The University of Oklahoma forum of prominent people who have talked about a “third force” presidential candidate this year has now concluded. Here is a report from the Chicago Sun-Times. Although the meeting attracted a capacity crowd, it does not appear to have generated any big news. Besides Mayor Bloomberg, the forum featured David Boren, Bill Brock, Bill Cohen, Jack Danforth, Susan Eisenhower, Bob Graham, Chuck Hagel, Gary Hart, Jim Leach, Sam Nunn, Edward Perkins (former US ambassador to the UN), Chuck Robb, and Christine Todd Whitman.
Interesting…
Not sure how they will be able to quantify actual bi-partisanship by candidates seekind their own party’s nomination. Won’t the Dem and Rep candidates take many opportunities for pot shots at the opposition party/candidates?
Regardless, it is an impressive and notable collection of current and former national elected officals that met to discuss bi-partisanship.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/01/07/nunnboren_group_regardless_of.html
The above is a link to story that the Atlanta Journal Constitution has on its website about the event.
hope he is a candidate maybe the only chance for gop this year.
Somewhat surprising that Bill Brock, the ex-Tennessee senator and ex-RNC chairman, would be involved in this. During Brock’s winning race against Sen. Albert Gore Sr. in 1970, the NY Times called Brock a “dim reactionary.”
I see there’s a split in the Nixon family. Susan Eisenhower attended this event, while her sister, Tricia Cox, is backing that jerk McCain.
What about our wager, Brad?
Steve,
Game on…of course. Your Romney v My “jerk” McCain for the GOP nod. Tsk, tsk…such language. $10 to the winner.
We should (emphasize ‘should’) know after Super Duper Tuesday who wins this wager unless there is a three (or four) way scenario of delegates with no one in a clear majority and it turns into a knock down, drag out convention scenario which would be unheard of in this day and age. And obviously good fun.
Talk to you in February Mr Rankin.
Oh, I long for a good “knock down, drag out convention scenario” for both the Dems and Reps. It would bring some life back into the conventions. I’m hoping Edwards stays strong enough to get some delegates in the non-winner take all states so that both conventions aren’t locked up by the time they open.
I agree with the yearning for some sort of real action in the conventions. I am old enough to have spent some summer days (against my parent’s protests) watching the nation conventions in 72 and 76, the last times there was any sort of active convention, when the nominee wasn’t preset. I can’t see that happening anymore, everything is so staged for TV there can’t anything exciting at those events. Well, perhaps other than the protests outside the halls.
I’m not sure who Susan Eisenhower is, but I had confused her with Julie Nixon Eisenhower.
What I said, Brad, was that McCain would NOT be the nominee. (I see that Jack Kemp has endorsed him.) I’m not a Romney backer, and his prospects don’t look so good now. If Romney loses Michigan as well as New Hampshire, he’s gone.
I don’t see Julie Annie getting the nomination either, but I’m not ready to say who will. There’s an opening for Fred Thompson, if he’ll take it. If he can win in South Carolina, he’ll be well positioned. I’ve been watching these contests since ’64, and this one is the toughest to handicap.
A brokered Republican convention would indeed be exciting; I well remember the Ford-Reagan battle of ’76, but I seriously doubt that a brokered convention is in the offing this year.
Can’t you just see it? A deadlocked convention turns to… Newt Gingrich!!
Newt Gingrich! Have you been watching too many of the last season of “West Wing” reruns?
Personally I would have liked to see Newt in the race. Either he has had a true transformation since his Speaker days or he is snowing people pretty well with his moderate and bi-partisanship “ish” comments in the last couple of years. Do you think he actually might be a good fusion/bipartisan/independent ticket VP?
I’m still up for a bet if want. McCain’s the guy. You just have to decide your guy before the S. Carolina polls.
So you’re covering your behind. If McCain and “my guy” both lose, you don’t have to pay up.
If Newt were going to run for anything, I think he would’ve sought the GOP presidential nomination. I don’t see him deserting the GOP– and taking a big pay cut– to engage in a quixotic run on a third party or independent ticket.
Given the current state of the Republican race, I too wish Newt were running. (Did you know that he was NY Gov. Nelson Rockefeller’s Louisiana chairman in ’68, when Newt was in grad school at Tulane?)
New Hampshire will be close between McCain and Romney. If enough independents desert McCain for Obama, Romney may have a shot at winning.
Even if there were a deadlocked GOP convention, the delegates would pick someone who had been through the primaries/caucuses. Otherwise, the GOP would be vulnerable to “smoke-filled room” charges.
Not covering anything. I’ve already offered a wager on two occasions with no confirming response. An Alexander Hamilton bill on offer that McCain “that jerk” wins against a candidate of your choice. And the same bet with you being allowed to choose your candidate after NH and before SC. I agree with you that this is a tough race to handicap, but let’s make a bet for something greater and more worthy…bragging rights. McCain will be the Rep nominee. You say nay. Crow to the loser. Or you can still choose a candidate, but it’ll cost you $20 now.
You should begin preparing yourself to pig out on a great big plate of crow. (You and Sen. Lindsey Graham Cracker)
I think you’ll be the one having a little raven pie. But in actuality there is so much that can happen between now and Feb 6th. It’s either McCain or Romney in my mind, but I think Romney will be unpalatable to the evangelical wing of the GOP and McCain, while not the overwhelming favorite of the Reps, will be the nominee. You still willing to put your soothsaying ability on the line “Mr. I picked Reagan in 80”?
It’s a very fluid situation, and even Sean Hannity refuses to make a prediction. In my mind, it’ll be Romney or Huckabee, and if he does well in South Carolina, I wouldn’t dismiss Fred Thompson’s chances. In the unlikely event that McLame is nominated, you’ll see a lot of conservatives staying home or (like me) voting 3rd party– even if Boo-Hoo Hillary is the Dem nominee.
I think that (1) you’re overestimating the ‘problem’ with Romney’s religion, and (2) you don’t understand the depth of conservatives’ antipathy toward McLame. (Hell, he’s even lost straw polls in Arizona and Nevada.)
In early ’80, when I bet on Reagan, the conventional wisdom was that Jimmy Carter would be re-elected.
Romney’s Mormonism will raise the hackles in some states which are significantly evangelical and, of course, in this day and age the question is when do those states come into play in the nomination process…early on or later. Let’s see how he does in SC although that may not be a good gauge as I think I saw he is pullng his media outlay there now.
I assume you are talk ing about social conservatives on point two. Oddly enough McCain is the most fiscally “common-sensical” conservative candidate out there. My grudge with McCain has been his pandering in the last 15 months to cultural conservatives to prepare for this GOP run. At the end of the day more ‘conservatives’ will vote for McCain as the least dis-likable GOP candidate with the best chance against a Dem in the general. Huckaburger is most Bush-like for evangelicals, but I think they now realize they got burned with their choice/votes in 2000 and 2004.
Yes, Romney has pulled his ads everywhere but in Michigan. Dick Morris predicts that Huckster-bee will outpoll Romney in Michigan; if he does, that will be a mortal blow to Romney.
Huckster-bee and Thompson may split the conservative vote in SC and enable McCain to win there, as Robert Novak predicts. If McCain wins Michigan AND SC, he’ll defnitely have momentum going into the Feb. 5 contests.
Please… please don’t put “conservative” and “McCain” in the same sentence. Thompson and Romney, as I see it, are both more fiscally conservative than McCain. I meant conservatives PERIOD in point two. McCain-Feingold is anti-First Amendment; McCain-Kennedy was an amnesty bill; McC voted against the Bush tax cuts; and McC likes to stick his nose up liberal commentators’ rear ends.
Thompson is the best fit for all wings of GOP conservatism, but he doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.
Why is it that Thompson isn’t going anywhere?
Hmmm…silence from Mr Rankin.
Does anyone else have any experience with this?