Monday, October 03, 2005

Looking at 2008 with 2005-eyes

Political aficionados are a rather impatient bunch, which is why poll after poll continuously tracks, not only who Americans WANT as their 2008 presidential candidates, but also who they THINK will be the candidates. Daily conversations with friends and colleagues often turn up such assurances of who will “definitely” be “the one.” After all, we all know that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee and Rice will be the Republican nominee, right? How about Kerry v. Giuliani? Edward v. McCain?

Ok, let us pretend that Rice and Guiliani actually want the job (Rudy says he will decide next month while Rice stated flat out on NBC's Meet the Press, "I will not run for president of the United States"). It is worth looking at why these 2 fan favorites may not be as appealing as they now seem.

Don’t get me wrong, Rice may well be the nominee, or maybe Giuliani, but I will make 3 points:

1) Potential nominees always look more attractive than actual nominees, whose vetting and media scrutiny often uncover features that “potential nominees” never have to worry about. Know what dark secrets lie in Collin Powell’s past? Me neither, but you can be sure that it is out there right now unused and ignored by the media.

2) It’s early… very early. A 2001 CBS poll showed that when asked to name a Democratic candidate, the name most cited was none other than Joe Lieberman (among Democrats, respondents were twice as likely to say Lieberman than John Kerry)! This is unsurprising. Polls asking people to consider a presidential nominee are really just surrogates for asking people what name they most recognize. This is most certainly the case when people cite Rice and Giuliani.

3) Remember that what might look good to the country may not necessarily make it through the primary process.

Right now, Condie and Rudy are looking pretty good. If they are interested in the job, recent poll numbers would certainly indicate that Republicans will support them… but when it comes down to it, will the rank-and-file really support these people?

Rice may be intelligent, but what do Republicans know about her leadership style of policy positions other than the fact that she is intensely loyal to President Bush?

Even in foreign affairs, her claim to fame, her positions may not be consistant with some of the party base. According to FindLaw.com, to offer just one example, her position on international law is the polar opposite from such conservative darlings as John Bolton:


“She recently stated that the United States "has been and will continue to be the strongest voice for the development and defense of international legal norms." Rice has also pointed out that "when we support an international system based in the rule of law, we do the work of making the world a better place, but also a safer and more secure place for America."

Domestically, it is almost inconceivable that Republicans would support a candidate whose position on abortion was anything but unequivocal. Rice’s position is hardly so, saying that while abortion should be "as rare a circumstance as possible… We should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other.” According to the Washington Times, she describes pro-lifers as "the other side" and calls herself “mildly pro-choice.” Will the wing of the party that publcally shunned Bill Frist for support stem-cell research support a “mild” pro-choicer? I sincerely doubt it.

Of course, Rice is a virtual clinic-bomber when it comes to Giuliani, who openly avowed “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights.” When once asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, he responded, “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing.”

On the Democratic side, Hillary has a lot better luck. Although she is FAR more conservative than her critics suggest, Democrats are far more likely to support anyone who they think can win (hence voting for the unpopular Kerry in 2004), which is why Hillary critics tend to point to her polarization and un-winability (is that even a word?) to attack her rather than her policy positions or political history. Also, unlike the many big faces competing for the Republican nomination, the Democratic party today is desperate and leader-less and ripe for another Clinton to sweep the base. Whether or not she can win against her Republican opponent remains to be seen, but my only (admittedly ignorant and way-too-early) prediction thus far: that opponent will not be today’s fan favorites.

No comments: