Centerfield

I like McCain a lot too. And I'd be fairly pleased to see him become president. I do prefer a somewhat different kind of moderate Republican, though -- the Powell, Whitman, Giuliani, Snowe crowd that take overly liberal positions on the cultural issues.

I think McCain is a vast improvement over the candidates either party has offered in the past couple elections. But I think the Republicans have a strong bench of bold centrists who mix the issues in a somewhat more appealing way than he does.

That said, I think it's fairly likely he'll get the nomination in four years. He's probably going to be the next president that centrists like us like.

As long as the religious right controls the power base of the Republican party, a pro-choice republican cannot be nominated.

McCain would not run as an independant. He is at his core a party loyalist. Will age be an issue? Health?

I will be reluctant to support anyone who represents continuity rather than change.

Rather broad generalization, don't you think?

Regarding "continuity," it's not easy to project out four years, but I anticipate that the GOP will continue to control both houses of Congress for that period--the Senate seats which will be up in two years favor the GOP, and House seats are gerrymanders to the point that few are competitive.

I also expect the GOP to overshoot any reasonable centrist targets. The right has the votes, don't they? I saw on TV today that Bush's approval rating is only 49%. It's remarkable that he got re-elected with such numbers, but people obviously don't like the alternative the Democrats represent. No longer facing re-election, he has less incentive to do what the public wants, and more incentive to do what he wants.

A third GOP term in 2008 would represent continuity, whereas I anticipate we'll need a major course correction. I don't know if McCain can win the Republican nomination signing a loyalty oath to the Bush legacy.

McCain will be 72 in 2008, and he's anti-abortion. The latter isn't an obstacle in the GOP. If he still looks healthy in 2008, I doubt the former would be an obstacle either.

A third GOP term in 2008 would represent continuity

Does this have any bearing on how McCain will lead and govern? This is the only thing that matters, what kind of President he will make.

I think his age WILL be an issue. People will talk about Reagan's age and also speculate about his faculties in his last years as president in light of his developing Alzheimer's. Hilarity among the partisans will ensue.

I agree with Scott. I only care how he proposes to govern. McCain represents to me a rare integrity and strength of character. He is always willing to stand up and speak the truth. So often what he says seems to me to be the thing that I was thinking and was hoping a public figure would stand up and say.

I've never bought the publicity-seeker angle because it always seems to imply that he's speaking up just for the sakew of having an audience. This seems primarily incidental to me. If McCain runs, I'll vote for him again unless the Democrats discover an experienced, honest, character heavyweight who supports better policy paths.

But I agree that McCain is unlikely to get the nod unless he is able to get a lot of independents to vote in the GOP primaries.

I still forecast Mitt Romney, the dashing and devout mormon family man who is a skilled rhetorician and savvy politician, and a fairly charismatic guy. IMO, a Massachusetts democrat like Kerry is political cancer, but a Massachusetts republican with very solid true conservative, low taxes, pro-business, family-values props will be an intoxicating elixir. Wait til you see his act. He's no Rockerfeller or moderate by any stretch of the imagination, although his primary competitors might try nto delude people that way.

BTW, I'm not an especial fan, i just know that Massachusetts has responded pretty favorably to this guy given his flatly conservative policies. If you're a republican in Massachusetts, you have to think "If I can make it here, I can make it anywhere."

Despite what the Bushies are saying now, McCain has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way in the GOP establishment and if he continues taking shots at Bush's policy, he will alienate even more. The Republicans have no need to nominate an "outsider" like McCain who is somewhat independent and likely to annoy the social conservative base. Of course, the party might not have any choice if his campaign takes off, but I think the lack of conservative social bona fides will hurt him with the base.

I think that McCain has to be the heavy favorite. He made a strong bid in 2000, and his profile is much higher now. I think it will be like Dole in '96; it will seem to be his turn and, more important, the field of other viable choices will be bare.

My view of the GOP has been altered a little bit since the election. I admit I did not fully grasp the effect that the Bush campaign strategy would have on the perceived power of the right wing, and I am a little scared by it and don't trust them at all. I had an oh crap moment on election night hearing Pat Buchanan talk about how abortion and gay marriage won Bush West Virginia and Ohio. To keep the country in the center, Rick may be right... We may need a change in party.

I think McCain is in good graces as long as it benefits Bush, that is a whole different thing than being nominated for the Presidency. I hope I am wrong, but part of me wonders if the show in New York in support of moderates was just that, which is what moderate Republicans feared all along. There is also some concerns about McCain. He went centrist to run for President in 2000, will he go conservative in 2008? Will he have to give up what Arlen Specter gave up, which is pretty much all the influence he has as a moderate? Yes, he is chair of the committee, but he can't do anything but rubber stamp judges and the committee itself just got a heckuva lot more conservative with the addition of Sam Brownback and Tom Coburn. I find it hard to believe that centrists are better off just because Specter is chair. Will we be better off if McCain sells the store in order to become President? Is there any other way he can get the nomination?

All this been said I DO have to admit that if the Democrats pick Roemer, or Webb, or Frost as their chair the "New/Third-Way Democrats" are going to have a lot of wiggle room to move the party closer to the center, and because of this a moderate Democrat is going to have an easier time getting the nomination in 2008 than a moderate Republican. I am really impressed with the discussions about social issues amongst Democrats, and the overall direction of the party on Social Security, trade, and fiscal issues. I really didn't think this is what would happen... I thought for sure the Deananites where taking over, but I think the former Governor's campaign for chairman is really up a creek without a paddle and the establishment is going to eventually organize around one centrist candidate, which to me is a pretty positive sign for centrists at least.

Isn't Romney pro-choice?

Oh boy EG, I am going to let Mr. Keegan answer that one. I once thought so, also.

Romney has said carefully phrased things that sound palatable at a glance to people who are pro-choice.
Copied from a local newspaper:

Romney says he personally doesn't support abortion, but as governor would uphold the laws protecting abortion rights.

Implicit in this is that he'd support changing the laws, since he doesn't support them. It's the same legal parse that guys like Ashcroft have employed. Make NO mistake, this guy is NOT, NOT, NOT a moderate. He's no Bill Weld, he's in no sense a libertine unless you're talking about freeing business from government "interference." He seems fairly principled and fairminded, but generally you can expect his policies to be socially paternalistic on the conservative side, and laissez fair free market low taxes pro-business.

In other words, an old school conservative.

I would second what bk says. Romney essentially offered a non-agression pact on abortion, implying that he would not use his position as governor of Massachusetts to restrict abortion. However, I see him as pro-life, and if he were to run for President, he wouldn't be bound by the deal he's made with Massachusetts voters.

Both Romney and Bush attended Harvard Business School (at the same time, I believe). Romney had a more distinguished career as a businessman, and I know of no indication that he received favors as a result of his father's position (Gov. George Romney of Michigan, being out of office by that time).

Romney is an impressive talent. I've voted for him several times. I think he's presidential. It's just that after 8 years of Republican rule, I'll be in the mood for change in 2008.

Romney is an impressive talent. I've voted for him several times. I think he's presidential. It's just that after 8 years of Republican rule, I'll be in the mood for change in 2008.

Rick, I simply don't understand the thinking that you would want to change in '08 even as much as you agree and like everything that might happen in the next 4 years and a Republican nominee would continue those policies, or would vote against the Repub. nominee even if he represented in critical a ways a real change from the policies of '05-'09 that you do disagree with. It doesn't hold up logically to my mind, voting against the party in control for no other sake. Help me to comprehend.

Scott and Rick,

Let me help maybe move this conversation along, because I have an interest in this very area.

Will any Republican be able to lead the party and not do anything in 2008 but propose the continuation of Bush policies? My thoughts are that their (Rove, Inc.) hold on the party is pretty strong and it will be difficult for someone like McCain who has opposed many Bush policies on taxes, the environment, Medicare, energy, etc. to break through. If I am wrong and a independent-minded McCain can win the nomination being himself than great, but I look for a Romney, or Owens, or Frist, or someone along those lines that will over all not move the Party too much away from anything Bush does in the next four years.

I very much see 2008 in some way as a referendum on the Bush Presidency just as 1988 was in some way a referendum on the Reagan Presidency... Gore ran away from Clinton in order to avoid a referendum in 2000...I will never understand why.

I voted for Bush because I thought (1) Kerry never did a good job of convincing me to do otherwise, and (2) I hoped that Bush would eventually be the President I thought he would be when I voted for him in 2000. It is too early to tell, but the signs are not good IMHO. If the Democrats put up someone with moderate credentials against somebody who is arguing a continuation of the Bush policies, as things stand today I would be voting for the Democrat. I might even vote for the Democrat even if I personally feel he/or she is too liberal, just for the sake of change.

Any ideological approach to government from either party is a bad thing over a long period of time.... Our economic structure and our court systems are impacted too greatly.

Will any Republican be able to lead the party and not do anything in 2008 but propose the continuation of Bush policies? My thoughts are that their (Rove, Inc.) hold on the party is pretty strong and it will be difficult for someone like McCain who has opposed many Bush policies on taxes, the environment, Medicare, energy, etc. to break through.

However, if some or many of these policies fail, or Bush's leadership fails, and the '05-'09 period forecasts to be among the most challenging we've faced as a nation, your theory falls apart. Your other points are good though.

Any ideological approach to government from either party is a bad thing over a long period of time.... Our economic structure and our court systems are impacted too greatly.

But if they work?

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Merry Christmas/happy holidays to all.

I think you're right that the level of success of Bush's policies will have a lot to do with how the nominee positions himself in four years. There's quite a wide margin there -- the Iraq situation alone is highly unpredictable, and the public is holding Bush responsible for it.

That said, I would expect at least a couple of high-profile moderates to run -- Giuliani and McCain, at a minimum, with Powell and Whitman off in the wings as people who could run, but probably won't. Then you'll have several real conservatives, perhaps including Frist and Romney.

I think McCain has a certain advantage, in that field. He's got a pro-life record, and therefore might be palatable to part of the religious right. And he's much more famous/popular than the true conservatives.

The question is whether the religious right feels so strong by then that they can reject a likely winner in McCain. Maybe they will. The Bush campaign did a great job in 2000 of convincing Republicans in South Carolina that McCain was the liberal devil himself.

I have to say it makes for an interesting race, though -- high profile moderate Republicans pushing the party base at a time when the base feels they have the power, but lacks a nationally prominent candidate.