Monday, January 23, 2006

The Republican Prospects for 2008. Not Just the Same Old Names

This should be a readers’ plebiscite especially for Republican viewers. I don’t know about you but I’m greatly concerned about the chances of retaining the presidency in 2008—not because I think Bush is in trouble but I surmise a weariness of the electorate with the same party running things. It goes along with my discouragement that the Democratic party (with the possible exception of Hillary) does not have anyone with the strength of conviction to stand up to terrorism in the way Bush has.

There is nothing that can be done with the Democratic party except to defeat it again and again. Fortunately the Dems are helping by featuring absurdities like Biden, Durbin and Kennedy. The only solution is, it seems to me, for the GOP to nominate a person out of the ordinary with the track record and character to continue the record Bush has begun. Out of the ordinary would seem to disqualify some very good men, some of whom I particularly like: George Allen, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn among them. I fear that if these were nominated, they could not overcome the very natural inclination of the electorate to change parties. I particularly fear John McCain who ranks very high in the polls—fear him because I worry about the war hero as opportunist. Anyone who crusaded for the McCain-Feingold bill, the demagogue who rode public hysteria against “torture” and then when asked what a president would do in time of crisis suggested just ignore the legislation, is not of sufficient character to be president—not withstanding what happened to him in the Hanoi Hilton. A tough and impolitic judgment, but there it is.

Two others who could get elected are Rudy Giuliani and Condoleezza Rice. Ordinarily they would not impress me except that I believe the number one issue will be national security. You can’t convince me that these folks aren’t top drawer quality with the decisiveness that is lacking in ordinary politicians. But my fellow social conservatives will say that both are insufficiently postured on social issues: abortion, et al. True, but I am old enough to believe that this can change. Reagan signed the most liberal abortion bill in the nation and then became a pro-lifer. George H. W. Bush campaigned for the nomination as a pro-abort and switched overnight to run with Reagan as a pro-lifer.

Personally, I would prefer Rice because of her stunning qualifications. She has said she is not interested but the suggestion that with Cheney’s ill health he could resign and allow the president to appoint her as vice president (with her having to obtain confirmation from both House and Senate) would suit me just fine. The time for movement people to insist on strictly pro-lifers serving in the presidency has passed, I think. For one thing, the times have changed and have aided the pro-life cause. I would settle for her agreeing to name strict constructionists to the federal court. After all, isn’t that what we’re after? Giuliani would be acceptable but he has a lot more ground to make up. He was originally a pro-lifer and changed to run for mayor of New York. All told, I would prefer Rice, then Giuliani if Giuliani would make a commitment on judges.

I have gone on too long. I’d appreciate getting your views in Comments and thanks.

5 comments:

  1. During his 2004 speech to those gathered at the GOP convention Giuliani took pleasure in comparing Bush to Churchill and Reagan while contrasting Bush's determination to hold on to his "strong beliefs" with Kerry's changes in position. Leaders can stick to their beliefs yet fail to act in a manner that addresses problems in a meaningful way. How long does President Bush believe he can get away with calling occupation "liberation"?

    Review the transcripts from the Secretary of State's testimony before the 9/11 commission. This administration's actions prior to 9/11 conflict with the urgency expressed in Presidential Daily Briefings. A more general recollection suggests that posturing with former cold war enemies took precedent over addressing al Qaida threats.

    The Secretary of State sees our nation at war until the terrorist threat has ended, but won't acknowledge that our military action – including the positioning of forces necessitated by an unsustainable energy policy by this administration and others prior to 9/11/01 – incites terrorist action.

    Giuliani's record for dealing with terrorism is one of bringing order when responding to disaster, but then supporting actions that further inflame. Rice's record represents a failure to respond to threats followed by the misuse and abuse of our military force.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Richard W. ComerfordJanuary 23, 2006 at 5:41 AM

    Mr. R:

    I have great faith in your ability to make the correct call in these matters. However; can we trust a person with the power of a high office if that person does not have the guts to defend innocent human life? It seems to me that we should not support a pro culture of death politician even if that politician is facing Hillary or a Hillary-like clone.

    God bless

    Richard W. Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Rudy Giuliani would be our best candidate followed by McCain and then Rice. Rice has never been through a campaign and to win the presidentcy you have to want it. It won't be handed to you. If Giuliani were the candidate we could probably get New York and put California in play. There is no way the Dems can overcome that. Social issues will have to be settled on the local/state level anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We in Illinois will have little say in choosing the next president if we don't get our state house in order.

    We should focus on uniting behind a real Republican for governor, and working hard for the Crook County GOP slat, and building the local party organization so that an IL GOP actually exists in 2008.

    The best way to take care of 2008 is to take care of 2006.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Our last two conservative presidents are Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge.

    Bush enacted the third largest socialist welfare entitlement program (Medicare RX - only behind LBJ's Medicare and FDR's Social Security) in the history of our nation and has us spending hundreds of billions and thousands of lives in a war that doesn't protect our country.

    The list you gave Tom is a sad reflection of how low our country and the Republican party has sunk since 1994 and Ronald Reagan.

    God have mercy on America.

    ReplyDelete