Right Wing Nut House

The boys at Powerline have taken a stab at a little political prognostication with regards to the Presidential race in 2008. This is always fun, of course although at this stage pretty much an exercise in futility.

But, okay…let’s play!

First, Paul has a surprising possibility:

As much as I hate to admit it, my sense is that the country, and probably even the Republican party, will have a serious case of Bush fatigue as 2008 approaches. It is normal for such fatigue to set in toward the end of a president’s second term. Moreover, President Bush’s policies — a war, daring legislative initiatives — and his bruising battles with Senate Democrats are especially likely to tire the country.

This means that the most likely nominee is a Republican governor or Rudy Giuliani. Within this group, the prize most likely will go to the candidate who appeals to conservatives without scaring moderates. Like the George Bush of 2000. Romney may fit that description.

First, I think that Paul is spot on with his belief that the people will be ready for a “return to normalcy.” In fact, I wrote about it for the American Thinker. Whoever the nominee from either party will have to make the War on Terror a secondary issue.

That said, I don’t think either Romney or Guiliani have a chance. The Republican Party hasn’t nominated a northeastern Governor since Tom Dewey in 1948. And while Eisenhower listed Pennsylvania as his home state (he maintained a home in Gettysburg), the old General could hardly be associated with the “Eastern Liberal Establishment” that conservatives rebelled against in 1964.

In fact, 1964 was the last time anyone from a northeastern state appeared on the Republican ticket. New York Congressman Bill Miller was Goldwater’s running mate. And while George Bush 41 had ties to the eastern establishment (and was successfully painted as such by Reagan in 1980) he made his political bones in Texas. I think the chances of a Republican from the northeast winning the nomination are about as good as a conservative Democrat from the South has of winning that parties top spot.

Here are John’s thoughts:

I agree that Bush fatigue will probably be a dominant theme of the 2008 campaign. It’s sad, but President Bush’s success will be the main reason why most people will be yearning for a change. I read somewhere that at the end of a meeting just after the September 11 attacks, Bush turned to Attorney General John Ashcroft and said: “John, don’t let it happen again.” To their eternal credit, Ashcroft, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest carried out that mandate. But if we get through the next two or three years without a major attack, most Americans will be more than ready to “move on.” To move back, really, to the days when everything seemed to be fine.

2008 is a long way off, of course, and don’t forget that I’m the guy who predicted a year before the 2004 election that whoever the Democrats nominated would defeat President Bush. I hope I’m wrong again, and large events are likely to intervene. But for what it’s worth, that’s how it looks now. It is infuriating that the Democrats should be rewarded for their reprehensible tactics, but rewarded, I think, they are likely to be.

A rather too pessimistic outlook, I’m afraid. What John is not taking into account is the endless capacity of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot with regards to Presidential nominees. If, for instance, the Democrats had nominated Joe Leiberman instead of John Kerry, I daresay we’d be looking at our President spending his summers on the eastern shore rather than Crawford, TX. Leiberman could have won the election going away, probably taking both Ohio and Florida away from Bush in the process. Kerry’s only hope was horrible economic and war news - news that never quite materialized.

So whither the Democrats in ‘08? CW says Hillary. I say follow the money. If you look at President Bush’s enormous fundraising advantage leading up to the primaries of 2000, you can see the value of raising cash early. Hillary will be able to do this with ease. Her liberal/Hollywood base is ready to give early and often. She and her husband (if Bill is still in the picture) will suck the air out of any other candidate, especially John Kerry and John Edwards.

Is there a chance for anyone else? No. Only if some shocking revelation regarding Hillary (not Bill) is brought to the forefront can she possibly lose. The feminists, the hard left, the anti-war crowd, George Soros and his money machine are all backing her. She’ll spend the next 2 1/2 years honing her message, massaging her image, and practicing her public speaking. She will win the nomination in a walk.

Here’s Deacon’s take:

I agree that ‘08 is likely to be a tough year for us. I’ve also recently come around to the view that Giuliani can be nominated despite his views on social issues. However, it would be premature to conclude even tentatively that we can only win with Giuliani or someone further to the left. And I tend to think Romney could survive a religion-based assault, although I don’t yet have a clear sense of this. If Romney can’t, there are other potentially attractive governors out there.

Mark my words; if the Republican party nominates a pro-choice candidate they will lose by at least 6 points. And while the electoral college will once again be close, in a race against Hillary, the Republicans would lose not only Florida, but potentially Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado as well. All of those states (except Ohio) have fast changing demographics trending toward the Democrats. Do not underestimate the excitement that a Hillary Clinton candidacy would generate. It would cross party lines and affect even the so-called “security moms” who were instrumental in Bush’s election win last year. She’d be tough to beat.

If Republicans thought the white evangelical vote last year was important it will be even more so in 2008. Only the nomination of a true blue, dyed in the wool, social conservative has a chance of beating Hillary. That’s why even though he’s an incompetent fool, Bill Frist may be the party’s first choice in “08. Senator Frist’s problem will be the fact that he’s a Senator and the Majority Leader. Could it be possible that Frist would resign his seat and pursue the White House after the mid term elections in ‘06? It’s not impossible, but I don’t see Frist as the gambling type.

So whither the Republicans in ‘08? Their only chance may be to nominate someone who would be able to generate almost as much excitement as Hillary. A social conservative but someone who wouldn’t scare the beejeebees out of the great middle of the road voter that’s the key to winning any election in this country.

How about a young, attractive Hispanic? Or a charismatic black female? Senator Mel Martinez and Secretary of State Condi Rice would both have many pluses and minuses. Either could run a strong, nationwide campaign against Hillary. They would generate a huge amount of excitement in the Hispanic and Black communities. Both have inspirational personal stories. And while Martinez is a one term Senator, he has Executive Branch experience as HUD Secretary.

The bottom line is that, historically speaking, Republicans tend to be much more pragmatic in their selection of Presidential nominees. An argument can be made that this is why they win so often. In 2008, it remains to be seen whether the Republican party has the discipline and foresight to nominate someone for what promises to be the most exciting Presidential election in a very long time.