The Republican Race
My interest in who wins the nomination for the Republican Party for President is academic--it would take a head injury from a nail gun to get me to vote for someone from the G.O.P. However, it's a year to go to the election and it doesn't hurt to evaluate the opposition in preparation for the ugly mess that will be the general election.I've been saying to anyone who will listen that I find it hard to believe that Rudy Giuliani will get the nomination. The thrice-married, gay-friendly, lisping abortion rights advocate is not exactly a dream candidate for a party that has been hijacked by religious conservatives. But I'm starting to believe it may happen, especially with the endorsement this week from Pat Robertson, one of the first to combine the pulpit with the ballot-box. Robertson, of course, is being incredibly pragmatic here. He surely sees the long view, and wants to make sure Hillary Clinton is not elected, and thinks Rudy is the man for the job. Also, though Giuliani has maintained his abortion-rights stance, he has also mentioned that he would appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia, Roberts and Alito, which means that Roe v. Wade would become a seventies relic akin to the pet rock and mood rings. A president's attitude on abortion is most directly expressed with judicial appointments. I think Giuliani is simply trying to walk both sides of the street. His repeated statement that women have the right to control their bodies is meant for moderates, while the Supreme Court line is code for the evangelicals.
Giuliani also benefits from a weak field. There is an article today in the Times about Mike Huckabee making a move in the polls in Iowa. He would seem to be the natural favorite for Christian conservatives, but for some reason hasn't caught on. When I see him on TV he seems entirely reasonable, until someone asks him about evolution. I think he's smart enough to know that the world wasn't created 6,000 years ago, but seems afraid to say so lest he alienate his base. As for the others, well Thompson seems a non-starter, McCain is on the edge of the financial abyss, and Romney is still working on convincing the Christian right that Mormonism is not a cult. The others are on the fringe and stand a snowball's chance in Hell (even though Ron Paul supporters seem to have taken over the Internet).
If Giuliani gets the nomination, I think he can be battered by the Democrats. The name Bernard Kerik will become a household name. The Democrats will probably leave him alone on his marriages, but the die-hard on the right (the kind who talk about forming a third party) may keep it up. The real weakness for Giuliani is he is a negative force, a politican running on a fear platform. If I were Hillary or Obama or whomever, the first time Giuliani raised the specter of "Islamofascism" I'd recall a certain speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said that "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Apparently Mr. Giuliani disagrees, and think we should all be trembing in our boots. Giuliani is also something of a fascist himself, the kind of thug that Mussolini was, who could make the trains run on time. I saw a clip of Giuliani kissing a baby last night that looked incredibly awkward. Hillary Clinton isn't exactly Miss Sunshine, but I think an effective campaign can make Giuliani look like a vice-principal who everyone is afraid of.
There's also the matter of Giuliani having zero foreign policy experience, and that he has done nothing in the way of public service since he left office. He's been busy making thousands per speech.
If you're a liberal Democrat such as myself, do you want a Republican candidate who you think is so scary that he can't possibly win, with the chance of him actually getting in and doing horrible things, or do you want someone who may actually win the general election, but at least won't wreak havoc when gets there. I'm not sure. As I said, my interest in this right now is academic.
McCain's campaign reminds me for all the world of Kerry's primary campaign in 2003-2004. Kerry was dead by this time in 2003. Dead, dead, dead. Death himself was jealous of how dead he was. But he waited it out, and his establishment backers never completely went away. Then he found himself last man standing when Iowa finally rolled around.
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be about where McCain is. Not saying he'll win or anything, but I'm keeping an eye on it. Just yesterday, I even saw someone on RedState say that his combat experience in Vietnam made him invulnerable on military matters. Talk about deja vu.
Of course, Giuliani is starting to look pretty good, but it's hard to say for sure. Like Dean four years ago, there are people in his party who will do anything in their power to take him down. Unlike with Dean, though, those people do not seem to be party establishment, but instead the rank-and-file activist base. Those folks have traditionally not played a huge role in GOP primary politics, despite the noise they make.
Sure, McCain isn't dead. But he sure needs to win in Iowa or N.H. or he's done.
ReplyDeleteThe fascinating thing about this is that historically, frontrunner is a bad thing to be for a Democrat, and a good thing for a Republican. You go back fifty years or something and the leader in polls a year ahead of the election did not get the Democratic nomination, but did get the Republican nomination. If this continues it's bad news for Hillary and good for Rudy, but Hillary is looking more and more likely. She's on a lot stronger ground than Dean ever was.
Yeah, I don't think there's much of a comparison between Dean and Clinton. The only ways Clinton loses are 1) Obama does something to get people really excited (besides show up for speeches and talk in a vaguely inspiring way, I mean), or 2) Gore throws down.
ReplyDeleteThe former is looking less and less likely, and the latter was never much of a possibility anyway. I'm not happy about either of these things, but I guess you have an election with the candidates you've got.