The GOP's roadmap to 2008 victory
Well, it's not an easy road or a particularly likely road. But for what it's worth here's how the GOP can hang on to the White House in 2008.
First - get all the presidential vanity cases to drop out of the race. This means you Tommy Thompson. And you Sam Brownback. And Mike Huckabee (who I don't think will run after Register-gate). And Bill Frist and Duncan Hunter and Newt Gingrich. It's time for all you guys to take a deep breath and look in the mirror and repeat, again and again "I will never be president of the United States of America."
There's also a group that have never exactly come out and said they would run, but they don't dissuade speculation either. This includes Fred Thompson (who, in his defense, has fallen into a black hole or something), Tom Tancredo, Chuck Hagel and Tom Coburn. I love Tom Coburn, and I think he'd make a great president but all these guys should unequivocably state that they will not run, because none of them would be strong candidates. As a consolation any of them, with the possible exception of Tancredo, would make a strong VP.
What would that leave us with? Well, a nice strong pool of potential A-list candidates: Mitt Romney. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani. Condoleeza Rice. And Tim Pawlenty, who I do think will run because he's one of the biggest GOP success stories of 2008 and the convention is in Minnesota. Now, I believe Rice when she says she isn't going to run and will probably take her off the list if I don't hear something solid from my White House source by the end of the year. I haven't heard another peep out of Haley Barbour since a fellow speechwriter connected to him told me a year or so ago that Barbour was planning to run. Pawlenty is a long shot, but is another example of someone who's a more than ideal vice president.
So then we have a core group of candidates - Mitt Romney, John McCain, America's mayor and maybe Barbour and/or Pawlenty to stir things up again.
What these guys need to do is admit that the party is doomed unless they all work together. The Big Three candidates should raise as much money as they can over 2007, but by the end of that year at least two of them should drop out and endorse the strongest candidate. Barring a run by Haley Barbour, this candidate would be Mitt Romney.
Now, I don't think Mitt Romney would make the best president but I think he would make a good candidate. I don't have a dog in the Romney hunt. But the fact is, he's handsome, vaguely charismatic and while a bit too conservative for my taste, he's nd a mainstream conservative without being a frother like Brownback. Most importantly, unlike John McCain, he has a fairly short, successful career in politics, no embarassing votes or policies floating around in the background of a decades long career. The Mormon thing will turn people off, but Giuliani's two divorces, cross-dressing and cohabitation with gays will turn off more people.
Another good strategy would be to create an early running power ticket of McCain-Giuliani. I think the two of them would create a bigger political synergy together than they would on their own - the independent conservative and the moderate conservative, putting their differences behind them for the greater good of country and party. But face it - Rudy's not a second fiddle. If it could happen, great, but I think it's probably a fantasy-land. Then again, McCain on in years and might only want to serve one term. Rudy could bide his time for four years and then carry the party's standard in 2012. Anyway, all this is pretty hypothetical.
The smart play is for the party to get behind Romney early, raise a lot of money and use that money to use against the Democrat, not their fellow Republicans in the primary. Ideally, roar into the true presidential race in Spring 2008 with a unified party and a big sack of loot.
And then it's an easy skate to victory, right?
Unfortunately no. Even in the unlikely event the party unifies early, they still have to get over the horrible hump the Bush administration has gotten them in to.
President Bush really needs to go above and beyond and really deliver some major foreign policy improvements and a major domestic policy reform. And as everyone knows, there's very little chance of this, because Bush has evolved into a real loser of a president.
Here's a short list of deliverables Bush could attempt to provide, any one of which would be a great boost to the 2008 candidate:
On the domestic policy side, something along the lines of:
Oh, and top of that the economy will need to be in stellar shape too.
Are you getting an idea of the scale of what the Republicans need to overcome to win in 2008? It's really a long shot, and I am advising GOPers I know to not get their hopes up. Probably we will lose the White House in 2008.
The Democrats have a much easier road ahead of them. I feel it's very important that they nominate Barack Obama or Wesley Clark, but in a pinch Hillary Clinton could probably pull it off, especially absent major policy improvements from the Bush administration.
In a nutshell - it's an understatement to say that momentum favors the Democrats. They are a virtual lock for taking back the White House, although it's less certain they can hold their marginal control of Congress. You are going to start hearing a lot of media hype about how this election is the most wide open in decades, and it may be, but pay close attention to what happens on the Democrat side of things because the frontrunner and nominee will almost certainly be the next president of the United States.
As far as the board goes, Obama is still the strongest candidate by a mile, and I think he knows it. Hillary got a boost from the big Democrat win early this month but they all did. She has little momentum or energy, and apparently not a lot of money either. I'm putting Biden, Bayh and Gravel up but none of these losers has a chance, and I have heard a rumor that Gravel is basically running to raise some money and pay off some hefty medical bills.
Romney, Pawlenty and McCain were the big GOP winners from the November elections - Romney stepped down while he was ahead, Pawlenty won outright and McCain looks more reasonable and statesmanlike every day. All the Congressional GOPers are licking their wounds - don't doubt for a minute that each of them bears some responsibility for the November debacle. Mike Huckabee has made a royal ass of himself - again. Finally, I'm putting Gingrich and Thompson on the board, but like the new entries on the Democrat side, neither has a chance.
More posts soon.
DEMS
Barack Obama (IL) 100
Wes Clark (AR) 89 (-1)
Hillary Clinton (NY) 55
John Edwards (NC) 54
Bill Richardson (NM) 47
Tom Vilsack (IA) 44
John Murtha (PA) 33
Russ Feingold (WI) 33 (+1)
Al Gore (TN) 24
Tom Daschle (SD) 20
Joe Biden (DE) 16 (enters board)
Evan Bayh (IN) 15 (enters board)
John Kerry (MA) 14 (+1)
Mike Gravel (AK) 10 (enters board)
GOP
Condoleeza Rice (CA) 79 (-1)
Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 74 (+1)
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 70 (+1)
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46 (-1)
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 32 (+1)
John McCain (AZ) 26 (+1)
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 20 (-1)
Mike Huckabee (AR) 19 (-1)
Duncan Hunter (CA) 19 (-1)
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Tom Coburn (OK) 16 (-1)
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11 (enters board)
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10 (enters board)
Bill Frist (TN) 9 (-1)
First - get all the presidential vanity cases to drop out of the race. This means you Tommy Thompson. And you Sam Brownback. And Mike Huckabee (who I don't think will run after Register-gate). And Bill Frist and Duncan Hunter and Newt Gingrich. It's time for all you guys to take a deep breath and look in the mirror and repeat, again and again "I will never be president of the United States of America."
There's also a group that have never exactly come out and said they would run, but they don't dissuade speculation either. This includes Fred Thompson (who, in his defense, has fallen into a black hole or something), Tom Tancredo, Chuck Hagel and Tom Coburn. I love Tom Coburn, and I think he'd make a great president but all these guys should unequivocably state that they will not run, because none of them would be strong candidates. As a consolation any of them, with the possible exception of Tancredo, would make a strong VP.
What would that leave us with? Well, a nice strong pool of potential A-list candidates: Mitt Romney. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani. Condoleeza Rice. And Tim Pawlenty, who I do think will run because he's one of the biggest GOP success stories of 2008 and the convention is in Minnesota. Now, I believe Rice when she says she isn't going to run and will probably take her off the list if I don't hear something solid from my White House source by the end of the year. I haven't heard another peep out of Haley Barbour since a fellow speechwriter connected to him told me a year or so ago that Barbour was planning to run. Pawlenty is a long shot, but is another example of someone who's a more than ideal vice president.
So then we have a core group of candidates - Mitt Romney, John McCain, America's mayor and maybe Barbour and/or Pawlenty to stir things up again.
What these guys need to do is admit that the party is doomed unless they all work together. The Big Three candidates should raise as much money as they can over 2007, but by the end of that year at least two of them should drop out and endorse the strongest candidate. Barring a run by Haley Barbour, this candidate would be Mitt Romney.
Now, I don't think Mitt Romney would make the best president but I think he would make a good candidate. I don't have a dog in the Romney hunt. But the fact is, he's handsome, vaguely charismatic and while a bit too conservative for my taste, he's nd a mainstream conservative without being a frother like Brownback. Most importantly, unlike John McCain, he has a fairly short, successful career in politics, no embarassing votes or policies floating around in the background of a decades long career. The Mormon thing will turn people off, but Giuliani's two divorces, cross-dressing and cohabitation with gays will turn off more people.
Another good strategy would be to create an early running power ticket of McCain-Giuliani. I think the two of them would create a bigger political synergy together than they would on their own - the independent conservative and the moderate conservative, putting their differences behind them for the greater good of country and party. But face it - Rudy's not a second fiddle. If it could happen, great, but I think it's probably a fantasy-land. Then again, McCain on in years and might only want to serve one term. Rudy could bide his time for four years and then carry the party's standard in 2012. Anyway, all this is pretty hypothetical.
The smart play is for the party to get behind Romney early, raise a lot of money and use that money to use against the Democrat, not their fellow Republicans in the primary. Ideally, roar into the true presidential race in Spring 2008 with a unified party and a big sack of loot.
And then it's an easy skate to victory, right?
Unfortunately no. Even in the unlikely event the party unifies early, they still have to get over the horrible hump the Bush administration has gotten them in to.
President Bush really needs to go above and beyond and really deliver some major foreign policy improvements and a major domestic policy reform. And as everyone knows, there's very little chance of this, because Bush has evolved into a real loser of a president.
Here's a short list of deliverables Bush could attempt to provide, any one of which would be a great boost to the 2008 candidate:
- Stabilization of Iraq with lots of troops coming home but without hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying.
- Osama bin Laden in chains or his head on a stake.
- Regime change in Iran or the nuclear program in charred ruins.
- Regime change in North Korea or the nuclear program in charred ruins.
- Permanent and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors.
On the domestic policy side, something along the lines of:
- Social Security reform
- Medicare reform
- Immigration reform
- Affirmative Action reform
Oh, and top of that the economy will need to be in stellar shape too.
Are you getting an idea of the scale of what the Republicans need to overcome to win in 2008? It's really a long shot, and I am advising GOPers I know to not get their hopes up. Probably we will lose the White House in 2008.
The Democrats have a much easier road ahead of them. I feel it's very important that they nominate Barack Obama or Wesley Clark, but in a pinch Hillary Clinton could probably pull it off, especially absent major policy improvements from the Bush administration.
In a nutshell - it's an understatement to say that momentum favors the Democrats. They are a virtual lock for taking back the White House, although it's less certain they can hold their marginal control of Congress. You are going to start hearing a lot of media hype about how this election is the most wide open in decades, and it may be, but pay close attention to what happens on the Democrat side of things because the frontrunner and nominee will almost certainly be the next president of the United States.
As far as the board goes, Obama is still the strongest candidate by a mile, and I think he knows it. Hillary got a boost from the big Democrat win early this month but they all did. She has little momentum or energy, and apparently not a lot of money either. I'm putting Biden, Bayh and Gravel up but none of these losers has a chance, and I have heard a rumor that Gravel is basically running to raise some money and pay off some hefty medical bills.
Romney, Pawlenty and McCain were the big GOP winners from the November elections - Romney stepped down while he was ahead, Pawlenty won outright and McCain looks more reasonable and statesmanlike every day. All the Congressional GOPers are licking their wounds - don't doubt for a minute that each of them bears some responsibility for the November debacle. Mike Huckabee has made a royal ass of himself - again. Finally, I'm putting Gingrich and Thompson on the board, but like the new entries on the Democrat side, neither has a chance.
More posts soon.
DEMS
Barack Obama (IL) 100
Wes Clark (AR) 89 (-1)
Hillary Clinton (NY) 55
John Edwards (NC) 54
Bill Richardson (NM) 47
Tom Vilsack (IA) 44
John Murtha (PA) 33
Russ Feingold (WI) 33 (+1)
Al Gore (TN) 24
Tom Daschle (SD) 20
Joe Biden (DE) 16 (enters board)
Evan Bayh (IN) 15 (enters board)
John Kerry (MA) 14 (+1)
Mike Gravel (AK) 10 (enters board)
GOP
Condoleeza Rice (CA) 79 (-1)
Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 74 (+1)
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 70 (+1)
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46 (-1)
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 32 (+1)
John McCain (AZ) 26 (+1)
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 20 (-1)
Mike Huckabee (AR) 19 (-1)
Duncan Hunter (CA) 19 (-1)
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Tom Coburn (OK) 16 (-1)
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11 (enters board)
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10 (enters board)
Bill Frist (TN) 9 (-1)
posted by WinChoice | 10:34 AM
4 Comments:
whats with the comment that "rudys no second fiddle'? dont forget that he was just a mayor and one who before 911, deeply polarized the city with high unfavorables as well as favorables. suddenly, the man shows compassion and concern for his fellow man ( something we did not suspect he had ), following the 911 tragedy and people talk about him as if he was ever anything special. sure, the country looks favorably towards his 911 actions but that alone will not be enough to be able to ride that tragedy to the white house once the other 95% of the man comes to light. most americans know little else of the man outside 911 so lets not put him on too big a pedistal, okay.
Don't rule out Chuck Hagel too quickly, either. He has tried to do a number of the items you list while in Congress, but has not been successful so far. His priorities are in the right place to be the hope for the GOP.
Ed -
Rudy Giuliani probably doesn't have the temperment to be vice president, which is what I meant in my comment, probably not stated very clearly. It's not a simple matter of ego, it's just that he's a big personality, a leader, and I think it would be hard for him to settle for the VP slot.
I agree with a lot of what you say about him - there's definitely things in his past that worked okay for him in NYC but not in the red states and for that matter a lot of the blue.
Charlie - you have inspired me to write a post about why I think Chuck Hagel would be a weak presidential candidate. Don't get me wrong - I think he's done a fine job and in a perfect world would be a frontrunner for the job. But American political behavior isn't based in logic or wisdom so I think he has a lot of handicaps going in to 2008.
Post a Comment
<< Home