If not Bush, who might the GOP nominate in 2004?

Great Debates
1

This used to be an obviously-silly question, but I’m willing to say it isn’t anymore. Suppose his war drags on, with no real sign of even conquering Iraq, much less being seen by the mass of the Iraqis as liberating it. Suppose the occupying troops, even after a surrender of sorts, instead get endlessly bogged down in guerrilla attacks and suicide bombings. Suppose the WMD “discoveries” are either not made or not believed. Suppose Osama is still on the loose, along with the anthrax mailer. Unrealistic?

OK, how about the recession continues into late this year, with unemployment and consumer-confidence indices in the toilet (the latter is critical).

Suppose the anti-war (in particular) and anti-Bush demonstrations become a daily occurrence, with the chants of “How many kids did you kill today?” and so forth being drowned out only by tear gas, and one or the other of those wafting into the West Wing windows. Unrealistic?

While echoes of 1968 get louder, how about this: It works. Some of Dubya’s closest friends (or would a better word be “sponsors”?) visit him to throw him overboard in an attempt to salvage their own interests. He makes another TV speech, and ends it with “I shall not seek and will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as President”? Unrealistic?

If those suppositions aren’t unrealistic, who would/should the GOP nominate instead? Plainly (I would think) anyone in a senior position in a failed administration would be out of the running (sorry, Colin, you pissed it away already). American tradition is to look outside Washington for Presidential candidates who lack the taint of compromise and grand-scale whoredom, but have records of running significant-sized governments, but would there be time for a GOP governor to get a plausible campaign together?

The top names I can come up with would be:

  • Mitt Romney, freshly-elected Governor of Massachusetts - has a good record in business and in running the SLC Olympics after cleaning up a scandal, but may be seen as too tied to corporate interests. Not a hint of corruption, though, but too-close ties to the LDS Church and its unsavory aspects might hurt him.

  • George Voinovich, now Senator from Ohio and formerly a very successful Governor. No significant ties to the Bush administration, and bucked them on the tax cut amendment. He’d be especially interesting against Kucinich, after having stepped down as Ohio LG to run for Mayor of Cleveland and so successfully cleaned up the mess Kucinich left that he made it to the Governor’s Mansion. Lack of leadership lately may hurt, but not if it’s clear it’s because he’s a moderate in a conservative-led party.

  • John McCain - in Washington, yes, but not of it. Still conservative but not doctrinaire or self-deluding; could be seen as continuing the “real” agenda without mucking it up. Still young and energetic enough to be plausible. May not want it, though.

Who else is it not too early or unrealistic to consider, and why?

2

I love it when the Republican faithful attack their own.

3

Bill Frist, of course. They’re already grooming him for the job, but don’t plan on bringing him on till '08.

McCain? No fuckin’ way will they nominate McCain. He cannot be trusted to toe the Party line.

4

I read somewhere–I think it was Bob Woodward–that Powell’s wife told him she’d leave him if he ran for POTUS so I don’t think he aspires to that office.

Bill Frist, as elucidator pointed out.

Maybe Bill Owens, governor of Colorado? He’s a golden child of the GOP.

Maybe Jeb? Probably too much baggage by virtue of his last name…

How about George Pataki???

For that matter, how about Rudy???:stuck_out_tongue:

5

Also, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Tom Ridge, John Engler, Dick Cheney

6

What, no mention of Ashcroft? :smiley:

7

Kind of makes me hope his marriage is already on the rocks then. Colon Powell strikes me (as an outsider) as the most reasonable element of the current administration.

8

Sigh… this is like saying, “If 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4, what might it equal instead?”

George W. Bush is the President, and (assuming he’s still alive and healthy) he’ll be the nominee in 2004. If the Democrats want him out, they’ll have to beat him on their own. The GOP isn’t going to do it for them.

Silly premise.

9

In 1966, I suspect almost everyone would have said the same thing about LBJ (and let’s not forget that LBJ was elected, in 1964, by one of the largest majorities in history, unlike GWB’s cliff-hanger). Granted, ElvisL1ves is just speculating, but the premise has some pretty fair historical precedent.

10

Then the Dems would just run Mel Carnahan against him again.

11

JerH, a hearty “welcome” to the SDMB! Great one-liner!

12

Oh, please. If the premise bothers you, substitute President Bush succumbing to a fatal heart attack or choking on a more deadly Dorito. The question is a legitimate one: as unlikely as it may now seem, who other than Bush is a viable GOP candidate in 2004?

  • Rick
13

OK, now that we’ve acknowledged it’s a silly premise, I’ll play.

Rumsfeld.

14

Don’t forget Elizabeth Dole.

15

This election climate could be perfect for a liberal Republican or centrist Republican to break away from the hyperconservative wing of the party in the primaries in an effort to realign the party as a whole before the actual election. Just look how far Pat Buchanan dragged them in the opposite direction back in '92.

Among others I’m thinking Susan Collins and/or Olympia Snowe might consider going temporarily rogue.

If either one of them goes for it, look for some bright election manager to offer her the Vice Presidential slot in order to stop the female voters from haemmorageing away from the party during the election, and then minimize her moderate influence thereafter.

16

Frist and Jeb are obvious choices. I have always like Jeb more than W.

Whatever happened to the political career or John Kasich? I figured he’d be pres someday. He’s smart, a good speaker, an action oriented guy, and seemed squarely in the “right” place on the GOP spectrum.

17

I can only hope that a real Republican, a conservative, can challenge liberal Bush in the primary and weaken him enough so that he loses the general election.

I’d much rather see a democrat in office than a liberal republican like Bush. If I’d wanted a damn democrat in office, I would have voted for one.

18

Don’t talk too loud! He might have another heart attack!

Seriously, though, he might have another heart attack. Not a viable candidate.

19

Hermann, you’re kidding, right? Right?

John, the first Google hit on “John Kasich” goes to his own personal end-taxes-and-slash-government think tank, apparently funded by speaking fees. Beats having to take responsibility for results, though.

Frist, I dunno, he seems too much like Bush’s errand boy to keep the Senate in line, not a statesman in his own right. If Bush is out because too many people can’t stand him anymore, he’s out too, and so is Jeb (and black sheep brother Neal, the S&L raider that even Bush’s best friends don’t discuss in public).

Cheney? Only if the next pretzel gets George. I think it’s a more real question if Cheney would pick Bush as his running mate next time.

Pataki? No, the NY 9/11 hero is Giuliani, who might be happier just being adored, and not reminded of what he and the NYPD stood for through 9/10.

Owens? Interesting thought; don’t know jack about him, though.

A Northeasterner? Nope, no moderates, the GOP core wouldn’t stand for it (and Snowe and Collins would be too-blatant tokenism even for them).

If we’re about to see 1968 again, then we’re about to get that year’s free for all too, I would think. But, with the Bush administration discredited, McCain would just have to let it be known he’s interested.

Note: Probability of any of the above is, I agree, less than 50/50 - but noticeably more than 0.

20

Candidates Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Kennedy were all elected within my lifetime, despite serious health problems. I’m not so sure Cheney’s heart problems would necessarily keep him from being elected.