A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

A prominent Christian leader whose radio and magazine outreaches are solidly in support of biblically-based marriages - and keeps in touch with millions of constituents daily - says he cannot consider Arizona Sen. John McCain a viable candidate for president.

"Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family as well as the Focus Action cultural action organization set up specifically to provide a platform for informing and rallying constituents.

If you are a Republican running for president rather than for re-election, the calculation is quite different. It is about the views of conservative primary voters, not swing voters in a general election. The three candidates who face the greatest conservative scepticism - John McCain, Arizona senator; Rudolph Giuliani, former New York mayor; and Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor - have all opted to endorse the surge idea. For Mr McCain, this is a matter of simple consistency. Given his hawkish views to date, it would be preposterous for him to turn against the Iraq war now. But not lost on Mr McCain is the importance of shoring up the support of a party establishment still supportive of Mr Bush. Mr Romney, who is attempting to be the candidate of the GOP's conservative base, wants even less daylight between himself and the president. For his part, Mr Giuliani realises that a Republican moderate cannot also be a Republican maverick.

Curiously, two more conservative presidential hopefuls, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have both come out against the surge. Their computation is more complicated. Both Mr Brownback and Mr Hagel are second-tier candidates. Their presidential opportunity arises only if those in the first tier - Messrs McCain, Romney and Giuliani - falter. Should Mr Romney's hawkish stance become untenable, Mr Brownback will be positioned as the right wing's surge sceptic. Mr Hagel, cast in the vexed role of understudy to the Senate's leading maverick, is clearly tired of walking in Mr McCain's shadow. Should the demand arise for an independent-minded conservative without Mr McCain's Iraq baggage, Mr Hagel will be the man.

TX 14: The First Open '08 House Seat?
The Hotline

Our TX affiliate, Quorum Report, just sent out a breaking news alert on GOP Rep. Ron Paul, a.k.a. "Dr. No." Paul, the '88 Libertarian candidate for the president, has apparently filed to run for president in '08, potentially opening up his House seat. Already, Quorum Report notes that one GOPer is making calls about a run. As for Paul, he plans to run as a GOPer this time.

(January 18, 2007 -- 01:48 PM EDT)

When do people wake up to the fact that John McCain is going nowhere in the 2008 presidential race? A new ARG poll shows that over the past year, McCain's support among New Hampshire independents has dropped from 49% to 29%. And ARG President Dick Bennett says those numbers are in line with what he's seeing in other states too.

One suspects (and this may be borne out in more detailed poll data) that the two big reasons for the collapse in independent support for McCain are his status as an Iraq war dead-ender and the fact that he's spent the last three years making nice with right-wingers and right-wing policy initiaitives that independents don't like. Remember too that, despite all the kowtowing, there are big leaders on the religious right who say they'll never support his candidacy for president.

I know a lot of people are saying McCain's a hypocrite and a flipflopper. And, sure, I agree, that's a big reason why his popularity has diminished so dramatically. But isn't it time people start asking whether he'd be a strong presidential candidate or whether he can even win the nomination? His claim to fame, what supposedly makes him such a strong contender is his support among independent voters. But they don't like him anymore.

-- Josh Marshall

Brownback, who was diagnosed with melanoma in 1995, visited a cancer center in Anderson.

He said he wants to see an end to life-threatening cancer in 10 years.

"This is a great chance for hope. It is actually within our reach," said Brownback. Cancer is the "leading cause of fear in America today. It's not terrorism."

Huckabee blurs Bush, Clinton partisan lines

Newly minted GOP '08 candidate criticizes Bush, 'praises' Clintons

MSNBC
Jan. 29, 2007

Blurring the traditional lines of partisanship, conservative Mike Huckabee launched his bid for the Republican presidential nomination with a swipe at President Bush and a friendly nod to fellow Arkansan Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The former Arkansas governor assigned Bush some of the blame for failing to deliver on a 2000 campaign promise to be "a uniter, not a divider" and ease polarization in Washington.

"I'm not sure that this administration really listened and responded to different points of view," Huckabee said in a written interview with HOTSOUP.com, a politically minded social networking site. "Republicans were expected to follow without question and Democrats were ignored and therefore felt slighted."

Huckabee, a Baptist minister who hopes to win support among social conservatives, passed up a chance to take a jab at two favorite targets of the right - Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Would she be a good president? "We could do worse," Huckabee replied, "but the good news is that we could do better and that's why I'm running. I do think it's a huge mistake for Republicans to hope she's the nominee for they will underestimate her at their peril."

Did he ever vote for Bill Clinton as governor or president? "Never did," replied Huckabee who, like the former president, was born in Hope, Ark. "Regardless of politics, one has to have respect for the fact that Bill Clinton overcame tremendous challenges in his upbringing through a turbulent childhood and yet was able - not once, but twice - to be elected president. He embodies the American dream and we should never take that from him."

But Huckabee would like to take over the White House, and a central focus of his strategy seems to be establishing himself as a candidate who can rally conservatives while attracting a fair share of moderates with a message of can-do bipartisanship. [..]

Huckabee impressed [some], including one community member who doesn't see eye-to-eye with the Arkansan on policies. "I like the fact that Mike seems to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I would like to see more of that in our public discourse," [he] wrote [..].

Rudy Giuliani Officially a Presidential Candidate

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor whose popularity soared after his response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, moved closer to a full-fledged campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday.

In a sign that he's serious about running for the White House, the two-term mayor was filing a so-called "statement of candidacy" with the Federal Election Commission. In the process, he was eliminating the phrase "testing the waters" from earlier paperwork establishing his exploratory committee, said an official close to Giuliani's campaign.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting any disclosure by Giuliani.

You have to register to read it.

Could you possibly bring the article?

Republicans and the Bush dilemma
By Jacob Weisberg

Published: January 17 2007 21:47 | Last updated: January 17 2007 21:47

Congressional Democrats seldom agonise before ditching presidents of their own party. In 1967, they abandoned Lyndon Johnson right and left - the right over civil rights, the left over Vietnam. A decade later, they rejected Jimmy Carter's legislative agenda. Bill Clinton faced constant rebellion from his own side.

Republicans are made of firmer stuff. They value loyalty, hierarchy and deference above independence and private conscience. When the GOP controls the White House, the party's congressional wing readily accepts its subordinate position. For an example of widespread GOP abandonment of a president of their own party, one has to go back to Watergate, when, as now, Republican legislators faced a tricky calculation about how to handle an increasingly embattled, isolated and failing president.

For the moment, the problem is largely framed in terms of George W. Bush's proposal to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq. In the next few weeks, the House of Representatives and the Senate will consider resolutions opposing the "surge". Though these measures will be non-binding, they will amount to a no-confidence test. Losing his own party's support on the war would be an unprecedented repudiation, marking the end of Mr Bush's ability to govern or lead. If you are a Republican in Congress, how do you decide whether to join the dissidents or stick with Mr Bush?

If you are a moderate, from the north-east or facing a tough re-election campaign in 2008, the imperative is clear - abandon ship. As even his bitter-enders acknowledge, Mr Bush's policies just cost the GOP control of Congress. But 2008, when 22 of the 34 contested Senate seats will be those belonging to Republicans, could make 2006 look like a picnic. Those already clambering for the lifeboats include vulnerable incumbents, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Susan Collins of Maine. Of this group, Mr Smith has broken with Mr Bush most brutally, calling the war in Iraq "absurd" and possibly "criminal".

If you are a Republican running for president rather than for re-election, the calculation is quite different. It is about the views of conservative primary voters, not swing voters in a general election. The three candidates who face the greatest conservative scepticism - John McCain, Arizona senator; Rudolph Giuliani, former New York mayor; and Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor - have all opted to endorse the surge idea. For Mr McCain, this is a matter of simple consistency. Given his hawkish views to date, it would be preposterous for him to turn against the Iraq war now. But not lost on Mr McCain is the importance of shoring up the support of a party establishment still supportive of Mr Bush. Mr Romney, who is attempting to be the candidate of the GOP's conservative base, wants even less daylight between himself and the president. For his part, Mr Giuliani realises that a Republican moderate cannot also be a Republican maverick.

Curiously, two more conservative presidential hopefuls, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have both come out against the surge. Their computation is more complicated. Both Mr Brownback and Mr Hagel are second-tier candidates. Their presidential opportunity arises only if those in the first tier - Messrs McCain, Romney and Giuliani - falter. Should Mr Romney's hawkish stance become untenable, Mr Brownback will be positioned as the right wing's surge sceptic. Mr Hagel, cast in the vexed role of understudy to the Senate's leading maverick, is clearly tired of walking in Mr McCain's shadow. Should the demand arise for an independent-minded conservative without Mr McCain's Iraq baggage, Mr Hagel will be the man.

Many congressional Republicans not running for president privately share Mr Hagel's anti-war views but fear the wrath of the party's disciplinarians. An object lesson was recently provided by Jeff Flake, an Arizona congressman, who lost a coveted committee seat as punishment for siding with Democratic reforms on a reform vote. Republican legislators also face the problem of explaining why they are changing their minds on the war after supporting it for four years. For the bulk of them, the safest course is to stall and sound sceptical without crossing Mr Bush directly while hoping that Democratic opponents of the war will miscalculate. John Warner, the silver-haired Virginian on the Senate armed services committee, who has been calling for more time to consider the president's plan, is the master of this sort of fog and fudge.

Finally, there are those who face the political hacks' imperative. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, last week called Mr Bush's surge speech "courageous and correct". John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, says the plan offers "our best shot at victory in Iraq". If your job is to whip others for the president, dissent is not an option.

We saw these types during Watergate, too - Mr Bush's father, then chairman of the Republican national committee, was one of them. The greatest was the comically loyal Earl Landgrebe, a now forgotten Indiana congressman. "Don't confuse me with the facts," Mr Landgrebe said the day before Mr Nixon resigned. "I'm going to stick with my president even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot." That remains the default Republican position. It is going to be sorely tested in the months ahead.