Category Archives: Politics

A shift in the US political scene?

Posted on by | No Comments

So argues Michael Barone; and since there’s no keener or more insightful observer of American politics, if this is what he sees, we’d best take a long, hard look. It’s his explanation of what is otherwise a surprising and somewhat confusing fact: “every [presidential] candidate’s strategy has failed.” That’s not something one would expect, given all the seasoned candidates and operatives out there, but it’s the truth; Barone argues that the reason for it is that the ground has shifted out from under their feet.

For a decade from 1995 to 2005, we operated in a period of trench-warfare politics, with two approximately equal-sized armies waging a culture war in which very small amounts of ground made the difference between victory and defeat. It was pretty clear what the major issues were, what strategies were necessary to win a party’s nomination, how to maximize your side’s turnout on election day (and, increasingly, in early voting).

As more than a few people have noted, it was Karl Rove’s mastery of this situation (which he intentionally exacerbated as a political strategy) which produced victories for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

But times change. Somewhere between Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 and the bombing of the Samarra mosque in February 2006, I believe we entered a period of open-field politics, in which voters and candidates are moving around—a field in which there are no familiar landmarks or new signposts. . . . The fact that every campaign’s experts came up with losing strategies suggests that, in this year’s open-field politics, all the old rules may be broken. It’s been a wild ride in the 35 days since the Iowa caucuses, and it may be even wilder in the 271 days until the polls open in November.

It’s an intriguing thesis, and a compelling one—especially coming from someone with Barone’s track record for being right. It suggests that, far from the foregone Democratic coronation many have expected, that the ’08 presidential election may belong to whoever figures the new rules out first.

John McCain

Posted on by | 4 Comments

With Mitt Romney’s decision to suspend his campaign, the pundits would have you believe that John McCain is now guaranteed to be the Republican presidential nominee. He may well end up such, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near that certain; to this point, Sen. McCain has received less than half of the votes cast in Republican primaries, and if most of Gov. Romney’s supporters go to Mike Huckabee, I think the convention could well end up deciding this race. (On the Democratic side, I think that’s highly likely to happen. Heaven help Denver.) Still, the odds would seem to favor Sen. McCain at this point—which has a lot of the conservative talking heads completely apoplectic. “McCain’s not a true conservative,” etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, combined with dark suspicions about his stability and the like.Now, as a Navy brat, I know a lot of people who knew Sen. McCain back when he was still, say, LCDR McCain, and I trust them to have more of a perspective on the man than your typical pundit. Here’s what one of them, as true-blue a conservative as anyone I know, had to say about him a while back (this is posted with permission):

Lt. John McCain was a flight instructor in VT-7 based at NAS Meridian, MS in the summer of 1964 while I was a student Naval Aviator there. Based on my observations and those of my best friend then and now, it is my opinion that the best thing that ever happened to him was doing hard time in the Hanoi “Hilton.” He had a violent, hair trigger temper and was arrogant, self-serving and vindictive. Following his experience as “ground zero” of the Forestal fire (a lesser man would likely not even have survived that) he needed to find a way to get his now-denied combat experience to stay competitive for promotion. I have no doubt that he used his considerable political influence to immediately get a set of orders to CAG-16 deploying on the Oriskany.During his tenure as a POW he demonstrated immense courage and resourcefulness. He was tough and I admire him greatly for the way he handled himself and I think that experience took the edge off of his most negative qualities. Just a side note here for those younger folks who may read this and for whom the Viet Nam war is little more than a few pages in a dusty history book, the gutty conduct of most of our POWs in that war was nothing short of incredible. And Senator McCain was right near the top.I had the privilege of quaffing a couple of beers with him and a few of his pilots in Yuma following his repatriation while he was CO of VA-174 (the East coast A-7 RAG). He was mellow and gracious and a pleasure to be with then.I was a big fan of his until he started his first run for president and I became aware of his inconsistent positions on several issues that I held dear. In short, he didn’t appear to have a coherent conservative worldview. I also think he blew his chance for the nomination in 2000 because he didn’t understand and embrace the evangelical grassroots. He had that block for the taking early on when they were still skeptical of W. Instead, he thumbed his nose at them (us) and lost the nomination. Most of the grassroots energy in the party comes from the so-called “Christian right” and McCain missed his chance (although he may never have been any more able to connect with them than, say, Hillary).The problem with the entire Republican field is that there is no “Reagan conservative” anywhere to be seen so we are back to asking, “which one will we settle for?”On the plus side: McCain is pro life, anti spending and spot-on on the WoT. Negatives are: Soft on immigration, voted against tax cuts and McCain-Feingold was a disaster that gave us Soros, Lewis et al. Also, have to give him credit—though I was unhappy with him at the time—for getting our Supreme Court nominees through.Senator McCain may end being my man though I think the governor from Arkansas is the best of the bunch in debate and thinking on his feet.

Now, this is far from pure adoration of the “he’s the ideal candidate” type. Clearly, he isn’t. However, while there are certainly reservations here about McCain (reservations which I share), I don’t think there’s reason for hysterical opposition, either. Yes, he’s a man of great pride and greater temper who can be a bit short in the fusebox; no, that doesn’t make him “unstable” (the kindest insinuation I’ve heard). And yes, he’s spent too much time poking conservatives in the eye, and yes, he needs to give up the adulation of the NY Times and come back to his conservative roots on some things; but I agree with John Weidner: once he’s no longer a thorn in Bush’s side, but instead the guy standing between the MSM’s favored candidate and the White House, the NYT’s gloves will come off, and that will solve the problem.The bottom line: if Sen. McCain is the nominee, I think folks like Rush who are suggesting conservatives are better off if he loses have gone clean ’round the bend. As Dan Lehr says, if he isn’t the nominee we wanted, we need to grow up and get over it. Two reasons: one, we will get far better judges out of Sen. McCain than out of Hillarack Oblinton (two peas, one pod). Even if you don’t trust him on nominations, anyone he’ll come up with will be much, much better than anyone either of those two would put forward. And two, he will prosecute the GWOT, and probably far more effectively than the current administration; the Democrats will concede our gains. We have turned the corner in Iraq; we can’t afford to be in thrall to those who want us to turn back around it. I’m still voting Huckabee in Indiana, but if it’s McCain in November, then my vote is McCain all the way.

Again, credit where credit is due

Posted on by | 3 Comments

I didn’t give Mitt Romney enough credit: today he suspended his campaign. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Does this, as the pundits are saying, seal the deal for John McCain? Or does Gov. Romney’s support go to Mike Huckabee and make this a national two-person race?

Either way, it will probably mean one more lesson for the political-science curricula that are sure to be written off this screwball presidential campaign.

Ashes

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Today is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent. Today is also the first day of the rest of Mitt Romney’s political life. I hope he’s honest enough with himself to face that fact; and if Mormons celebrate Lent and Ash Wednesday (I don’t actually know if they do), I hope this day’s observance means more to him than its political significance. (Update: apparently they don’t—see #329.)I have to say, I’ve been rather disappointed in Gov. Romney over the course of this campaign. I pulled for him for a long time. Originally, I had expected Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would be the GOP’s nominee this year, and I looked forward to that; when Sen. Frist failed to do his job to get the President’s judicial nominees through, however, I decided I could not support him. (I even sent an e-mail to him to that effect; I got a canned e-mail back.) Having done so, I looked around for someone to support, and Gov. Romney seemed far and away the best choice on the horizon. Given his record and his gifts, I thought he’d be a strong candidate and a good president.Eventually, of course, I changed my mind and started supporting Mike Huckabee (not that that means much—my endorsement means nothing and I have no money to contribute). Some of that was because of Gov. Huckabee’s own strengths; a lot of it, though, was that Gov. Romney had actually proven himself quite a poor candidate, spending lots of money to very little result. (Gov. Huckabee, in this respect, has been the anti-Romney.) Unfortunately, he hasn’t handled that very well, and neither has his team, leading to this rather unbecoming sequence, caught by BigJolly at the Lone Star Times. First, Gov. Romney scolded Gov. Huckabee:

“First a couple of rules in politics,” he said. “One: no whining. And number two: you get them to vote for you and so I want them not to vote for Mike Huckabee and not to vote for John McCain and to vote for me . . . that’s not voter suppression. That’s known as politics.”

Good and noble words, but they didn’t last very long; following his loss in the West Virginia caucuses when John McCain’s supporters switched en bloc to Gov. Huckabee, Gov. Romney’s campaign manager had this to say:

Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain’s inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney’s campaign of conservative change.Governor Romney had enough respect for the Republican voters of West Virginia to make an appeal to them about the future of the party based on issues. This is why he led on today’s first ballot. Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party.

At this point, if he’s really all that interested in stopping “Senator McCain’s inside Washington ways,” the best thing Gov. Romney could do would be to cut his own deal with Gov. Huckabee: throw his support behind the real “man from Hope” (Bill Clinton mostly grew up in Hot Springs, AR) in exchange for policy promises, which he could then widely publicize as satisfying his own concerns. Somehow, though, I don’t think that’s going to happen. But at this point, Gov. Romney has it backwards: a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for John McCain. Which might not, in the end, prove to be all that bad a thing; I’m pulling for Gov. Huckabee, but I’ll be content to vote for Sen. McCain in November as well. I don’t know the future, so as far as I know, we might all be better off if Sen. McCain wins the nomination. But if Gov. Romney thinks otherwise, he should take a deep breath and a long hard look at the situation, and act accordingly.HT: Bill

Sigh of relief

Posted on by | 1 Comment

Rudy Giuliani has dropped out of the presidential race (as has John Edwards on the Democratic side), which removes the only “Republican” contender I simply could not support. Once John McCain came roaring back and re-established himself as a contender, that just sucked all the oxygen out of the room for Rudy; once he’d been one-upped on national defense, he simply didn’t have a compelling pitch. For my part, I’m glad.

Bumper-sticker geopolitics

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I saw a bumper sticker today that caught my attention: “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.” It made me wish I had the person who owned that car there to talk with, to ask them one question: Why? This isn’t a truism, after all, something that can simply be presented as inarguable; and while I suppose it might be presented as a dictum that impresses by the force of its truth, I don’t find it so. Rather, this is an assertion which needs to be supported with logic and evidence; if it is so, it needs to be proven.

To be honest, I don’t think it can be—I think the study of history is very much against this proposition. To be sure, there are times when efforts to prepare for war undermine or even negate efforts to prevent it (World War I would be the classic case in point); but given the reality throughout history of aggressive expansionistic powers which tend to treat countries unprepared for war as hors d’oeuvres—which does at least make for short wars, I’ll grant—there are clearly many cases in which failing to prepare for war makes war inevitable. (Just ask Neville Chamberlain.)

The bottom line here, I think, is that war (like most major human undertakings) is complex, and neither the factors that cause it nor the strategies for preventing it can be summarized and dismissed in a bumper sticker. That sort of simplistic thinking does no one any good.

Exactly what we don’t need

Posted on by | No Comments

Hillary Clinton’s win in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, when polling leading up to the vote had Barack Obama leading by double digits, sent even the best and most respected political commentators (such as Howard Fineman) scrambling to explain what happened. It also, unfortunately, sent conspiracy theorists scrambling; it’s sad that we can’t have a close contest anymore without someone screaming it was rigged, but so it goes. Of course, when it’s just conspiracy theorists, you can ignore them; but now, Democratic presidential (sort of) candidate Dennis Kucinich is calling for a recount. I’m not sure what to make of Kucinich doing this, since it’s certainly not going to help his candidacy—either he’s gunning for a slot in an Obama administration, or his loopiness includes a certain loopy integrity, because this isn’t going to help his popularity with the Democratic party leadership, either—but there’s no question, it gives the idea that there might have been irregularities in the NH primary a certain legitimacy.

And all I can say is, dear God, please let it not be so. Obviously, I have no intention of voting for whoever the Democratic candidate is this November—anyone looking through this blog should have a pretty clear idea where my political positions fall on the spectrum—and I suppose one might look at this and say, anything that hurts the Democrats is good. If Sen. Clinton’s campaign really did steal the NH primary, which is what Rep. Kucinich is essentially saying, I can’t see how that wouldn’t hurt the Democrats; from a cynical point of view, then, I suppose one might hope it turns out that way. But I just can’t do that, because if this is true, the damage is far, far greater to our political process. To operate properly, democratic/republican politics depends on a certain level of trust and mutual commitment to the process, and that’s strained enough in this country as it is; if these allegations are true, it’s another major body blow to that trust, and to that commitment to playing by the rules, and America really can’t afford that. Especially not right now.

Besides, as much as I don’t particularly care for Sen. Clinton, I do believe in her idealism, or at least that she once was an idealist; I think her hunger for power is real, but I also think that it’s largely rooted in the desire to do good for her country, or at least that it started out that way. I would truly, deeply hate to believe that she has fallen so far that she, or anyone else in her campaign, could actually do something like that.

“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Great men are almost always bad men.”
—Lord Acton

Huck rock

Posted on by | 4 Comments

I’m surprised I haven’t seen anything on the Thinklings yet about this—I really expected Quaid to be all over it—but Mike Huckabee rocked Leno last night. Literally.

I should note, I only tripped across his appearance, since I’ve been pretty sick and haven’t been following much of anything the last week or two; I knew Law & Order‘s season premiere (which also rocked, btw) was last night, though, so I watched that, and thus saw the ads for Leno’s return, and Huckabee’s appearance. I was interested to see what Leno would have to say about the writers’ strike, and just as interested to see Huckabee, so I stayed up to watch.

I was quite impressed. Of course, as I’ve noted here earlier, I’d already been worked around to supporting Huckabee, so it’s not like I was predisposed against him; but still, as compared to a guy like Fred Dalton Thompson, or other pols I’ve seen on Leno, Huckabee seemed very natural and relaxed, poised but at his ease. He talked very freely and naturally about his faith and some of his policy positions—among other things, he made hands-down the best case I’ve ever heard for replacing the national income tax with a national sales tax, an idea about which I’m now actually somewhat less dubious than I was; he also talked about his decision not to go negative on Romney in Iowa and told some of his own story, including his early rock-and-roll ambitions. At that point, Leno asked him, “Are you good enough to play with the band?” and he answered, “No, but I’d like to anyway”—and when they came back from the commercial break, there he was on bass guitar, next to Kevin Eubanks. Granted, it was a pretty standard walk-it-up bass riff, nothing real challenging, but still, it was obvious that he and everyone else was having a grand old time; he got a high-five from Eubanks as he headed back to the couch.

All in all, I have to think Mike Huckabee won himself some votes last night; I suspect there are also a number of us out there who are rather more firmly in his camp now than we were. Not a bad night’s work, Governor; not a bad night’s work at all.

Credit where credit is due

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Over at my favorite group blog, Quaid (whom you might call a quasi-Thinkling) has been beating the drum for Mike Huckabee for a while now. (An Arkansas governor as President? Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Does lightning really strike twice in the in the same place? Anyway . . .) He’s managed to convince De in the process, but others have been more dubious that Huckabee has any real chance—me included, I’ll freely admit. The thing is, though—as Quaid has pointed out—Huckabee’s an extremely effective, engaging and winning candidate, and his supporters are fervent and committed, two factors which are doing a lot to overcome his tiny budget; he may not be able to spend much of anything, but he’s continuing to climb in the polls, and the big names are starting to notice. Dick Morris, for instance, has been pointing this fact out for a while, even betting Bill O’Reilly that Huckabee would crack 10% in the national polls, which he now has; and Morris is now saying that Huckabee can win Iowa. If he does—or even finishes a strong second, which looks at this point to be the worst he’ll do—then he will have established himself as a frontrunner. Should that indeed happen, he has a good chance to come out of New Hampshire as the leader, with second place behind Rudy as probably the worst likely outcome; and with that, the money will start to come, and the difficulties will start to fall away, leaving Giuliani as a very beatable opponent.

Huckabee’s not the greatest candidate the GOP has ever put up; his record on social issues is strongly, consistently conservative, but his fiscal policies as governor of Arkansas have led to strong challenges from the likes of Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform. Still, he’s clearly better on both fronts than George W. Bush was, to say nothing of Dole or the elder Bush; and even if he’s no Reagan, he’s still the best option we’ve had since then (as Romney would also be if he manages to recover and win the nomination). That’s not everything, but then, as Mal would say, it’s not nothing, either; and in fact, it’s good enough. Huckabee for President.