Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Cabinet re-facing
If the unthinkable happens and the Repubs lose both House and Senate in mid-terms this year, do you expect that there will be any shake-up in the cabinet members? How will RNC (and '08 presidential hopefuls) further try to distance themselves from Bush?
Or will there be relatively few (if any) changes, under the assumption that regardless of mid-term outcome and possible "referendum" on the incumbents, the presidential election still comes down to which of two candidates resonates better with voters? Therefore, the most important thing is to choose the person in the primary who best represents the party principles, and is electable (the magic buzzword).
Also, if ever there were a risk from a 3rd party candidate diluting Repub votes, '08 is a likely year. I worry about the splintering power that a 3rd party strong fiscal conservative (but social moderate or even liberal) could have on the election. If Rudy or McCain lose, and decide they will never have a chance to emerge from Republican primary, they might be tempted to run as independents. McCain stands to lose the most by alienating the party, but since he is running out of time to run again he may just decide to go for it. Or perhaps an as-of-yet unknown candidate might make a run as an independent (a la Perot). This would be devastating, barring a massive grass-roots effort to drum up enormous support for the main party candidate. I think the best vaccine here is to make sure that whoever emerges from primary is not just socially conservative, but fiscally conservative. This is in fact a must to neutralize a 3rd party run. This is why I like Romney.
Or will there be relatively few (if any) changes, under the assumption that regardless of mid-term outcome and possible "referendum" on the incumbents, the presidential election still comes down to which of two candidates resonates better with voters? Therefore, the most important thing is to choose the person in the primary who best represents the party principles, and is electable (the magic buzzword).
Also, if ever there were a risk from a 3rd party candidate diluting Repub votes, '08 is a likely year. I worry about the splintering power that a 3rd party strong fiscal conservative (but social moderate or even liberal) could have on the election. If Rudy or McCain lose, and decide they will never have a chance to emerge from Republican primary, they might be tempted to run as independents. McCain stands to lose the most by alienating the party, but since he is running out of time to run again he may just decide to go for it. Or perhaps an as-of-yet unknown candidate might make a run as an independent (a la Perot). This would be devastating, barring a massive grass-roots effort to drum up enormous support for the main party candidate. I think the best vaccine here is to make sure that whoever emerges from primary is not just socially conservative, but fiscally conservative. This is in fact a must to neutralize a 3rd party run. This is why I like Romney.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(167)
-
▼
September
(26)
- Newt on Terrorism, before it was chic
- Extremely interesting interview with Newt
- Some positive news from Germany
- Olbermann continues his descent
- The Pope Stands Alone
- C-it-go
- Time to place your bets
- Mid-terms
- Hugo Chavez jumps the shark
- More calls for the West to cease its self-destruct...
- The religion of peace
- B & E
- Internet Straw Polls
- (Deflated) Air America
- Saddam
- Bloomberg
- This doesn't taste like victory
- Allen in '08?
- WSJ pours me a bourbon, neat
- NY State of Mind
- How the blogosphere left and right respond to 9/11
- Why Mitt and Rudy are different
- Romney
- Cabinet re-facing
- OK, I admit it.
- Joe Wilson is the definition of unpatriotic
-
▼
September
(26)
9 comments:
It's hardly unthinkable. I'd say 75% that the Dems re-take the House and 25% they retake the Senate. They need to sweep the toss-ups and then steal a likely-G.O.P. seat (TN, most likely) to get the +6 swing they need. Brown will beat DeWine, Casey will beat Santorum, Tester will beat Burns, and Whitehouse will beat Chafee or Laffey, so that's +4 right there. They need McCaskill to beat Talent, which is, say, 60/40 likely for the Dems, and then they need Ford to beat Corker in TN. CW is Ford will lose, but I think he's got about a 40% chance to take the prize right now. If McCaskill and Ford win, the Dems have the Senate.
I do not believe the GOP will get a single pick-up. Despite all the confident talk, McGavick is blowing up in WA (after his less-than-candid DUI admission), and Kennedy hasn't built any momentum in MN. Kean is leading in his race, but NJ going GOP in 2006? I'll believe it when I see it.
The GOP's best chance to retain the Senate? Corker winning in TN. If not, we need Kean in NJ or Talent in MO. And if we only hold the Senate b/c Kean wins and its 50/50, that's barely a majority. With Collins, Snowe, Spector and Kean, no real pro-life judge will get through the Senate.
I'm getting another bourbon.
As for your main question, I don't see anything much happening if the Dems sweep in terms of the Bush Administration. When W brought on Bolton as his new CoS, he gave him the mandate to clean house. Bolton asked anyone considering resignation to be quick about it, and said he'd be looking to can people who weren't getting the job done.
Actual activity, of course, was a little less than I was hoping for, primarily b/c Miers is still the WH Counsel screwing up our judicial picks. But we did get Rove out of a policy spot and back to where he belongs: planning campaigns. Minetta left, Snow replaced Paulson at Treasury, and Kempthorne replaced Norton at Interior. You will not see any more pressure from the top to force out administration personnel, regardless of the election results.
Bush refuses to make moves if he thinks it looks like he's being "pressured." He sticks with his people, period.
Will the '08 candidates distance themselves from Bush? Depends on the candidate. Anyone who's been a competent administrator in the past has already differentiated himself from the weakness (at least perceived) that W does not hold his people accountable. That gives Rudy and Mitt a huge advantage over the rest of the field. Allen was a governor, but I don't think his track record running VA was as distinguished as the clear turnaround jobs that Rudy did in NYC and Mitt did at Bain and now with the Big Dig. Frist has been an atrocious manager on the floor of the Senate. Huckabee and Pawlenty have plenty of fierce critics in their homestate for their weaknesses (raising fees/taxes), and McCain is a talking head who has never managed anything, to my knowledge. Gingrich is a mixed bag, clearly leading the party to one of its greatest victories, but also getting out-maneuvered by Clinton in the budget confrontations.
The only major policy point that's going to matter is foreign policy, b/c there's going to be agreement on the substance of (if not emphasis on) fiscal policy and social issues (wait and see, even Rudy will be talking about "strict constructionist" judges and the rights of states to decide abortion). On foreign policy, the debate is going to get interesting. Of course anyone who suggests anything short of turning Iran into a hole in the ground if they persist on their current path of defiance will be termed an "appeaser." Will any candidate who takes a more nuanced stand be accepted by the rank-and-file Republicans, who out of loyalty and conviction have supported W's interventionist approach lock, stock and barrel? We will see.
As for 3rd party, I don't see Rudy doing it. I think it's a real worry with McCain. At his age, he knows this is it. He also thinks it's his turn and he's paid all his dues, including campaigning for the past 2 years and swallowing his pride and actively supporting W in '04. He also will get media support and be something of an MSM darling if he runs as an independent, which strokes his ego (just as important to him as actually winning). If the GOP nominee comes out as anti-campaign finance reform, pro supply-side economics (without paygo restrictions), and takes a hard line on illegal immigration, expect to see Johnny Mac handing the Oval Office to the Dems in '08.
Unless of course, he's getting so thoroughly manhandled in the primary competition and the polls that it's obviously a pointless endeavor.
Whoops! Obviously, that should read that Paulson replaced Snow, not the other way around.
If Lieberman runs and wins as an independent, it'll give more fuel to the McCain fire to run as an independent should he fail to get the GOP nomination. He might even choose Lieberman as a running mate just for the MSM stroking. I just hope Hillary gets the Dems nomination. I don't think she'll have a snowball's chance in hell in a general election. I also hope that Jeb Bush decides not to run or drops out early. He could really mess things up in the GOP's bid early on.
If McCain runs as an independent, Republicans lose. Period.
The interesting question is whether McCain steals enough Democratic votes to win the election outright. I know more democrats who have said they would vote for McCain over Democratic candidate than any other 3rd party candidate I've heard before. It will be interesting, to say the least, and I wouldn't be surprised if McCain finished more strongly than Perot. I think this is especially true if Hillary is Dem candidate. McCain would give many 'moderate' Dems a legitimate reason to not vote for Hillary. Also true if McCain pairs up with Lieberman as MB suggested.
With respect to Rudy, I'm not sure how he's going to play his cards. One stream of thought says he should modify his position (at least vocally) on two of gun control, abortion, and gay marriage, so that he has a 'legitimate' shot at emerging as Repub candidate. (I don't think he has any chance, hence the quotes around legitimate.) Choosing not to abandon the Republican party could have advantages for his private consulting practice down the line, in terms of clients, fundraising, etc. (And more to the point, abandoning the party could have dire consequences!) On the other hand, he has to know that he cannot and will not ever emerge as Republican candidate. Given that, which is more important to him: remaining affiliated with the party for perks, or sticking to his principles, branching out as an indy, and running for office? I'm not so sure that it isn't the latter.
Giuliani can't win the nomination? I once thought as you do.
Now I'm not so sure. McCain's numbers have been dropping in the polls and Giuliani's been the main beneficiary. But this Cook poll is the one that really has me wondering.
First of all, it shows that Giuliani gets 32%, McCain 20%, and Gingrich 10%. But that's not the most interesting part. Check out this poll question:
(ASKED ONLY REGISTERED VOTERS WHO SAY THEY ARE REPUBLICANS OR REPUBLICAN
LEANERS.)
Rep2. Thinking about Rudy Giuliani (JEW-LEE-on-nee),
(ROTATE:)
Some people say he really cleaned up New York City as Mayor and made it a safer place, and then he showed real courage as a leader after the attack on the World Trade Center.
Other people say that his views on some issues—because he is pro-choice on abortion, and supports gun control and gay rights—makes it hard for them to support him for President.
Having heard that, which of the following two statements comes closer to your opinion: (ROTATE:)
The Republicans should nominate Giuliani for President, or the Republicans should NOT nominate Giuliani for President.
REPS & REP LEANERS
The Republicans should nominate Giuliani for President
[8/27] 56%
[2/23] 50%
The Republicans should NOT nominate Giuliani for President
[8/27] 38%
[2/3] 43%
It's important to remember that 56% of the people aren't saying they'd vote for him, just that based on his accomplishments the other things aren't exclusionary.
So an anti-Giuliani way of reading this poll would be to say 38% of GOP voters won't consider Giuliani b/c of social issues, but that doesn't mean he's locked up the remaining 62%.
Perhaps a more straightforward reading is that people are warming to Giuliani.
I think the reading comes down to range of opinions seen on this very blog in a previous thread. I think if you look at voting Republicans as a whole, there are a large # for which issues such as national security and fiscal responsibility (which are becoming more inter-related) are more important than any social issues. However, I don't know exactly how this breakdown manifests itself among registered Republicans who actually vote in the primaries.
I wouldn't be surprised if a larger fraction of primary voters than general Republican voters place more importance on social issues. Therefore, the scene is set for a splintering and 3rd party candidate: while many Republicans want candidates like McCain or Rudy for fiscal or security (or general leadership) reasons, the primaries will not provide them for social reasons. I think the Republican party runs a very serious risk of an indy campaign being mounted by someone who has two main platform issues: national security, and balanced budget.