---in 1960, 1976, 1992, and very possibly 2008. Best guess, it'll be John Edwards, without the mole and maybe without the wife as well.

[GingisK]

That is a fact. I won't vote for any Republican who fails to protect our southern border. Any President who calls loyal Americans who protect our own Nation "vigilantes" loses my respect. His party joins him in the "race for the bottom">

[kellynla]

Cheney/Rice

[Let's Roll]

The actual GOP candidate is keeping a relatively low profile - why give the dims years to trash, manufacture allegations etc.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

A well prepared average lawyer will beat a under prepared good lawyer any day in court.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

" All they'll need is another infusion of money from rich liberals. " ...................

No matter how much money they can get,,, THEY ( Liberals/Democrats ) STILL DON'T GET IT " ......

Their message and ideology still does not resonate with most of the American people, that's why they keep losing.

No matter how much money they trow at it, it still won't cure the patient.

They are going to go down in defeat again, and again.
Unless they have a change of heart, change of attitude, change of ideas, change of beliefs, change of message, change of ideology, that most Americans can relate to, they are going down in defeat, but, from the looks of things ? they are just digging a hole for themselves and they don't know when to stop.