Tonight we saw a debate which, in some respects, highlighted a real strength of the GOP going into 2008. These are largely great candidates and terrific men. As I watched our guys go toe to toe, it occurred to me, that we really have little right to expect the GOP field to be this rich. When have we had a candidate with the managerial experience of Mitt Romney? Or a candidate with the integrity, principle, and heroism of Senator McCain? When did we last a messenger with the sheer mesmerizing power of Mike Huckabee? Who was the last Republican to combine the toughness AND domestic seriousness of Rudy Giuliani? And where have we recently seen someone unapologetically espousing the federalist principles of Fred Thompson? America’s facing tremendous difficulties, and true statesmen have risen to meet the challenge. That’s the first time I’ve felt that term applied, broadly, to this crew. In almost any universe, any of these men would give Hillary Clinton nightmares. But, we don’t live in any universe. We live in this one, and it’s a universe where almost every segment of the Republican Party demands more conservatism, while almost every segment of the Independent block demands less. And all of these statesman fail on one of those measures. All of them are flawed giants as it were. I wish we could build a candidate with the charisma of Huckabee, the brain of Romney, the principle and courage of McCain, the toughness of Rudy, and the relative conservatism of Fred. But, we live in the real world. And I can’t help but think that unless we come up with a strategy for uniting and exciting the party, and soon, all of these fine statesmen, these embarrassment of riches, will be watching Hillary Clinton’s inauguration in 15 months.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Pretty much in full agreement with you. Great post
October 21st, 2007 at 10:04 pm
[...] post by Matthew E. Miller and software by Elliott [...]
October 21st, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Nice post Matthew.
The only thing that I read from MSM is how lousy our Republican candidates are. Such rhetoric from the liberal MSM only servers to depress Republicans and encourage the liberals. You are right, there are good qualities from nearly every one of these candidates.
I’d rather be winning in November 2008 than now.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
amen
October 21st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
That is why we should be cautiously optimistic for next year against Hillary.
I think that Huckabee and Giuliani would have the hardest time uniting the party. Romney and Thompson would both have less trouble uniting the party.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Romney & Thompson sounds like a great ticket to me..
October 21st, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Matthew E. Miller – your post most beautifully represents how I felt about this debate, and the debates that have gone before — we certainly have, as a Party — an embarassment of riches.
Here’s a solution — and I must give credit to
ThatLibertarianGuy: Rumney Paulter McThomcredabee!
October 21st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
CWPETE: At this time I am not fond of Thompson as nominee for President, but he might make an excellent VP. He is used to the Senate and he is conservative. I think Romney/Thompson might make an excellent ticket. He would be laid back as far as competing with the president in executing.
Northeastern governor and populist Southerner.
Do they differ in policy? I don’t think so. They just differ as far as resume – Mitt clearly has the executive experiential resume. He has proven himself to be successful in his endeavors.
Wouldn’t that be something?! Thompson as Romney’s VP?
October 21st, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Not such a big fan of Thompson as VP. He would be too old to run in 2016 and we would have a battle for the nomination just like now.
I would rather see Sanford or Pawlenty. I don’t think we need to have anything to do with Washington, especially if the Dem ticket is Clinton/Bayh, an all Washington ticket.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Gary is right, we have great candidates.
Although, we will have to choose the strongest ticket. Looking at the polls, only McCain or Rudy have a chance to defeat Hillary. McCain is DOA in the primaries, so that leaves Rudy.
Hukabee, is clearly the most articulate social conservative to balance the ticket with Rudy.
That leads me to the conclusion that Giuliani/Huckabee would be Hillary killer.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Giuliani/Huckabee was the talk of the forum, that sort of ticket would help secure florida
October 21st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
“Not such a big fan of Thompson as VP. He would be too old to run in 2016 and we would have a battle for the nomination just like now.”
Dskinner, just looking at history as a guide, the chances of a Republican winning in 2016 after 4 R terms is so remote that the queue to be nominated will not be a large one. The D field will be very crowded by contrast!
The last time a party held the White House 5 straight was the Dems in 33-53. But that was FDR for 4 election wins, which is not going to happen again…
October 21st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
What do people think of this proposition?
The VP pick should be a female, to prevent a flock of Republican female voters voting Dem for histories sake (depending on what conclusions you draw from the polls, this is a large possibility).
Who are the options?
- Sen Hutchinson (Texas)
- Sen Snowe (Maine)
- Gov Palin (Alaska)
- Gov Lingle (Hawaii)
Any other suggestions?
October 21st, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Jaype, only one of those ladies is pro-life. I don’t think an all pro-choice ticket will fly.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Thats assuming Rudy wins the nomination. Actually Rudy/Lingle would provide 4 divorces between them (as would throwing Newt in as VP) so maybe not the best option.
so are there any other GOP female candidates? Its a shame, becuase there’s no shortage on the Dem side (Hillary, Sebelius, Napolitano, Stabenow, Lincoln, etc) Sebelius & Napolitano would be serious VP considerations if Hillary wasn’t at the top.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
TM,
If I thought Rudy was our most electable candidate, he would be my #1 choice. He’s not. He has too much baggage, both personal and political. He would lose SoCons in mass quantities, and be lucky if they didn’t form a 3rd party. Rudy has oversold certain aspects of his record and hasn’t been called on it. The Democrats will have truth squads from New York City, where Rudy has many enemies, bringing an opposing view on what happened. As Romney has been clawing his way the ladder into serious contention he’s been hit with everything except the proverbial kitchen sink…it’s all out there. As a result, his downside is far more limited. Rudy’s abrasive personality won’t wear as well during a protracted campaign. Also, his campaign strategy sucks. A 48-state strategy isn’t realistic. The final coup de grace: he doesn’t have the ability to self-fund.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
If GWB hadn’t raised taxes, Perot never would have run, (or at least not caught on) and we would have had 4 terms in a row. There is no law that says people want to push someone out of power after a certain amount of time. I believe that Romney would run a competent administration and he would get things done. During a significant portion of the next 8 years Dems will control Congress and people will feel like there is a balance.
The problem with a party staying in power for long periods of time is that they become corrupt and do not respond to what people want.
The GOP would be the favorite to win if Bush hadn’t screwed things up so bad. He spent way too much money, almost never using his veto pen , he mismanaged Iraq, he blew the Katrina cleanup and he did terrible on immigration. If he had handled those issues better we would be the favorites to win next year and our candidates wouldn’t have to run as candidates of change.
Can you imagine how much better things would he had done the surge in 2005 when McCain and others were calling for it, if he had cut spending, if he had managed Katrina better, and if he had secured the border before trying to deal with the illegals already here? Dems would be trying to be more like him and Jeb Bush would probably have 80% support in the GOP primary.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:06 pm
JayPe,
It’s academic since Rudy’s not going to win the nomination. I think Condi would be a good pick, but I don’t see any need to nominate a woman. I prefer DeMint.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Jaype, I’m not above balancing a ticket but I don’t really see any lady politician who wouldn’t seem like a token candidate.
Palin has been office for 5 minutes and has no other relevant experience. That’s not a problem except it makes her look like a cynical pick.
The others ladies are ruled out generally as pro-choice politicians. No candidate needs that headache.
The only plausible female VP picks are Lisa Murkowski and Kay Bailey Hutchison. Both are somewhat pro-choice though. For Rudy there’s no female VP pick that doesn’t look cynical or token.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Rumney Paulter McThomcredabee is an awesome candidate, beth. He can run as John Cox’s running mate.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:19 pm
We don’t need a female candidate or a female VP. We need to appeal to to female voters. Rudy and Mitt both do a very good job of that while Fred for whatever reason does terrible with women.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Crap, I left out Keyes in that mega-candidate!
I’ve got it:
Rumney Paulter “Alan” McThomcredabee!
October 21st, 2007 at 11:28 pm
egs, I agree. I don’t think there’s a suitable female candidate out there.
Condi is qualified, but is associated with a very unpopular president.
Dskinner (#17) your post is a barage of what ifs. I think your paragraph on corruption is the key re longevity, but also the fact that things go wrong & people like to change things (often for the sake of it).
2000 is a case in point. Clinton hadn’t stuffed things up like Bush 43 did ,but had had an excessive libido & brought shame to the Office. Gore was super experienced & qualified, had presided with Clinton over a prosperous time, and had nothing to do with Clintons indiscretions. Yet he still lost because people wanted “a change”.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
#21 – “while Fred, for whatever reason, does terrible with women.”
I am a woman. And I can tell you this — Fred Thompson turns.me.off.
He may be popular to guys who think, “Hey, if this guy can get a babe at age 60 plus*, so can I,” but to me, he is just an old bag of wind.
He is tiresome. Yes … tiresome. When he starts talking, I get tired … and sleepy.
He meanders … he tells his whole life story all over again … like my great grandfather used to do to keep us from leaving … and he is boring. Two words for why I won’t support Fred Thompson: bor. ing.!
*word has it that Jeri was in debt and in dire straits when she met Fred Thompson, the multi-millionaire actor/one-time senator/lawyer/lobbyist. She got a real good catch, yes, she did — just like Anna Nicole – only her guy wasn’t so old.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Gore lost because of the Clinton impeachment/scandal. That turned off plenty of moderates and turned out a ton of conservatives. If you think Clinton wasn’t a drag on Gore in 2000 then you are re-writing history a bit.
My point in all of this is that people only want a change when politicians screw up. If Bush wasn’t so stinking incompetent people wouldn’t want change. If Clinton hadn’t disgraced the Presidency people wouldn’t have voted for change. Thus my point that after 8 years of Romney or Rudy, and 16 years overall of an R in the White House, people wouldn’t necessarily want a change. They would only want a change if Rudy or Romney didn’t govern well.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
When you look at Gore’s loss in 2000 it’s a tragedy in many ways.
Here was the guy who was the hope of the South, was the southern guy in 1988. Doesn’t run in 1992 because of Bush’s popularity, only to see Clinton fill the void and get the WH.
Then in 2000 he ends up running against a guy who in all likelihood wouldn’t have run at all if Clinton hadn’t beat his father in 1992 and certainly not 4 yrs later.
He loses Florida by 537 votes which would have never happened if a few things hadn’t happened that he had absolutely nothing to do with
1: Elian Gonzales. The dems lost over 20,000 Cuban votes from 1996. I wonder why?
2: Ralph Nader. Enough said and the irony is that one of Nader’s big issues is the environment, which Gore by all rights should have owned
3: He ends up needing a state where for the only time in history, the governor is the brother of the other candidate
4: The butterfly ballot snafu
5: The muslim vote. Ironically, arabs and muslims loved Bush and Cheney in 2000. They thought thar Clinton was too pro-Israel, that he had all these Jewish friends(including one certain woman), that Gore selected a Jew of all things as his VP, virtually ensuring an even stronger pro-Israel policy and they remembered how Bush’s father and Jim Baker had gotten tough with Israel and how they did business with the Saudis and how Bush and Cheney were both oil guys who would tilt toward the arabs. Oops. Exit polls showed Bush gained tens of thousands of votes in FL from this group alone.
I could go on.
Now he might have to suffer through seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton once again return to the White House, possibly once again with the benefit of a serious 3rd party on the right.
If I was him, I’d have trouble sleeping at night.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Gore should make a deal with Obama and form a ticket right now of Gore/Obama. If they did that I am almost certain they would give Hillary a run for her money.
Think about it. You wouldn’t lose any Obama supporters if you add Gore to the ticket and you would gain a bunch of support from people who are only supporting Hillary because she is the front-runner. Gore is the darling of the far left and Southern, meaning Edwards would be out of the competition and most of his support would go to Gore.
If they formed that ticket they would virtually eliminate the rest of the field and they would probably get a significant amount of Hillary’s support. I think they would be neck and neck with Hillary within a month of making the announcement.
I hope it doesn’t happen because we would get absolutely crushed in the general election.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:58 pm
jim, excellent post.
The one reason to love Janet Reno, eh? She saved us from Gore. And Elian Gonzalez is a damn martyr.
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 am
I don’t think so. I’m going to get behind our candidate, no matter who it is. The democrats will be for higher taxes, a huge expansion of government and will be on the losing side of the Iraq debate. If the French can do it, it will be a piece of cake for us. I am very optimistic of our chances. I am on the side of Gamecock in this appearing to be like a McGovern moment. I think we will go into overkill mode (at least I am planning on this) and it will be an electoral landslide.
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 am
The reason Gore lost is because he had an idiotic campaign. Instead of saying, “the country is doing great, vote for me if you want more”. He said “we have our backs up against the wall guys, it’s us little guys against coporate america, the big boys against the little weaklings, help! help!”. Despite all this, the country was doing so well in that election that if not for an act of God, he would be president now.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 am
First off, I just want to say…
HOW ABOUT THOSE RED SOX!!!!!!!!! F*** YEAH!!!!!!!!!
I didn’t watch the debate but I’m reading everywhere that all pulled in a good performance and the best debate thus far.
This is a great post, Matthew. Even though a few of the candidates really rub me the wrong way, we really do have a stellar, diverse group unlike the other side. I always found the MSM template that we have all unsatisfactory choices to be comical.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 am
[...] Matt Miller praises all the candidates: When did we last a messenger with the sheer mesmerizing power of Mike Huckabee? Who was the last Republican to combine the toughness AND domestic seriousness of Rudy Giuliani? And where have we recently seen someone unapologetically espousing the federalist principles of Fred Thompson? America’s facing tremendous difficulties, and true statesmen have risen to meet the challenge. That’s the first time I’ve felt that term applied, broadly, to this crew. In almost any universe, any of these men would give Hillary Clinton nightmares. But, we don’t live in any universe. We live in this one, and it’s a universe where almost every segment of the Republican Party demands more conservatism, while almost every segment of the Independent block demands less. [...]
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
nice post.