Speaking of ‘08
 |
Steven Taylor | Sunday, November 12, 2006 |
James notes below that Russ Feingold is not going to run in 2008. To me, no shock there, given that he didn’t have much of a chance to win.
Meanwhile, Ed Rogers takes a look at the GOP field in WaPo.
Right now it is shaping up as a McCain v. Romney v. the Rest (since I don’t think that Rudy is going to run and ditto Gingrich).
About the Author: Steven is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Troy University in Alabama. He is the author of the book Voting Amid Violence: Electoral Democracy in Colombia, forthcoming from University of New England Press and the contributing editor on Colombia to the Library of Congress’s Handbook of Latin American Studies. He has his PhD from the University of Texas in Austin and a BA from the University of California at Irvine.
He does most of his blogging at PoliBlog, which he started in February 2003.
- None Found
- Don’t Forget Rent Seeking
- Iraq WMD’s Revisited
- Chrysler Goes Shrill
- Extreme Beer
- Twitter Revolution Will Not be Televised
- The Mumbai Terrorist Attacks and “Open Source” Warfare
- Obama Gets High Marks
- More Franken Ballots Found!
- Chambliss Wins Runoff, Denies Democrats 60 Seats
- Voting Can Be Hazardous to Your Health
I think Gingrich and Rudy are both running, they are up here in NH entirely too much.
I don't think McCain has a chance-the base can't stand him.
Lincoln Chafee's op-ed in the NY Times today could be seen as a "feeling the waters" gesture.
A Bloomberg/Chafee independent ticket would make things interesting in '08.
Pretty weak field on the starboard side, wouldn't you say? The two biggies are both anathema to the base, in a party that has adopted base-pandering as its core strategery. Then there is a Massachusettes governor, and thats about it for serious candidates, or those with a realistic chance.
Interesting how all the GOP heavy hitters have a significant issue that could sink their potential candidacy. Conservatives hate McCain; Giuliani is socially liberal, extremely so; Gingrich has ideas, but his record is mixed at best; and Romney has the Mormon thing. Which one is the hardest to overcome?
(My money would be on the Mormon thing -- not too many people know much about the religion, and many branches of Christianity consider it a cult.)
Probably gives hope to a guy like Huckabee, who is basically a blank slate in most people's eyes.
Gingrich has ideas
This has got to be one of the great myths of contemporary poltiics--GIngrich as "intellectual." Just because he was briefly a professor at some obscure college in Georgia doesn't make him the next William F. Buckley.
Please, tell me what are the "ideas" that distinguish Newt from any other Republican???
Romney looks like the frontrunner at this point. He's charismatic and the base doesn't hate him. His supposed deficiencies(Mormon, Massachusetts) are minor.
I'd personally prefer McCain, but I also preferred Lieberman in 2004 back when he was leading in the polls. McCain's 25% or so that he's currently polling could be the limit of his hard support just as Lieberman's 18% or so was the limit of his.
But I wouldn't count McCain out. He's got over a year to win over the base, and he's been their friend on a lot of issues that he doesn't get credit for. It can be done, and he's hiring all the best handlers and consultants to help him.
Giuliani also has to be considered a frontrunner if he runs. Forget about the social issues problems. It will cost him some votes in the southern primaries, but he'll be fine everywhere else. He's been a loyal Republican, gets it on the war, and was one of the most successful mayors of our time.
Gingrich isn't horrible, but he's undisciplined and has ethics issues in his past. He's a smart man who should be listened to by any sitting President, but he shouldn't be the one in charge.
Comments are Closed
