October 29, 2007
10/29: Not So Fast, Pundits
The recent Mike Huckabee polling surge has caused many pundits to announce -- perhaps prematurely -- that the GOP presidential contest is now a five-person race. The Weekly Standard'sFred Barnes disputes that premise in a new editorial entitled, "The Two-Man Race: Only Rudy and Mitt Have Credible Scenarios." Barnes' editorial has provoked an interesting discussion in the blogosphere, with a number of prominent bloggers agreeing with his assertion that the GOP nominee will most likely be Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney.
GOP FIELD: The Big Five? More Like The Big Two
Townhall's Hugh Hewitt (an avowed Romney supporter) agrees that the GOP race is now a contest between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney: "The reality is dawning that a vote for anyone other than Romney or Giuliani is a diminished vote, one that assists either Romney or Giuliani. A vote by a [John] McCain supporter for McCain instead of his or her second-choice Giuliani hurts the mayor. A vote by a pro-life activist for Mike Huckabee helps Giuliani by not helping the pro-life Romney. Clarity over the nature of the race and the dead-end nature of the Huckabee/[Fred] Thompson/McCain efforts should begin to impact the early races in a decisive fashion through November."
Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall also sees a two-person race: "I'd discount [McCain's campaign] as a collapsed candidacy, Thompson's as a joke waiting for its punch line." Marshall links to a New York Times article depicting South Carolina as the pivotal contest in the GOP race and writes, "South Carolina is where the white evangelicals -- en masse -- come into play. If Rudy can't win there, the importance of his strong plurality showings on the national level probably fade quickly, both as an indicator and as a reality, since Romney will likely pick up the support of others who throw in the towel. If Rudy can win there it probably means the lifers will trade their principles on abortion for beefed up aggression abroad."
NRO's Rich Lowry is not ready to rule out Thompson and McCain just yet, but he agrees that Giuliani and Romney are the frontrunners: "It's not a five-man race. There are four candidates who can possibly win, and only two of them (Rudy, Romney) have clear paths to the nomination."
GOP FIELD II: Because Everyone Loves Rankings...
Right Wing News'John Hawkins emailed 225 conservative bloggers and asked them to rank the 5 candidates they would most like to see as the GOP nominee and the 5 candidates they'd least like to see as the GOP nominee. Among this group of bloggers, Fred Thompson is the most desired GOP nominee and Ron Paul is the least desired:
-
Most Desired GOP Nominee
1.) Fred Thompson
2.) Rudy Giuliani
3.) Duncan Hunter
4.) Mitt Romney
5.) Mike Huckabee
6.) John McCain
7.) Tom Tancredo
8.) Ron Paul
9.) Alan Keyes
10.) John Cox
-
Least Desired GOP Nominee
1.) Ron Paul
2.) Alan Keyes
3.) John McCain
4.) John Cox
5.) Tom Tancredo
6.) Rudy Giuliani
7.) Mitt Romney
8.) Duncan Hunter
9.) Mike Huckabee
10.) Fred Thompson
GraniteGrok's Doug Lambert links to the poll results and observes, "Rudy Giuliani continues to poll very well, even in groups that one might consider rather conservative, like those reporting in to John's survey."
Not every conservative blogger finds Giuliani palatable, however, as The Right Angle's D.R. Tucker demonstrates: "With all due respect to Rudy Giuliani, the prospect of the former New York mayor becoming the GOP Presidential nominee for '08 is simply too much to bear. ... The fact that a liberal Republican such as Giuliani has even made it this far is an ignoble indictment of the extent to which we have abandoned our commitment to Reagan principles. By all rights, Giuliani should be a discredited candidate on the level of Ron Paul, not a frontrunner in many polls."
In a separate post, Hawkins ranks the GOP candidates based on their positions on illegal immigration:
-
1.) Tom Tancredo
2.) Duncan Hunter
3.) Ron Paul
4.) Fred Thompson
5.) Mitt Romney
6.) Rudy Giuliani
7.) John McCain
8.) Mike Huckabee
Hawkins: "Keep in mind that I am a staunch foe of illegal immigration, opposed the Kennedy/Bush amnesty bill, and am steadfastly opposed to comprehensive illegal immigration reform, amnesty, or rewarding illegal aliens for breaking our laws. The closer a candidate is to my position on the issue, the higher grade I gave him."
GIULIANI: Getting Good With Brownback?
Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent quotes a statement by Sam Brownback's Iowa political director suggesting that Brownback is warming to the idea of endorsing Giuliani. Sargent observes: "So, here a top political supporter of Brownback is saying that Brownback and 'many of his supporters' think Rudy has the best chance of defeating Hillary, and hence may be able to overlook his pro-choice views. If true, that suggests that Rudy's argument may be working among at least some social conservatives."
Josh Marshall is not surprised: "I've told a number of people over the last few days that for all the talk of this evangelical third-party candidacy if Rudy gets the nomination, I'll believe it when I see it. Sam Brownback, a big pro-lifer, appears to be laying the groundwork for a Rudy endorsement. It makes a hypocrite of one or the other of them. Probably both. But I bet you'll see others making their peace as well, especially if Romney doesn't, can't make the sale."
Meanwhile, NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks it's a bit too early to assume that Brownback will endorse Giuliani: "I'm not going to pretend that I know what's going on in Sam Brownback's head, regarding his meeting with Rudy Giuliani, but I think that until the Kansas Senator utters the words, 'I endorse,' the outrage is a little early."
TAPPED's Dana Goldstein is fed up with people calling Giuliani pro-choice: "It's great fun to taunt social conservatives with the fact that the Republican front-runner is 'pro-choice' and 'supports abortion rights.' But we're getting to the point where claiming so much is just, well, not factual. 'Pro-choice' politicians don't 'reassure' Sam Brownback that they'll appoint 'strict constructionist' justices to the Supreme Court following the model of John Roberts, as Giuliani did yesterday. ... Giuliani has become anti-choice, and the only way to protect and expand reproductive rights at the federal level is to elect a Democrat to the White House."
MCCAIN: Give Him A Break, People
On Friday, Blogometer quoted Mickey Kaus' statement that he doesn't buy McCain's new position on immigration:
"I'm continually amazed by the Cheap Date Conservatives I run into who think McCain has somehow convincingly changed on immigration."
Soren Dayton thinks Kaus is being unfair to McCain: "How does this not apply to the entire field?...You have Romney supporters running around saying that their candidate, whose position isn't even recognizably pro-life, is the candidate for pro-lifers. You have Thompson doing a complete 180 (540?) in a matter of months on immigration. People are giving the candidates free passes on this stuff. Why is Kaus so surprised this time? At least McCain is honest about it."
CLINTON: The Incumbent?
Digby believes that the GOP candidates are running against Hillary Clinton in order to portray themselves as agents of change trying to defeat an unpopular incumbent: "I don't know if anyone's noticed, but George W. Bush is being disappeared from the presidential campaign and everyone's running against incumbent Hillary Clinton ... we see a very odd subliminal narrative taking shape in which the blame for the nation's failures of the last seven years is being shifted to Clinton (and the 'do-nothing' Democratic congress) as if the Codpiece hasn't been running things since 2000."
MyDD's Todd Beeton shares Digby's concern and writes: "I wish Democrats would do more to tie all of the GOP candidates to Bush, making the case that a vote for any of them would be akin to voting for Bush's third term. Instead, the Republicans are pretending Bush doesn't exist and, if we're not careful they just may get voters, on some strange subconscious level, to believe it."
OBAMA: Taking The Gloves Off
Sunday's New York Times article about Obama's announcement that he will begin to go after Hillary more forcefully generated a lot of discussion in the blogosphere. Andrew Sullivan welcomes Obama's newfound aggression and writes: "Obama needs to be far more aggressive -- but not hostile to Clinton. She just isn't right for this critical moment in American history, too inherently divisive to bring this country back together in an extremely perilous time, too cautious to effect real change, and still too spooked by Republicans to do what is needed in Iraq. There's still time to stop her. But it's running out."
NRO's Jonah Goldberg is more dubious about Obama's strategy: "So Obama is announcing, once again, that he's going to highlight the differences between Hillary and himself. Good for him. I hope he does. But, he's said this before. Isn't it possible that there really aren't many differences between the two of them? Or any difference that may exist aren't necessarily helpful to Obama? What, beyond the war vote, are these grand differences?"
Kevin Drum is also dubious, and suggests that Obama try a new strategy: "This is good, but I have my doubts that trying to be 'clear with the American people' on these particular subjects is going to do the trick. As Obama says, Hillary Clinton is 'very deft politically,' and I don't think that's going to change. We've already seen Obama try to get some mileage out of the rather narrow differences he has with Hillary over Social Security, Iraq and Iran, and there's just no there there. There are differences, but they're too small to build a campaign on. What Obama needs is a brand new issue."In a later post, Drum suggests two issues that Obama could embrace:
(1) Propose that the United States unilaterally offer to reopen its embassy in Tehran. Ditto for Cuba and North Korea (and Bhutan, I suppose, though I don't really know what the deal is with them). Make the point that we live in dangerous times, and diplomatic relations should be used as a way of more effectively dealing with the world, not as a way of making self-righteous statements of approval or disapproval about specific regimes.
(2) Propose a specific list of Bush administration executive orders that he would rescind. No shilly-shallying, just a flat promise to revoke them. Possibilities include the orders governing torture, military commissions, and FISA. If he wanted to be even bolder, he could categorically promise to halt the use of presidential signing statements.
OBAMA II: Anatomy Of A Campaign Mistake
Open Left's Chris Bowers writes a long, thoughtful post about the Rev. McClurkin fallout: "The Obama campaign made a couple of mistakes that resulted in getting caught in a discussion it would rather not have and which no presidential campaign is equipped to handle gracefully. I don't think that this means Obama is any less dedicated to reaching out to any of these groups, and I certainly don't think it means Obama's campaign is bridging any major divides within the progressive ecosystem. I think it means that the Obama campaign screwed up with inadequate vetting, and it has justifiably pissed off a lot of members of the GLBT community. Sometimes, a rose is just a rose, and a mistake is just a mistake."
Andrew Sullivan agrees: "I don't think the use of an anti-gay Gospel singer on a muscial tour is a big deal. I don't believe it was done deliberately. Which means it was a staffer mistake. Here's one key test for the Obama campaign: has that staffer been fired yet? Who has been held responsible and fired for such an unforced error? If we are to be reassured that Obama can do what Bush can't: hold people responsible for mistakes, we need to know who did this and when they were let go."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's All About The Nuances
The Politico's Ben Smith, on the Clinton-Obama matchup:
"What we have here, again, is a primary in which there are virtually no differences between the candidates on paper; and so the contrasts between their approaches to issues, and the nuances of their answers to question, become surrogates for the questions of character and capability on which voters will wind up deciding. That's the heart of Obama's case here -- that Clinton's caginess, not the substance of her views, makes her unready to lead; Clinton's attacks on Obama's foreign policy answers is a similar form of attack."
LEST WE FORGET: It's A Good Day To Be A Boston Sports Fan
Matthew Yglesias: "So when I sat down to watch the Redskins-Patriots game yesterday afternoon, I was under no illusions that the ultimate outcome of the game would be anything other than a Skins defeat, but wow, what domination. I had read, of course, about how good the Pats were and seen the highlight reels, but this was the first game of theirs of watched this season and it was a thing to behold -- I find myself seized by a vague, nameless horror so mystical and well-nigh ineffable that I almost despair of putting it in a comprehensible form. Good luck, Colts...."
Posted by Conn Carroll at October 29, 2007 12:53 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
