Republican "A" and "B" list candidates (2008).

[Moooooo]

TOO EARLY FOR REPUBLICANS TO fret about 2008? Never! Before last week's inaugural fireworks had even been lit, the handicapping of 2008 Republican hopefuls was well underway. GOP sources slice the potential '08ers into an A-list and a B-list. Here's a quick roundup of who's where, as President Bush kicks off Act Two.

First the A-listers:

* John McCain. To conservative eyes, the Arizona senator has a lengthy rap sheet. McCain championed campaign-finance reform. He piqued the Christian Right in 2000. He opposed Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He supports embryonic stem-cell research. And he's backed a host of other media-friendly issues--anti-tobacco legislation, a patients' bill of rights, gun control, CO2 emissions caps--that conservatives spurn.

But after the 2004 election, McCain's star is rising. He campaigned robustly for President Bush. That helped quash the residual bitterness of 2000. Also, McCain gave a superb speech at the Republican convention, in which he made a cogent case for the Iraq war. Still, his maverick bent will prove a burden. McCain's other big minus? He turns 72 in 2008. His big plus? Thanks to his Vietnam heroism and crossover appeal, he's the candidate Democrats fear most.

* Rudy Giuliani. It's hard to gauge how badly the Bernard Kerik fiasco hurts Giuliani long-term. On the one hand, the ex-mayor remains wildly popular and can thrill Republican crowds. On the other, Rudy's rivals will no doubt hang Kerik around his neck (along with Giuliani's two divorces and marital infidelity). But leave Kerik aside. Giuliani's true Achilles' heel is his social liberalism. He supports abortion rights--even partial-birth--and same-sex marriage. Ditto gun control. To win a GOP primary, Rudy must pipe up about his conservative strengths, namely, fighting bad guys at home and abroad. For no matter how weak his hand might appear, Giuliani still holds two aces: his remarkable transformation of New York City and his post-9/11 resiliency.

Of course, as memories of 9/11 recede, so might Giuliani's stature as "America's mayor." He could always boost his stock with a successful Senate or gubernatorial bid in 2006. Rudy "will be an early frontrunner," says one GOP insider. But "ultimately, I don't think he gets nominated."

* Bill Frist. Unlike Giuliani's and McCain's, Frist's fortunes are partly tied to President Bush. As Senate majority leader, Frist will earn credit--or blame--based on how much of the Bush agenda he shepherds through. If Bush gets tax, Social Security, or tort reform, it will be a feather in Frist's cap. He has a two-year window. Self-term limited, Frist won't seek reelection in 2006.

The Tennessee senator projects an amiable, mild demeanor. But he is no moderate Republican. Certainly in a three-way Giuliani-McCain-Frist race, Frist would stand out as a staunch conservative. He would also be the GOP establishment's choice. Frist may lack the dynamism and perceived toughness of Giuliani and McCain. But post-2004 election, he sounds hardened, especially when talking judges.

* Mitt Romney. He could be the sleeper candidate. Of all the A-listers, Romney is the only governor. And historically, as conservative activist Grover Norquist points out, "governors trump senators." Many governors lack real homeland security credentials--but not Romney. He can tout his work as chief of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. Nor is Romney a Massachusetts Republican in the William Weld mold. He's much more conservative, proposing hefty tax relief and bucking his state's highest court on same-sex marriage. Also, as a GOP insider notes, Romney is good on TV and "richer than Steve Forbes."

Romney's baggage? He's famously fuzzy on abortion. Primary voters won't like that. Then there's his faith. Will evangelical Christians pull the lever for a Mormon? An awkward question, but one Republicans have raised. Perhaps sensing this, Romney met with a gathering of evangelicals last week in Washington, before hosting a reception for Bay State natives serving in the Bush administration.

Now for the B-listers:

* Bill Owens. Colorado's governor once seemed a prime candidate. Conservatives loved him. He had taken on a bevy of Democratic interest groups and emerged triumphant. A September 2002 National Review cover story proclaimed Owens "America's Best Governor." Several months later, he pushed through a landmark school-voucher bill. Since then, however, Owens separated from his wife of almost 30 years. And in the 2004 election, Colorado Republicans took a thrashing, losing both houses of the state legislature. Owens can claim a slew of conservative feats. But he lacks a fundraising base, and his '08 prospects seem to be fading.

* Chuck Hagel. "Hagel has kind of fallen off the map," says a leading GOP strategist. Nebraska's maverick senator certainly strikes a unique pose. Hagel serves up red meat on abortion, taxes, guns, and spending, but also tends toward a dovish view of U.S. foreign policy. In 2002, he criticized Bush's "axis of evil" phrase as "name-calling" and rebuked the "rush to wage war" in Iraq. More recently, Hagel, a Vietnam vet, slammed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the war's conduct. Such anti-Bush positions will hardly endear him to rank-and-file Republicans.

* George Allen. As one GOP insider puts it, Virginia's junior senator would be the "conservative's conservative" in the race, à la Phil Gramm in 1996. But whereas Gramm came across as a curmudgeon, Allen, 52, sports youthful good looks and an easygoing charm. He also boasts executive experience. Allen governed Virginia from 1994 to 1998. A reliable pro-life tax-cutter, he sits just to the right of George W. Bush. "Allen runs as Ronald Reagan," predicts Norquist.

* George Pataki. Not only is he the most liberal Republican in the '08 pool, Gov. Pataki also finds himself overshadowed by fellow New Yorker Rudy Giuliani. Pataki's only saving grace could be his home state. Were he able to deliver New York, that would cripple the Democrats. Otherwise, Pataki doesn't have much going for him.

This list is far from exhaustive. One of the most enticing--but very unlikely--candidates remains Dick Cheney. A few right-wingers have already pondered a quixotic "Draft Cheney" campaign, urging Bush's VP to throw his hat in the ring. Cheney has long disavowed any interest in the presidency. But with ample prodding, and a solid second term for Bush, who knows?

Then, of course, there's Florida governor Jeb Bush, whom the Economist calls "the best candidate by far." Jeb has publicly ruled out a White House bid in 2008. But his paper trail makes him a conservative glamour boy. The genial Jeb is a pro-life, pro-voucher, tax-slashing, budget-trimming Reaganite. Absent a marquee '08er, Republicans will look favorably on Gov. Bush--and wish he had a different last name.


http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5168&R=C3CF34683

[YRABNNRM]

The only one's in that list, I think, that even have a possibility of being the nominee are Frist, Owens and Allen.

Giuliani and Pataki couldn't get the nomination, they're too far from the GOP base(unfortunatly) and you simply can't go right from Mayor to President.

McCain's health is a big question and I think in the end he won't run and could possibly die in a matter of years. Like I've said before, 2000 was McCain's time(2004 if Gore won) and it's too late.

Romney(who I personally like and is my 2nd choice) is fuzzy on some issues(well what Governors aren't?) and simply said is from MA. Why would the GOP shift north if they're more sucessful in the south?

Hagel pisses the GOP off all the time and that probably won't sit well with the base voters. Also see his comments on the draft.

It was an interesting read none the less.

[Keystone Phil]

McCain, Giuliani and Romney are on the "A" list and Santorum isn't even making it on either lists?

Let's face reality, folks. Neither McCain, Giuliani nor Romney will be candidates for President in 2008 and if they are, they won't get far!

[Jake]

A-List

Rick Santorum-PA

Conservative, young, a good speaker, and well liked by the conservative base.  Santorum would also have an excellent chance of carrying Pennsylvania and would solidify the base.

Bill Frist-TN

Frist is the other conservative A-list candidate. Frist is somewhat uninspiring which will hurt him in the campaign for the nomination.  Frist's fortunes are tied to how well he shepards President Bush's agenda through Congress and that will determine which conservative the White house backs.

Mitt Romney-MA
(see above)   I'd vote for a Mormon BTW

Mark Sanford-SC
Southern, conservative, Governor.  Perfect candidate.

B-List

George Pataki-NY
To moderate for the base.

George Allen-VA
Conservative, southern, a good campaigner.

Bill Owens-CO
His stock has fallen, but he can still get the nomination if he keeps active after 2006.

[Smash255]

guliani is more liberal than pataki on social issues.  Either way neither are getting the nod

[MaC]

What would probably work best is either a moderate or moderate conservative.  Look, there's several different types they can go with.  These two won't work.  Type one is the far right, southern, homonausic, Christian religious fundmentalist.  People will see them as too close-minded. Example, the Frists, DeLays, Robertson types.  The others that won't work are the "liberal" Republicans who favor affirmative action, gun control, and abortions.  They'll never appeal to their base, and only win the liberal states they run from.  Example, the George Pataki and Rudy Guliani types.  Now what's left is the people that take MOSTLY conservative veiws, as long as they won't take them to the extremes.  Also, a hint of libertarianism (on the campaign trail) will do wonders-as it did for the Clinton and Reagan campaign.

[ian]

I would vote for half of those people.  McCain (obviously), Giuliani, Romney, Hagel, and Pataki are all people I would vote for over, say, Bayh.  And, yes, I realize that Hagel is really conservative, but I think that he's a genuinely good guy with genuine ambition.  And I don't know too much about Bill Owens (or George Allen--but I know that Allen is extreme conservative), so I can't decide whether or not I would vote for him.
Obviously, I wouldn't vote for Cheney.  And I would never support Jeb or Frist.
But these other Republicans all have a definite chance for my vote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Downsides

McCain - is getting old, has cancer
Guilani - Kerik, comment about the soliders and weapons, too socially liberal
Frist - wingnut, company fined billions for Medicare fraud
Romney - can't win his home state
Owens - Dems just did well in CO
Hagel - critical of Bush's foreign policy
Allen - confederate flags
Pataki - terrible speaker whose political career is over in 2006

[Moooooo]

Downsides

Owens - Dems just did well in CO
Allen - confederate flags

Owens - Dems just did well in CO (Plus, he was recently divorced.  So much for "family values.")

Allen - confederate flags (I dont think that would hurt him much at all.  He comes off as very humble and likeable.)

[A18]

What's this about Confederate flags?

[Rococo4]

Hagel should be "D" list at best....unless we are talking about the Dem primary

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What's this about Confederate flags?

He's got one in his living room.

[A18]

Um, so?

[TheWildCard]

I'd assume Dems like Hagel in the same way the Reps like Dean (nominate him and you'll lose big time).

Hagel is the only Republican that has actually brought up the draft and that would kill him in an election. So if the Dem.s actually like Hagel I must ask doesn't the fact that he brought up the draft bother you?

[danwxman]

Let's face it....it's going to be Frist. He's going to win the primaries...he will be seen as Kerry did. He will be the sleeper and the underdog (because of his lackluster personality) but people will like that and he will win.

[A18]

No indication that it will be Frist.

[12th Doctor]

Romney(who I personally like and is my 2nd choice) is fuzzy on some issues(well what Governors aren't?) and simply said is from MA. Why would the GOP shift north if they're more sucessful in the south?

On the contrary, I think we need a northern candidate so that we don't get typed as a southern party.  Everyone knows that the Democrats aren't a national party.  What has yet to be seen is, are the Republicans?

[A18]

What would you define as a national party? A party that can win anywhere in the U.S.?

[12th Doctor]

What would you define as a national party? A party that can win anywhere in the U.S.?

A party that has a lock on American political culture.

Also, in our case, a party that can win states out side of what are traditionally considered its base.  Niether party can say that after the 2004 election... though, obvious the Republicans did better in this goal.

[Smash255]

Romney(who I personally like and is my 2nd choice) is fuzzy on some issues(well what Governors aren't?) and simply said is from MA. Why would the GOP shift north if they're more sucessful in the south?

On the contrary, I think we need a northern candidate so that we don't get typed as a southern party.  Everyone knows that the Democrats aren't a national party.  What has yet to be seen is, are the Republicans?

Considering the fact that, outside of New hampsiere once, the GOP hasn't wonanything on the west coast or Mid-Atlantic & NorthEast since 1988 I would say no

[12th Doctor]

And, also, a party that has prominent members from all over America.

[TheWildCard]

Romney(who I personally like and is my 2nd choice) is fuzzy on some issues(well what Governors aren't?) and simply said is from MA. Why would the GOP shift north if they're more sucessful in the south?

On the contrary, I think we need a northern candidate so that we don't get typed as a southern party.  Everyone knows that the Democrats aren't a national party.  What has yet to be seen is, are the Republicans?

You hit the nail on the head Super! Lets face it the last time a Democrat won an election "both" candidates hailed from the South. Therefore, one could make the argument that a Romney/Santorum ticket would threaten ME, NH, PA, and give us an outside shot at NJ.

[Hitchabrut]

A midwestern who can carry IA, MN, WI, MI, and OH is much more important.

[12th Doctor]

A midwestern who can carry IA, MN, WI, MI, and OH is much more important.

I was including those states in my definition of "northern".

Let me amend my claim then, we need a candidate who is either from the Northeast or the upper Mid-West, but not Ohio or Indiana.

[YRABNNRM]

Romney(who I personally like and is my 2nd choice) is fuzzy on some issues(well what Governors aren't?) and simply said is from MA. Why would the GOP shift north if they're more sucessful in the south?

On the contrary, I think we need a northern candidate so that we don't get typed as a southern party.  Everyone knows that the Democrats aren't a national party.  What has yet to be seen is, are the Republicans?

Oh I agree with you, I just don't think the GOP is willing to take that chance.