Criticizing GOP efforts to extend major tax cuts from Bush's first term and to eliminate the estate tax, Obama said: "These are all steps that John McCain rightly said were irresponsible when they first came up."
"He made a decision to reverse himself on that," Obama told reporters as he flew from Chicago to Washington for a series of Senate votes on budget issues.
But of course, following McCain's oppositions the tax cuts were implemented anyway, and resulted in tremendous economic growth, and higher tax receipts. If the source of the quote were not so inconvenient, McCain would do well to tell Obama: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
"The Man in the Arena"
As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I long ago reconciled myself to the fact that the far left gets most of the creative folks. So it was nice to see the McCain campaign's new video, "The Man in the Arena." Why, it's almost Obama-esque in its production values.
Romney Drops Out
The news rushed around the Internet in the minutes leading up to this CPAC speech, but Romney just made it official; he's bowing out gracefully.
He made reference to a couple of issues that he and McCain differ on, but in the end, he did the right thing and emphasized the importance of electing someone committed to winning in Iraq. It's the menschy thing to do, and I salute him for it.
That said, if the crowd's reaction to some of Romney's lines is any indication, McCain might have a rough time out there.
UPDATE: according to Politico, CPAC is asking its members not to boo McCain. You'd think this would go without saying.
Of the 58 counties in the state, it appears Romney only won three; and all by razor-thin margins. He won Fresno by 541 votes, Shasta by 662 votes, and Sierra by 14 votes.
Now, California is not a winner-take-all state, but neither is it directly proportional. Instead, California's delegates are awarded on a county-by-county basis. Generally speaking, the winner of each county receives 3 delegates (with a few quirks and nuances here and there).
Given this semi-propotional delegate allocation, many had believed the race in California to be largely psychological; that the race would be close enough that both McCain and Romney would take up a fair number of delegates, and that the overall vote total was more about bragging rights than anything else.
But if these numbers are accurate, McCain won't just have won the bragging rights, but an absolutely overwhelming number of the state's delegates, too, thanks to remarkably broad support across its counties.
In other words, California might not have been winner-take-all, but given McCain's across-the-board domination, it might as well have been.
Selective Forgiveness
It'd be reasonable to say that the defining issue of the Republican primaries thus far has been the debate over just how conservative John McCain is.
McCain's detractors understandably point to a number of reasons for their skepticism. They point to campaign finance reform, for example; a misguided (but well-meaning) attempt to help rid politics of money. But of course, they overextend an otherwise reasonable argument by calling it a "frontal assault on the First Amendment."
All the same, discomfort over McCain-Feingold is reasonable. But, as is generally the case, the activists push their luck. They go on to question McCain's stellar conservative record on judicial nominees and the like, based on scattered, sometimes unsourced quotes about what he may or may not have said in private about Samuel Alito. Nevermind, of course, the fact that he voted to confirm him when all was said and done.
They also question his record on economics, pointing out that he voted against the Bush tax cuts at first, and offer as an explanation a seemingly isolated quote about targeting the wealthy. Nevermind, again, then he's campaigned strongly on making the cuts permanent.
These are all reasonable causes for skepticism among highly conservative voters. What isn't reasonable is allowing these things to blur McCain's record, while simultaneously giving Romney a free pass for the same types of transgressions.
Case in point: if McCain says he'll work to extend the Bush tax cuts, and his earlier opposition makes this claim somehow suspect, why should this high level of skepticism be applied only to him? Romney's liberal positions as Governor of Massachusetts are well-documented. He spoke unkindly about the "Reagan-Bush years," was decidedly pro-choice, and supported same-sex unions. He has every right to change his mind, of course, and voters have every right to believe him when he says he has. But why is one candidate to be believed under such circumstances, but not another?
The answer is simple: voters don't actually care for Romney much. This is, and always has been, about John McCain. It is about perceived slights. It is about trying to bludgeon a man who refuses to toe the line. It's about the hopeless notion that a candidate must mirror your every belief, and never lead you anywhere you didn't think you wanted to go.
The systematic attempt to derail McCain's candidacy is unsettling, to say the least. All the more so because the far-right is so desperate to stop him that they'll deify anyone who tells them what they want to hear to fend him off.
"The Capacity to Be Outraged"
That's how McCain aide Mark Salter describes his candidate's passion, and it's a perfect summation of what people are responding to. Not the fiery temper McCain is sometimes accused of having, but the righteous anger he exhibits when he feels strongly about something.
"When he's arguing about something he believes in, he's arguing about it," said Mark Salter, a top aide to McCain. "It's an admirable trait, the capacity to be outraged."
Busting McCain Memes
A couple of interesting articles were posted yesterday concerning the repeated claims that McCain has won on account of a fractured coalition.
Michael Medved shoots down the idea with simple logic. He notes the blatant contradiction when Rush/Hannity and the rest of their ilk bemoan Huckabee's apparent liberalism, yet simultaneously claim he's stealing conservative votes from Romney. Hmm...
Meanwhile, Jay Cost takes a more numerical approach, analyzing exit poll questions to try to determine how McCain and Romney might have fared to this point in a two-man race. The results might surprise you.
The Kodak Theatre Debate
I thought latest Democratic debate was fairly even. I don't agree with many of their positions, so I may not be the best person to judge what kind of rhetoric most appeals to Democratic voters, but on substance and tone, I'd call it a wash.
Most people say Obama won, but most of them, well, really like Obama. They both came off extremely well. If Obama had an edge, it's that he was much clearer, and almost always gave a direct answer to the questions he was asked. Clinton gave a few politician's answers, but was cordial and collected. I came away from the debate feeling as if the two of them could plausibly share a ticket; something I think many had ruled out during the race-related rhetoric two weeks ago.
They both took shots at McCain (each predictably misrepresenting his "100 years" comment), and one each at Romney, just to be on the safe side.
One thing I found particularly amusing about the debate is how much name-dropping it featured. Obama and Hillary both mentioned John Edwards about as often as the Republicans mention Ronald Reagan. Am I the only one who thinks he's destined to become the next generation's Ralph Nader?
It's very shrewd of both of them to play up their similarities to Edwards, as his support could provide a crucial tipping point in what remains a very competitive race.
Hugh Hewitt Didn't Major in Mathematics
How do I know? Because in one of his many post-Florida rationalizations, he breaks down some of the possible outcomes on Super Tuesday, adds up the likely distribution of delegates in a worst-case scenario for Romney, and concludes the following:
Hugh Hewitt - January 30th, 2008
Total at the end of Super Tuesday without a major reversal of fortune for Romney:
Start looking hard at the numbers and put yourself in the discussions with Team Romney. It isn't pretty, but it is far, far from over.
Let me see if I have this straight. It's "far, far from over" because, if things don't go well for Romney on Super Tuesday (and it doesn't appear they will), he'll have around 327 delegates, and there'll be more than 900 delegates left (989, I believe, actually). But, as Hewitt points out, he needs 1,191 to win the nomination.
Now, I didn't major in mathematics either, but it seems to me that, under Hewitt's scenario, Romney would have to win over 87% of all the delegates available after February 5th, which is untenable even for the frontrunner...which he will not be. 87%. A reincarnated Abraham Lincoln couldn't win 87% of the delegates.
It'd be impossible under any standard, but even moreso given the fact that, of the 21 states voting after Super Tuesday, only two of them are winner-take-all. That means that McCain picks up delegates even when he loses.
No one can make Hugh Hewitt like John McCain (with one possible exception), but someone should at least hand him a calculator.
The California Debate
I said it before, and I'll say it again: McCain is stretching on his accusation that Romney wanted to withdrawal from Iraq.
This was perfectly evident during last night's debate, where McCain repeatedly gave stock answers about "being a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution" when asked simple, direct questions about things he'd said. McCain speaks his mind more often than any other prominent politician in the nation, but last night, nobody could get a straight answer out of the Straight Talker. And I say this as someone with a deep respect and admiration of McCain.
I will continue to support him, but I sincerely hope he drops this particular line of accusation. He doesn't need it, and it's beneath him.
The one positive for him last night was that, in the midst of trying to defend his accusation, he circled around a much better, more accurate point: that Romney should have taken a stand on the surge, and rejected the possibility of timetables for withdrawal unequivocally. Romney's choice to give a politician's answer to the question of timetables is what has allowed his words to be misconstrued. For McCain, the honest and reasonable accusation is that Romney didn't take a firm, decisive stand on the issue, but chose vaguer, safer answers.
This is how it must inevitably be under a McCain presidency: no one is going to be pleased 100% of the time, because no one else is John McCain. He'll do things you don't like, but so will every other candidate. The difference is, he makes no attempts at hiding the fact. And that, among other things, is one of the reasons people are supporting him.
It's one thing to talk about transparency in government, and being honest with the voters. McCain is a living, breathing example of the fact that actually living out these principles makes you a huge target by some of the same people who pay lip service to them.
Reflections on the Rallies
Though it was difficult to watch every minute of the four rally speeches last night (especially seeing as how Romney went on before Giuliani had finished), I managed to take in most of them, and you know what that means...another list of random thought-droppings.
McCain
He seemed a little more energetic than usual, not that that's saying much. He was as gracious towards Romney as one could reasonably hope, given that they are, in fact, running against one another. The speech was pretty forgettable, but he closed it out perfectly: "Tonight, my friends, we celebrate. Tomorrow, it's back to work. We have a ways to go, but we're getting close."
Romney
Not as dignified as one would hope; took a couple of small shots at McCain. He says he's going on, and I certainly believe him, but at times he certainly sounded like a guy about to drop out (and his campaign's unfortunate choice of music certainly reflects that).
Romney's a smart man, and he sees the writing on the wall. All the same, he gave a very rousing speech. He keeps giving us glimpses of a much better candidate, buried underneath the pandering. Beneath the politicking, there's a man I could have gotten really excited about.
Giuliani
Terrific speech. One pundit on CNN predicted he'd be very "dignified" and would ultimately seek to save face, and that ended up being pretty dead-on. He was very gracious and personable, as he's been throughout the entire campaign. Looking back, I can't recall a single moment where he said anything questionable, or took any low blows at other candidates. The closest he came was raising the issue of illegal immigrants working in Romney's mansion.
He ran a very dignified campaign, performed well in all the debates, and gave a fine speech last night. I think his legacy is fairly well-preserved.
Huckabee
Not much to say. Funny, charming, not terribly substantive. Talked a bit about the southern states in play on February 5th.
McCain may have been the man of the night, but both Romney and Giuliani gave better speeches. It doesn't matter at this point, of course. It's all over but the cryin' (and on the blogosphere, there's quite a bit of it).
The Ironic Prescience of Matchbox 20
When I wasn't fervently refreshing several differents results pages at once last night, I was hopping back-and-forth between live feeds of each of the candidates' campaign rallies.
I brought up Romney's just in time to hear some rock music playing in the background. I thought I recognized the band, and sure enough, it was a group called Matchbox 20. What's interesting, though, is the song they were playing. It was called "How Far We've Come" and its chorus goes like this:
Matchbox 20 - "How Far We've Come"
But I believe the world is burning to the ground
oh well I guess we're gonna find out
let's see how far we've come
let's see how far we've come
Well I, believe, it all, is coming to an end
oh well, I guess, we're gonna pretend,
let's see how far we've come
let's see how far we've come
The Case for McCain
Even the politically-inclined can be forgiven for not recalling each of our 43 Presidents. Though the American Presidency guarantees each of its title-holders a place in history, a few less-than-stellar individuals have inhabited it. But some men have towered above their eras without it. Talk to the average American about Chester A. Arthur, and there's a decent chance you'll get a blank stare. Talk to them about Benjamin Franklin, and they're right there with you.
The former, of course, was our 21st President. The latter never held any national office. Franklin's legacy is such that even the educated mind may register surprise when, looking back on history, it notes that he never held the highest office in the land. You might say the same for men like Alexander Hamilton. These are men whose wisdom and courage would seem to befit the Presidency, but neither ever held that particular honor.
I am not going to suggest to you that John McCain is on par with Franklin, Hamilton, or any of the other remarkable men who had a hand in shaping America in its infancy. What I will suggest, however, is that if John McCain is not elected President, there is a chance history will look back at the fact with puzzlement.
McCain's personal story is well-documented, though not often by the man himself. Beaten and tortured for years in a Vietnamese POW camp, he gave all but the full measure of devotion to his nation. When offered his release from this hell, he refused, insisting that he would only leave when the soldiers imprisoned before him had been released. His dedication and loyalty to both his country and his countrymen is beyond reproach.
McCain does not hide these facts, but he has rarely exploited them. When he does speak about his experiences in Vietnam, the issue is almost invariably raised by someone else. And despite having a son fighting in Iraq, he refuses to trumpet the fact, despite the credibility it would seem to lend him on some of the issues of the day.
Some conservative voters do not believe he reflects their ideals. No one should begrudge any voter their honestly-held beliefs, but I urge them to examine the transformative Presidents of the past. History records their deeds, not their stated platforms. Theodore Roosevelt, justifiably lionized by conservatives today, was both a hunter, and a conservationist. Do conservatives fail to count him among their own because of the latter? Do conservatives bemoan JFK's commitment to funding a landing on the moon as wasteful government spending?
The great Presidents of history do not always do the things we want them to. They often defy us, achieving goals we never realized we wanted them to achieve. We look back at them fondly, but often fail to see the same sense of independence in the candidates of today. We have slowly discarded leaders who lead us, instead preferring candidates who follow our lead.
Every voter must vote their conscience. My hope is that each voter, however, will look beyond the constant flux of issues, to the core of each man. I hope they will choose a President not only because they agree with them, but because they trust him to disagree when necessary. Someone who shares their beliefs, but has shown the independence and courage of thought to seize great opportunities when they come along, regardless of whether or not they fit neatly within the confines of a given ideology.
It is my belief that, if voters do that, they will support John McCain for President of the United States.
"The Ultimate Betrayal"
In response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama, the New York chapter of NOW (the National Organization for Women) has issued a statement that is, to use the nicest word possible, unhinged:
NOW (New York) - January 28th, 2008
Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.
“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one).
As someone who follows politics on a regular basis, there are few things as frustrating to me as single-issue voters. You know the kind; they have exactly one issue that's important to them, and it trumps everything else.
Well, this is worse. As horrid as it may be to vote against a woman simply because she's a woman, it's not really any better to vote for a woman just because she's a woman.
An organization for the protection and expansion of women's rights is, at its base, a splendid thing. But like all such political organizations, it inevitably ends up forgetting its goals, and seeking power for its own sake. It is not content to inhabit friendly political ideologies; it must supplant them.
Auditing Rasmussen's Accuracy
Primary polls, we are told, are notoriously unwieldy. They deal with a small number of voters, some of which find themselves reacting to news and shifting their vote on a regular basis.
So, generally, people tend to put faith in the poll that tells them what they want to hear. For Romney supporters over the last week, that'd be Rasmussen, which gave Romney a 6-point lead in Florida (until this morning).
But is it really tied? And did Romney actually have such a huge lead before the Crist endorsement? Rasmussen has had a mixed track record on the first four major contests. It's predicted Romney's totals in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina quite well (within 2, 1, and 3 points, respectively). But in all three states, it greatly underestimated those competing against him. It had Romney within 1 in IA and NH, and tied with McCain in SC.
In reality, it had underestimated Huckabee by 8 points in Iowa, McCain by 5 in New Hampshire, and McCain again by a whopping 9 points in South Carolina. All three numbers are above or near the margin of victory in each instance.
Their biggest misfire was in the one major contest Romney has won; Michigan. They had him eeking out a 26-25 win over McCain, when in reality he went on to win 39-30. It should be noted, however, that their last poll in Michigan appears to have been taken almost a week before the primary.
So, what does this tells us? It tells us that in three of the four major contests so far, Rasmussen has predicted Romney's share of the vote extremely well, but vastly underestimated those who went on to defeat him. It's also had all four primaries either tied, or within one point. Actual margins of victory: 9, 5, 9, 3.
Now, they have Florida listed as a tie, as well. If the recent past is any indicator, it may be anything but.
Another Rasmussen Swing
Anyone who's been following the primaries on either side of the aisle knows the following: there are a helluva lot of polls out there.
This is nice, in that it's good to have lots of data on these races. But it's not so nice because feverish supporters of one candidate or another need only one to latch onto.
In this case, Romney's supporters can been trumpeting a recent Rasmussen poll showing their man with a whopping 6-point lead in Florida. Boy, that one sure got them worked up.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows McCain and Romney tied at 31%, Giuliani is a distant third at 16% and Huckabee is in fourth place at 11%.
Rasmussen claims this is due to the endorsement of Florida Governor Charlie Crist yesterday.
Have McCain's dual endorsements from Crist and Florida Senator Mel Martinez blunted what appeared to be a significant uptick in the polls for Romney? We'll know in about 36 hours.
McCain Reaching on Condemnation of Romney
I like John McCain. A lot. Within the next 48 hours, I even plan on laying out my reasons for supporting him here, in an effort to persuade whoever might read it to do the same.
That said, I cannot condone the tack he's taken against Mitt Romney over the past few days. As most of you have probably heard, McCain accused Romney of "[wanting] a timetable for withdrawal" from Iraq.
The quote he appears to be referring to was spoken by Romney on Good Morning America back in April of last year:
Mitt Romney - April 3rd, 2007
Well, there's no question but that — the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.
This is a stretch any way you slice it. While it may be technically correct that Romney was supporting timetables, he was not supporting the kind that McCain has often warned about. You can make the case that timetables of any type -- public or private -- are a bad idea. If that's what McCain wants to say, then that's what he ought to say. But he's admittedly reaching when he says Romney simply "supported timetables" or "supported withdrawal."
This is a pity, not only because of the misrepresentation involved, but because it comes on a front in which McCain does not need to exaggerate his role. He has trumpeted -- for good reason -- his push for the surge and his call for Rumsfeld's resignation. He took difficult positions and was right. His record on the war is better than any other politician in the nation; he doesn't need to twist Romney's words with a record like that.
Romney did great. My readers (both of them) know that I'm not terribly impressed with the man, but he performed the best here. He seemed far calmer than he has in any of the other debates.
Referring to the money spent on the war in Iraq as "treasure" caught on pretty quick.
The questions were ridiculous. The majority of them were "gotcha!" questions where the candidates were asked things about their campaigns and poll numbers, rather than anything about their policies. Truly horrendous job by MSNBC.
The conventional wisdom -- that Rudy needed some sort of seminal moment to save his campaign -- is probably true, but is still obscuring the fact that his performance was very, very good. Just not the stuff last-minute comebacks are made of.
Brian Williams' laptop uses the default "Windows XP" screensaver.
During the segment where candidates ask each other questions, nobody asked Ron Paul anything. Must be kinda sad, like being the only kid in class who doesn't get a Valentine. Someone should choo-choo-choose him.
Romney's attempt to turn his self-contributions into a positive by saying he's not beholden to anyone is a clever redirection, but he undermines it when he simultaneously boasts that he's raised the most money of any of the candidates.
Let's face it: Huckabee is insanely charming, and he always speaks smoothly, as if he's rehearsed what he's saying even when we know he hasn't. The Norris stuff was gold.
The above notwithstanding, Huckabee made himself seem small by talking about parents missing soccer practices. I realize that, today, Presidential candidates are expected to have a plan to fix just about every ill there is, but I would hope that'd be left off the list.
Romney's answer on gun control was hard to decipher. He supported previous legislation, but does not support "new" legislation? Isn't that another way of saying he's changed his mind?
Romney has been inching ahead of McCain in most Florida polls, and he performed well here, so I think he wins the Sunshine State.
TigherHawk has some fun notes on the debate up, as well.
...and the aformentioned PPP survey:
Romney 28%, McCain 25%
Marc Ambinder suggested that the St. Petersburg Times pollsters are considered the best, and if you held a gun to my head McCain by 2-3 points is what I'd predict at the moment, too.
In a poll taken the night of Fred Thompson’s announcement that he is dropping out of the race for President, Mitt Romney took the lead in Florida’s Republican primary, according to the newest survey by Public Policy Polling.
Romney is at 28% in the poll, closely followed by John McCain at 25%. Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee are further back at 19% and 15% respectively. 8% of the state’s voters remain undecided.
Accurate? Who knows. I don't quite believe any of the polls that have McCain or Romney 4-5 points ahead. I also think Giuliani will do a bit better than a lot of polls are suggesting; possibly even breaking 20%. Polling is one thing, but you have to figure his ground operation is pretty good given all the time he's spent there. His support has dropped, but you'd better believe he's got superior mechanisms for getting them to the polls.
Let's get right down to the ramifications: who is this good for, and why? Conventional wisdom would say that it's good for whomever he endorses. Early rumblings are that Thompson may not endorse anyone, but if he does, it'll almost certainly be McCain, who he backed against a good deal of the Republican establishment in 2000.
However, there's an unusual disconnect between what Thompson wants, and what his supporters want. Though McCain may be his candidate of choice now that he's out of the race, it's not clear that his followers will follow his endorsement.
Though data on the matter is hard to come by, there's a growing consensus that, even with a Thompson endorsement, the majority of his supporters will flock to Huckabee or Romney, regardless of where he throws his personal support.
This creates an interesting dyanmic. If they gravitate to Romney in significant numbers, it hurts McCain in Florida, where Romney is looking surprisingly competitive. If, on the other hand, they prefer Huckabee, he'll place stronger there, but probably won't win anyway. McCain, then, is presumably hoping for an endorsement, and hoping that the Fredheads who don't come his way end up in Huckabee's camp, rather than Romney's.
Or, most of them could just sit the primary out now that their candidate of choice is gone, rendering all this half-baked analysis moot. We won't have any idea until the first post-Fred Florida poll is released.
UPDATE: things could crazier still, with some indications that Huckabee, though not necessarily on the verge of packing it in, is losing steam. Does this increase the likelihood that Fredheads will generally prefer Romney?
To Democrats, it's perfectly obvious that the strongest Republican nominee is John McCain. He polls very highly, everybody knows Democrats and Independents who like him, and so on. But Republicans are constantly debating this. You see Republicans spinning horror scenarios of a McCain nomination leading to a splintering base or depressed turnout. To Democrats it's bewildering that they even debate this. Lots of Republicans feel the same way about the Clinton/Obama electability debate.
Methinks this is one of those times where being too close to a situation blinds us to some obvious facts. The primary voters in both parties are failing to see what is hidden in plain sight: Obama has the best chance to win on the Democratic side, and McCain has the best chance to win on the Republican side.
As Chait points out, these facts are perfectly evident to each party's counterpart, but not to those in the party who actually make the choice.
You need look no further than last night's Democratic debate, where John Edwards was asked a question about McCain and the success of the surge. Hillary and Obama both discussed how they would take McCain on. They know. They know McCain is the most electable Republican. They know he's the only one with an unblemished credibility in regards to the Iraq war. Yet many Republican voters are so caught up in their pet issues that they can't see that.
There are, of course, a few semi-persuasive rationalizations. Some say that there will be a lack of enthusiasm from Republican voters if a more moderate candidate like McCain is elected. But they ignore that a) he also puts the votes of a massive number of Independents and even some Democrats into play, and b) turnout and enthusiasm will not be a problem if Hillary is the nominee.
All other things being equal, you should vote your conscience. But all other things aren't equal. The reality is that you're not simply voting for John McCain, or Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee for President. You're voting for a candidate AND their probability of becoming the next President in one fell swoop.
In other words, are John McCain's positions so antithema to immigration hawks and the like that they'd sacrifice, say, a 20% drop in the likelihood of victory in November to vote for Romney? Apparently.
South Carolina Called for McCain
It's all but official: the major networks are now calling South Carolina for John McCain, who currently leads Mike Huckabee 33% to 30% with 88% of the vote in.
The implications of this victory are far-reaching, as it establishes that McCain can play in the South, and affords him plenty of the oft-mentioned "momentum" going into Florida ten days from now.
CNN exit polls show that McCain and Huckabee evenly split the vote among self-identified Republicans. It appears a number of anti-McCain memes will die a slow, painful death tonight.
However, there's one plausible outcome that could throw the Republican race into even further turmoil:
A Fred Thompson victory.
Despite his slow start, Thompson still appeals to almost every section of the Republican party. Republican voters have not been disappointed in his message or policy stances, but with his lack of enthusiasm. He alleviated this with a strong showing in last Friday's debate, and has been closing electoral gaps since.
But even though a Thompson win would muddle an already murky race for the nomination, it also has the chance to crystalize things. Any win will produce a degree of momentum for any candidate, naturally, but a Thompson win has the potential to become a tsunami in the way it could not for most other candidates. A win from Romney or Huckabee has a "well, we'll see" air about it. A Thompson win will have many conservatives crying "at last!" It is reasonable to assume that voters would coalesce behind Thompson more than they would behind any other candidate who might win the state.
Thompson appeals to every section of the Republican party. He's the kind of candidate people look for an excuse to get behind. If he gives them that with a win in South Carolina, voters could flock to him at an alarming rate.
Cross-Party Matchups
Another day, another poll. This one's a bit different, however; it's a Diageo/Hotline national survey which pits candidates from both parties against one another.
What did they find? That both Clinton and Obama fare very well against every GOP candidate...except John McCain.
Shocking, eh? Well, no, not really. Several candidates on the Republican side have half-heartedly tried to claim the "most electable" mantle, but only die-hard supporters seem to take those claims seriously
To any objective observer, this poll confirms what was obvious over a year ago: John McCain has the best chance of winning in November.
It's important to vote your conscience, but these sorts of political realities need to be considered. Every primary voter needs to ask themselves which they prefer: a 4 in 10 chance that Mitt Romney will become President, or a 6 in 10 chance that John McCain will?
Considering the alternatives in 2008, it's surprising that conservative voters aren't placing more emphasis on electability.
Will South Carolina Bring Clarity?
Everyone had assumed -- with good reason -- that the first several primaries would "thin the field" a good deal on the Republican side. But the first three contested primaries (sorry, Wyoming) have produced three very different winners, leaving the race as wide open as it was a few months ago. Huckabee and McCain both had a chance to solidify their "frontrunner" status by simply winning a second state, but both fell short. And yesterday's winner in Michigan, Romney, is polling poorly in South Carolina.
Things should be different this time around, however. No matter who wins in South Carolina, under all plausible scenarios the race should become a little clearer
That's because no matter what happens, either Huckabee or Thompson will probably find themselves out of options. They're competing for some of the same voters, and both need a strong showing. Thompson has stated outright that he needs to win. Huckabee hasn't conceded as much, but it's hard to imagine him being a factor if he fares poorly. This is supposed to be his strong suit, and if he can't compete in South Carolina, just how does he believe he can win?
So, at the very least, one candidate will likely have dropped from viability. Beyond that, things are understandably muddled. A Romney victory is extremely unlikely, but if he somehow did squeak by the other candidates, it would ensure that he, McCain and Giuliani fight all the way through Super Tuesday. If Huckabee wins, he stays in the first-tier and earns the right to keep going. If McCain wins, he'll find himself in a very commanding position.
One way or another, the race should begin (and I can't emphasize that word enough) to crystalize Saturday night.
[Romney] told voters what he thought they wanted to hear. 'I'm not open to a bailout, but I am open to a workout,' Romney said of the auto industry, even as he vowed to spend $20 billion over five years for research on energy, fuels, automotive technology and material sciences.
...
Romney also said he wanted to modify a recently passed measure calling for U.S. vehicle fleets to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Well, baloney. Less than three years ago, Romney seemed to champion higher automobile standards. 'Almost everything in America has gotten more efficient in the last decade, except the fuel economy of the vehicles we drive,' he said in September 2005."
There are some real differences between the candidates. There are differences between John McCain and Mitt Romney. And if the voters prefer Romney's platform to McCain, that's their right, and I respect it. But the voters of Michigan didn't vote for Romney's platform; they voted for the things he promised them, and they do so without any regard for whether or not they a) aligned with conservative principles, b) were smart or viable in the long run, and c) aligned with Romney's views before he was running for President.
I can't imagine it's easy to both succeed in the world of politics and be completely honest at the same time. I, and most other voters, have accepted the fact that politicians must emphasize certain parts of their record (and downplay others) depending on who they're speaking or appealing to at any given moment. But Romney's promises to the voters of Michigan are untenable. They promise special treatment that goes against his broader stated principles.
I think Mitt Romney is a good man, and I think there's a good candidate underneath all this politicking waiting to get out. But his desperation to win Michigan has, I think, brought out the worst in his campaign.
Michigan: A Victory For Pandering
The Michigan Republican Primary has been called by several networks for Romney, who currently leads McCain 37% to 31%. This is undeniably a significant victory for Romney, who wins his first genuinely contested primary, and looks as if he'll do so with a few points to spare.
The real victory, unfortunately, is for pandering. McCain was polling ahead of Romney leading up to this week, when both started campaigning on reviving Michigan's stagnant economy.
But they went about it in very different ways. McCain told Michigan voters that the manufacturing jobs they've lost aren't coming back, and that he'd focus on preparing them for the future. Romney dismissed this as pessimism, and said he'd "fight for every job." He said he could get them back.
The problem is, he can't. Manufacturing jobs have been declining in America for over 30 years. It's a macroeconomic trend that transcends Michigan, and transcends this entire political generation. We're not going to be primarily a manufacturing economy anymore; no amount of "fighting" is going to change that.
The only thing that could change it would be special treatment. Romeny would have to serve Michigan some sort of protectionist cocktail to blunt the trend, and even then, it would only be postponing the inevitable.
There are reasons to like Mitt Romney, and reasons not to like John McCain. But this was not a case of a state voting for one candidate's platform. This was the case of a state voting for one candidate's empty promises.
He criticized McCain on Glenn Beck's program as well:
Fred Thompson - January 15th, 2008
GLENN: But he’s also wrong with McCain/Lieberman where he wants to sign treaties for global warming. He wants to give away sovereignty on global warming. This guy is not a conservative.
SENATOR THOMPSON: No, I think he’s in the wrong direction on that, too. I think that that’s absolutely true. But, you know, he’s like everybody else. You know, he has his strong suits and his weak suits.
Definitely a critical assessment (there's a bit more after the selected quote), but fairly measured considering that the two of them are, in fact, opponents. The fact that it's considered news that one primary candidate is actually criticizing another just goes to show how civil Thompson's been to McCain to this point.
Still, I find it far more interesting that he continually refuses to really lay into McCain. Later in the Beck interview, for example, he responds to Beck berating McCain further by shifting the attention to Giuliani.
What's most interesting about this, though, is that it indicates a genuine effort on Thompson's part. If he'd more or less accepted defeat, I suspect he'd go after Huckabee, go for a strong showing in South Carolina, and probably find himself on the short list for VP, or maybe AG. But he's talking like he wants to win South Carolina, which obviously necessitates going after the front-runner, at least somewhat.
In Punditish's opinion, though, Fred's still holding back. That might change if his rise in the polls continues.
Over the past several days, the only real movement in South Carolina’s Republican Presidential Primary has been a four-point gain for Fred Thompson and a five-point decline for Mike Huckabee.
McCain's lead over Huckabee in the same poll was 3 points on the 10th; it's now 9. And it's hard to imagine Fred won't steal a couple more from Huck by the 19th.
Crisscrossed CampaigningDick Polman has a great entry up about the "three-dimensional chess" of the Republican primary, and the criss-crossing matchups within:
Dick Polman - January 11th, 2008
Mitt Romney versus John McCain (in the Michigan primary next Tuesday); Fred Thompson versus Mike Huckabee (in the South Carolina primary, a week from tomorrow); and Rudy Giuliani versus McCain (in the Florida primary, two weeks from tomorrow).
What makes things really complicated are the permutations which arise when you consider that certain primary results may force certain candidates out, in turn distributing their influence and money to another candidate (or candidates), as well as their potential endorsement. And for every candidate that drops out, the candidate going after them will turn their focus elsewhere.
I'll foolishly venture a guess at the most likely result: McCain wins Michigan decisively. Romney becomes a non-factor, but presses on anyway. Thompson continues to rise and battles Huckabee for many of the same voters in South Carolina, helping McCain to win there, too. Having lost an important Southern state, Huckabee collapses, leaving McCain and Giuliani to duke it out over National Security -- a fight McCain is destined to win. Thompson looms just outside of the proceedings, possibly not dropping out until after Super Tuesday, at which time he endorses McCain. After that, it's all over.
And if by some miracle I'm right, and this all happens, I'll pretend I was sure about it all along.
Yes, Thompson Won the Debate
No use denying it. It was evident the moment it was over, and every voice in the conservative blogosphere has echoed the fact. Fred Thompson finally performed the way people had expected him to perform all along.
He did it primarily by going after Huckabee, which makes a great deal of sense, given that by all accounts Fred's making his last stand in South Carolina, where Huckabee is quite strong.
Bob Krumm has a great analysis of the situation up this morning, too. His theory is that Thompson's best hope is to thin the field, and that he avoided confrontation with McCain last night because he needs McCain to win big in Michigan and force Romney out:
Bob Krumm - January 11th, 2008
A Mitt loss in Michigan tells South Carolina that he will not be the nominee, so it’s time to look to someone else to support. If, however, Mitt wins Michigan it doesn’t matter what Fred did in last night’s debate. He wasn’t going to win in South Carolina against John McCain and a reinvigorated multi-millionaire. Fred is depending upon McCain to eliminate Romney for him. So Fred couldn’t risk knocking McCain down.
Allow me to propose another theory on top of that: if and when Fred does drop out, he'll likely endorse McCain, and could be a serious contender to become McCain's VP.
McCain/Thompson '08? Formidable, to say the least.
UPDATE:John Ellis is thinking along the same lines.
Romney's Odd StrategyMarc Ambinder has posted a memo from the Romney camp entitled "The Path to Victory." It contains all the usual stuff; Romney has the most votes, Romney has "momentum," etc. It also has an odd theme that we've heard from the campaign (and many of its supporters) again and again:
Alex Gage - January 9th, 2008
Gov. Romney is the best candidate in the Republican field to match up against the Democrats in the fall. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has refocused the Republican race. Gov. Romney is the Republican candidate who can stand and successfully debate the Democrats about the future of this nation.
The idea that Romney is the "best candidate" to "match up against the Democrats" is absurd on its face, especially coming just a day after McCain won New Hampshire on the strength of his appeal to Independents.
Whether you support him or not, there's no denying that John McCain has the greatest appeal to political moderates of all the Republican candidates, and thus, represents the best chance of actually -- gasp! -- winning in November.
It's staggering to me that the Romney camp would consistently go out of their way to raise the issue of electability; an issue which will inevitably help the most moderate candidate, and the most experienced candidate. McCain, whatever else you think about him, is clearly both.
It would seem a no-brainer that the Romney campaign should focus on its appeal to far-right conservatives. They are, after all, fighting for their collective lives in a Republican primary, and some conservative elements are vocally disgruntled with McCain. Why the Romney campaign would divert any attention away from this fact for any reason is beyond me. That they would do so to raise an issue on which McCain is strong is downright perplexing.
McCain operates at a level of seriousness that the rest of the field struggles, usually unsuccessfully, to match. That's why, for all the things I disagree with McCain about, I don't find myself terribly disappointed by tonight's result.
Mirengoff's posted two more positive entries about McCain since.
For all the talk of McCain winning over the Republican base, I've never believed it to be much of a problem. A few of the fringier elements in the party will hold tight to their wildly inflated immigration concerns and conveniently ignore his sterling conservative credentials in most areas, but they won't be a factor, no matter how loudly they yell.
Victory will cover a multitude of perceived sins. Be on the watch for Republicans tempering their views on McCain as the likelihood of his nomination rises.
Was This Obama's Best Chance?
The Democratic primary is far from over, of course, but the smart money has to be on Clinton at the moment. Of course, the even smarter money isn't on anyone at all, but she has to be considered the frontrunner.
New Hampshire, however, might have been Obama's best chance at securing the nomination. Iowa was deemed so significant for the Junior Senator because it showed that he could win an election. It showed an Obama candidacy was possible, and gave many skittish folks the last excuse they needed to get behind him.
But, as even his supporters will acknowledge, Obama is lacking in the experience department. Many believe this to be a strength of his, but regardless, it's a weak point. Obama's best chance, then, would have to involve an uninterrupted flow of excitement. A dramatic win in Iowa followed by a blowout in New Hampshire. Establish a fever-pitch and don't give people time to worry too much about your youth and inexperience; keep them excited and inspired with one improbable victory after another.
Losing in New Hampshire stops all that, and the Democratic primary calendar is not setup in a way that would allow Obama to recapture that kind of momentum again. Michigan votes in a week, and Nevada four days after that. The site of Obama's best chance at a big win is South Carolina, which won't come until the 26th.
That leaves voters with two and a half weeks to size the two candidates up. Whatever chance Obama had of putting an examination of his resume off until the general election just went out the window. He won't be able to win on sheer force of personality now. He'll have to slug it out.
Is he up to it? The markets don't seem to think so, but they've been wrong before. Say, for example, as recently as last night.
Well, She Did It
It's official: Hillary is alive and well in the Democratic primary. The youth vote wasn't a big part of the record turnout in New Hampshire, and women went for her instead of Obama this time around.
There are many popular theories as to why the polls were wrong, and how Obama's much-heralded momentum could have been so seriously blunted.
Punditish's theory: neither Iowa nor New Hampshire likes a foregone conclusion, and independents flocked to McCain more than any of us had guessed.
I'll echo the statement from many a pundit last night that results like this help make politics interesting. It's at once unnerving and reassuring to know that comebacks and upsets of this significance are still possible.
NH Called for McCain; Clinton Upset In the Works?
A scant 15 minutes after the polls closed, numerous media outlets have declared the New Hampshire Primary for John McCain, who leads Romney by 9% as of the time of this writing with 11% of the state's precincts reporting. No big surprise there, but there were some reports that Romney had been closing the gap. For the moment, it looks like a big win for McCain, however.
The big news, however, is Hillary, who leads Obama by 2% with 11% of precincts reporting. There's still a long way to go, and reason dictates that the polls probably wouldn't have erred so massively and consistently, so the smart money is still on Obama. It doesn't look like he'll be burying Hillary tonight, though.
Pollsters Differ on McCain Momentum
Very different reports coming from two respected polling organization leading up to today's primary vote in New Hampshire. Rasmussen has Romney upticking late and essentially pulling even with McCain:
Rasmussen Reports - January 8th, 2008
The final Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the New Hampshire Republican Primary shows John McCain clinging to a statistically insignificant one percentage point lead over Mitt Romney. It’s McCain 32% Romney 31%.
In other words, a dead heat.
Zogby, on the other hand, has McCain's lead increasing:
Zogby International - January 8th, 2008
In the Republican primary race, Arizona Sen. John McCain extended his lead over rival Mitt Romney from five to nine percentage points since yesterday, the survey shows.
Gallup, as of yesterday, has split the difference with McCain up by 4.
All the while, every prediction/trading market favors McCain by a substantial margin. But those are zero-sum bets; they don't tell us anything about how a razor-thin margin would help (or hurt) either candidate. It stands to reason that McCain's momentum would increase if he wins by 8 or 9 points in NH. But what if he wins by 1 point? Does that blunt "The Big Mo"? Similarly, while a Romney win might be an upset, how much strength would it lend him if it comes by a very narrow margin?
These are some of the questions that won't be answered tonight.
Of course, the consensus in the blogosphere is that people are turning out to vote for Obama, and that he may snag enough independent voters to adversely effect McCain on the Republican side.
The Obamanomenon
Okay, it's pretty well-tread territory: Barack Obama won in Iowa by a substantial margin, is pulling away in New Hampshire, and Andrew Sullivan is posting scads of testimonials about conservatives who are being won over by him.
It's all very nice, and hopeful, and idealistic. And unless you have a heart of stone, you have to smile a little when you see people so hopeful and excited about politics.
But if politics is anything, it's pragmatic. And the pragmatic view says that Obama hasn't said a whole lot yet. Politicians do a service when they inspire us, be it with their ideas, mannerisms, or oratory. The feeling Obama gives people is not worthless. But it's also not more important than policy. And on that front, we haven't heard much from him yet.
If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee (very likely, it would appear), America is going to have to sit down and examine what he stands for. We know he's for hope, unification, and a host of other truisms that no man or woman has ever come out against. But we need to hear what he's hopeful about. Is he hopeful that he'll be able to strengthen our image across the globe? Is he hopeful that we'll institute a form of publicly-funded healthcare? Hope is good in and of itself, to a point, but not everyone hopes for the same thing. And some ideas don't work no matter how much we hope they will.
At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, Barack Obama was, in a sense, introduced to the Democratic Party, and they liked what they saw. On Tuesday, Iowa met the man, and they liked him, too.
Over the next 10 months, the American people are going to meet Barack Obama. They will be his harshest judge yet. He'll have to do more than just inspire; he'll have to inform, and instruct. He's about to venture into the toughest job interview the world has ever known. The toughest quiz any politician has to endure. We know he's got the essay portion down pat, but we've yet to learn how he'll answer the questions.
UPDATE: Mark Coffey over at Decision '08 notes a lot of people searching for information on Obama's resume and finding his old blog. Obama has our attention...now, the American people want to get down to brass tacks.
FLASH: Humanity Apparently Objectionable
As most campaign junkies know, each debate is accompanied by an array of focus groups. One of the cooler methods for measuring their reaction to the debate involves giving them little dials that they can turn up or down depending on whether or not they like what they're hearing.
Naturally, such gadgetry was involved in Saturday's Republican Primary debate. The dials upticked strongly for Mitt Romney when he started talking tough on immigration, and apparently plummeted when McCain spoke on the issue.
It's not news that a good portion of the Republican base doesn't care for McCain's stance on immigration, but we didn't know just how far gone some of the fringier elements had become...until now.
What did McCain say on the matter that caused the dials to drop? Joe Klein has the disturbing answer:
Joe Klein - January 6th, 2008
Most of those who came in undecided had switched to Mitt by the end of the show. They just adored his position on illegal immigration (their dials plummeted when McCain said we had to be "humane.")
Yes, ladies and gents, the immigration debate has become so hateful that some actually object to the idea that we be "humane" towards illegal immigrants. And I hope I'm not alone in thinking that this says far more about the people holding the dials than it does about McCain's stance, which remains one of the most reasonable of the major candidates.
The First Lady...In the Oval Office
Much ado was made by Drudge and the blogosphere in general about this story about a week ago in which it was suggested that Hillary Clinton's level of support had risen dramatically. Here's a quote:
Susan Page - May 27th, 2005
For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.
...
An overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives.
That contrasts a bit with yesterday's Rasmussen poll which suggests that what support Clinton has is largely shaky:
Rasmussen - June 1st, 2005
If Senator Hillary Clinton runs for President in 2008, just 26% of Americans say they would definitely vote for her. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 41% would definitely vote against the former First Lady.
The explanation? Well, for one, the first poll found that 39% of those polled were "not at all likely" to vote for her, so the negatives haven't changed much at all. Why the drop in positives, though? Well, we're talking about two different polling organizations, for one, though that wouldn't usually account for such a strong difference.
The change, then, likely comes from the wording. The Rasmussen poll asks people if they'll vote for Hillary. The USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll asked people if they would be likely to vote for Hillary. While I cannot speak for others, I know that the latter question implies possibility, rather than probability. It can easily be taken to mean "would you consider voting for Hillary Clinton"? And obviously, all but the most hardened partisans are going to answer "yes" to such a question.
This ties into some other recent polls, which suggest that 72% of Americans are willing to vote for a woman for President. The combination of polls like this, with the ones mentioned above indicated to many that America is "ready" for a woman in the Oval Office.
And, indeed, at first glance the numbers look encouraging...until you consider, once again, how the question was worded. The poll does not tell us that 72% of Americans are going to vote for a woman, just that they're willing. And to admit that you're not even willing to vote for a woman is more or less to slap a "sexist" sign on your own back. I'm not so much impressed with the fact that 72% of America is willing to vote for a woman, so much as amazed that 28% is not. That 72% isn't going to vote for a woman; it's going to consider voting for a woman. The 28% has already decided not to.
It may give us all a nice, fuzzy feeling to point at these polls and marvel at how far equality seems to have come, but I suspect that, in the privacy of the voting booth, any prejudices or reservations we have about breaking the ultimate gender precedent will show themselves in a way they never would in a poll.
This is not to say that Clinton won't win. She very well may. But I doubt she is as optimistic as to her chances as the press is about women candidates in general.
The interesting thing is that the bill's being introduced by not only Kerry, but Rick Santorum, as well. Here's what he has to say:
Tom Maguire - April 19th, 2005
And Santorum? Presumably he is moving himself a bit towards the center in anticipation of a tough Senate race against Democratic state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. (son of the former pro-life Governor, who was or was not denied a speaking spot at Clinton's 1992 convention because of his pro-life views).
This seems reasonable, but I think Santorum has his sights set even higher, ultimately. I don't think he's moderate enough to ever run for President (though if Hillary can recast herself, and it appears she can, then all such bets are off), but Majority Leader isn't out of the question down the line if he can fend off Casey.
Who Will Dubya Deem Worthy?
Building on the entry below, a great deal of the debate as to who will represent the Republican party in the '08 election could be rendered moot at any point if Bush were to declare his support for any single candidate.
This raises an interesting question: will he annoint a successor? It's presumed that he'll throw his support to whoever wins the Republican nomination, but Bush, at this point, is very much the leader of the party, but there are many levels of support, and the success of his successor in that role could depend largely on how energetically he endorses them. It's not unreasonable to think that the entire Republican primary could be swung by his endorsement.
His leanings are hard to predict, however. Despite an idealistic streak, he is often grounded in political reality, and won't likely bet on a horse that can't win (a Santorum, for example). Karl "Keyser Soze" Rove has said many times that his goal was not to simply win a few elections, but to build a "new Republican majority." It's likely, then, that any candidate Bush supports will be a viable one, and not necessarily one who mostly closely lines up with him on every last issue.
Chait: Cheney Run Reaches "Critical Mass"
As I mentioned a week ago, the idea of a Cheney presidency is not as far-out as some have implied. The biggest obstacle (and there are several, no doubt) before a Cheney '08 campaign is the man's lack of political ambitions, in my opinion.
However, Jonathan Chait disagrees (yes, the same fellow I took to task for mindlessly echoing erroneous economic talking points). From the Star Tribune:
Jonathan Chait - March 29th, 2005
Here's my interpretation: The major impediment to a Cheney candidacy does not seem to be Cheney's interest in the job. Here is how Lindberg put it: "If there were no realistic possibility of the vice president going along, the person I was sitting next to at dinner the other day would surely have taken my mention of the Barnes article as occasion to knock the idea down. That didn't happen. On the contrary."
He's right about one thing: any "Draft Cheney" movement is going to be largely below-the-surface for the next year or so. His candidacy, if it ever becomes reality, won't be fueled by conservative fantasies about political demographics, the way the Draft Condi movement is. There will be no explosion of "Cheneymania" (as Chait has cleverly dubbed it). Rather, a Cheney candidacy will have to be brought to a slow, steady boil.
Is Cheney Really Unelectable?
Usually, when a prospective Presidential candidate refuses to talk about a run (or even refuses the idea outright), people don't take it seriously, in part because no one's going to be held to such a promise.
However, in Dick Cheney's case, no one asks twice because the word on the street is that the Vice President is more or less unelectable. Not Presidential. Not as tall and charming as some of the other prospective candidates. An even more polarizing figure than Bush.
Today, however, Mark Coffey cites a Tod Lindberg article which floats the possibility of a Cheney run in 2008. Coffey doesn't think it'll happen, and he may be right, but whether it does or not, I think Cheney is a far more plausible candidate than many give him credit for.
Simply put, Bush's second term is off to a remarkable start, and if he can continue at anywhere near this pace, he's going to be extremely popular as he leaves office. The elder Bush, like Cheney, was knowledgable, but was not a particularly inspiring candidate. Reagan, however, was a particularly inspiring President, and the nation essentially elected Bush Sr. on Reagan's advice. They saw enough in Reagan to take him at his word when he saw something in Bush Sr.
Similarly, if Bush's second term is the great success it appears poised to become (though such talk is still premature), it seems entirely possible that the public might go along with a Cheney candidacy. No one questions his knowledge, experience, or competence, and I think it's safe to say that most moderates will not be taken in by some of the often hysterical accusations that attempt to follow him around.
If Hillary can successfully undergo a centrist makeover, why can't Cheney? He has more experience, more notches on his belt, appears to hold more moderate social positions than Bush, and it'll be hard to paint him as the anti-Christ if the sky hasn't already fallen after eight years of being second in command.
MR. RUSSERT: There was a great American named General William Sherman. and this is what he said, "If nominated, I will not accept. If elected, I will not serve." Will you issue a Shermanesque statement?
DR. RICE: Tim, I don't want to run for president of the United States.
MR. RUSSERT: "I will not run"?
DR. RICE: I do not intend to run for--no. I will not run for president of the United States. How is that? I don't know how many ways to say "no" in this town. I really don't.
MR. RUSSERT: Period? Period? I will not run as president of the United States.
DR. RICE: I have no intention. I don't want to run.
MR. RUSSERT: "I will not run."
DR. RICE: I think people who run are great. I don't want to run.
MR. RUSSERT: That is a Shermanesque statement?
DR. RICE: Shermanesque statement.
MR. RUSSERT: You're done. You're out.
DR. RICE: I'm done.
MR. RUSSERT: There's news.
DR. RICE: I hope not.
Ambiguous, for sure, but Russert eventually got a straight answer:
NBC News' Meet the Press - March 13th, 2005
MR. RUSSERT: And you will never run?
DR. RICE: I don't intend to run.
MR. RUSSERT: But it's different.
DR. RICE: I won't run.
Seems pretty straightforward, but Mark Coffey at the link above isn't buying it (her odds are still listed as 10-1, second only to Hillary).
There's certainly reason for skepticism, as a clear and pressing need would likely need to be present to persuade Rice to run in the first place, in which case many would surely overlook this earlier declaration. I think this assures, though, that she will not run unless the current successes of the the Bush Doctrine stall.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday pointedly declined to rule out running for president in 2008, and gave her most detailed explanation of a "mildly pro-choice" stance on abortion.
In an interview with editors and reporters in the office of the editor in chief at The Washington Times, she said she would not want the government "forcing its views" on abortion.
Rice also refused to rule out a run for the Presidency in 2008.
Bill Sammon - March 12th, 2005
"I never wanted to run for anything — I don't think I even ran for class anything when I was in school," she said. "I'm going to try to be a really good secretary of state; I'm going to work really hard at it.
"I have enormous respect for people who do run for office. It's really hard for me to imagine myself in that role."
She was then pressed on whether she would rule out a White House bid by reprising Gen. William T. Sherman's 1884 declaration: "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."
"Well, that's not fair," she protested with a chuckle. "The last thing I can — I really can't imagine it."
Obviously her refusal to quell the mild groundswell of support her prospective candidacy is seeing is only encouraging such speculation. The Draft Condi movement lives to see another day. And Cafe Press rejoices.
The revelation in regards to abortion, however, is sparking some debate as to whether or not this helps or hurts that candidacy. It is obvious that her stance would hurt her chances in the Republican primaries, but would probably help her in the general election.
Rice, it seems to me, has a winning combination, politically: hawkish on defense, (presumably) conservative economically, and somewhat permissive on social issues. For better or worse, these kinds of stances, generally speaking, tend to win approval from the national electorate.
She may be a victim of her own success, though. However she may feel on other issues, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Bush doctrine is her primary issue, and probably always will be. If it's too successful over the next three years, will she have reason to run? Does she care enough about domestic issues to mount a campaign when the foreign policy objectives she cares the most about are already being achieved?
Even if many problematic regimes remain in place (which is likely), it's not implausible that Bush's foreign policy initiatives, if they continue to see success over the next few years, will have been successful enough to make continuing them a given for all nationally viable candidates in both parties in 2008.
If freedom continues to sprint around the globe, she may not feel motivated to run on the basis of a platform that has already been successfully adopted. Remember, this is (at least so far) a movement to recruit her for the Presidency. If her foreign policy fantasies have already begun to become reality, what could persuade her that the nation needs her to run?
UPDATE: DJ Drummond at PoliPundit has some slightly similar thoughts. Worth a read.
Kerrying On
Just thought I'd get a bit more mileage out of that pun.
The Boston Herald is reporting that John Kerry might be running for President in 2008. Kerry's followers will no doubt point to Grover Cleveland and Richard Nixon as examples of how a runner-up can, indeed, come back 4 (or 8) years later and head a winning campaign.
They're right, of course; it's not out of the question. However, these days more emphasis than ever is placed on personal character and likability, and both are a bit harder to maintain if the public gets the feeling you want the job a little too much (even though we can presume virtually all candidates want the position a great deal). And, of course, he won't dominate the "not Bush" vote as thoroughly next time around, because the other candidate will also carry the distinction of not being George W. Bush.
The more one thinks about the idea of another Kerry run, the more one comes up with reasons to question its wisdom. Iraq, for example, has clearly improved as of late, and Bush's foreign policy is growing more popular by the day. If Kerry couldn't unseat Bush in November, when both were under serious fire, how well could he possibly do in 2008? A total collapse of the progress we're now seeing would have to precede any realistic Kerry run.
Al Gore Not Running in '08...DuhDrudge has a flash from MSNBC's Chris Matthews stating that a "perfect source" has informed him that Al Gore will not be seeking his party's nomination for the Presidency in 2008.
No word yet on which of the two parties was more relieved upon hearing the news.
UPDATE: It's gone from his site now, though I don't know if that's because it turned out to be bogus (unlikely, given that he cited Matthews specifically), or if he simply deemed it less than newsworthy.
Candidate Condi
The Internet's got Condi fever. Glenn Reynolds, per usual, has the best roundup over the craze. It won't be long until someone's selling t-shirts. Oh, wait...
Steven Warshawsky is right, though, to throw cold water on the idea. I don't know if I agree with his claim that she's "not presidential material," but even if she is the Draft Condi movement may be premature to a degree that could undermine its momentum. You have to wonder if this kind of groundswell (if we are, indeed, seeing the beginnings of one) can persist long enough to reach the elections.
