January 29, 2008

1/29: The Maverick And His Enemies

The polls indicate a toss-up between John McCain and Mitt Romney in FL. As of press time, few bloggers have ventured to make predictions. However, most of them concede that a FL victory will make McCain very tough to beat, considering his leads in big 2/5 states such as New York and California.

While McCain may be on the cusp of conslidating his position as the GOP frontrunner, conservative bloggers continue to have substantial problems with the AZ senator. Righty bloggers are in an uproar over John Fund's Wall Street Journal op-ed, which alleges that McCain said he might not nominate a judge like Samuel Alito because Alito "wore his conservatism on his sleeve." Although McCain quickly denied having made such a statement, the controversy only reminded conservative bloggers why they don't trust McCain. NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez writes:

"[McCain] may wind up being the nominee. But that's not a given. And while there is still a contest in the GOP, the interview process needs to continue. Because I don't think conservatives are in the mood to settle -- I think they want a viable conservative, who doesn't mind if, say, Samuel Alito is one. And while I have no idea, I wouldn't be shocked if people stay home in November if the GOP nominee is someone who's more comfortable with Joe Lieberman's politics (God bless him) than Rush Limbaugh's."

GOP FIELD: Momentum Vs. Organization

Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes thinks the McCain-Romney battle will come down to momentum vs. organization: "McCain seems to have momentum. All day Monday, reporters and campaign advisers whispered about the latest tracking poll numbers -- some of them done by the campaigns, others private. The figure discussed most today was a private poll that had McCain up by four points heading into tomorrow, a quick reversal of fortunes since the same poll reportedly had him down two points late last week, before he won the endorsement of Florida Governor Charlie Crist. The Crist endorsement, and that of Senator Mel Martinez one day earlier, gave the McCain campaign a generous helping of 'earned media' -- i.e. news coverage -- over the weekend and Monday. He could need the help to compensate for a relative lack of organization here...Romney early on won the support of many key supporters of former Governor Jeb Bush, and several people knowledgeable about Florida politics believe that he has a strong advantage on organization. Romney has dominated the airwaves here, too, as he has in other states."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey, who endorsed Romney yesterday, predicts a win for his favored candidate: "My prediction is that the race will break towards Romney. He has the organizational advantage and can do GOTV, as he proved in the caucus states (except Iowa, where [Mike] Huckabee's populism trumped Romney's organization). I'm not sure I see late-breaking Rudy [Giuliani] and Huckabee voters favoring McCain; both, I think, would break more to the right than to the center. I'll predict a 33-30 win for Mitt Romney -- but I wouldn't be too surprised to see that reversed for McCain as well.

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin thinks McCain can sew up the nomination by winning FL: "Should McCain's post-[Charlie] Crist endorsement momentum result in a Florida win, there is every reason to believe he will hold his leads in the big three February 5 states of New York, New Jersey, and California [...] and do quite well in the remainder. Retail politicking is out, obviously; what remains is paid and free media. Part of that is the national media coverage of the 'frontrunner' in national polling, which will create something of a bandwagon effect for McCain. An added factor in his favor: even if Rudy remains in the race, he is not likely to hold his share of the voters in February 5 states, which may benefit McCain in Missouri, Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois and Minnesota. What if Mitt Romney pulls out a win? I think we have a wild coast-to-coast fight. McCain will still hold the advantage in the states in which he currently leads, but Romney, with fresh momentum and lots and lots of money for paid ads, will have a very good shot at consolidating conservative support. In short, all bets are off at that point [...] Bottom line: I don't see how McCain can be stopped if he wins tomorrow."

Townhall's Matt Lewis agrees with Rubin that McCain is well-positioned for Super Tuesday: "Assuming Rudy Giuliani does not win Florida [today], the winner-take-all 'delegate rich' Republican primaries in New York (101), New Jersey (52), and Connecticut seem to favor John McCain...Arizona (53), McCain's home state, is also winner-take-all contest...Assuming he's still in the reace, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee will probably favor Mike Huckabee, thus depriving Mitt Romney of wins in those states."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Ross Douthat thinks Romney must win FL: "It seems to me increasingly implausible to imagine Mitt Romney winning the Republican nomination if he loses to John McCain in Florida tomorrow. With Rudy and Huckabee fading, the chances of a grinding, three or four-way delegate war that goes all the way to the convention are fading as well, which means that it'll be down to Romney and McCain (with Huckabee playing spoiler in some southern states) as soon as Floridians finish voting. And if you look at the polls in the upcoming states, Romney's trailing McCain all across the map, from California to New Jersey to Pennsylvania to Missouri to Alabama. Some of these deficits are surmountable, but not if McCain heads into February 5th with the wind at his back. Like Obama going into South Carolina, Romney needs a game-changer tomorrow night -- and the numbers, for what little they're worth, aren't trending in an encouraging direction."

MCCAIN: Harshly Judged

The conservative blogosphere is buzzing about John Fund's Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which Fund writes: "[McCain] would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'"

Yesterday, NRO's Byron York asked McCain about the op-ed, and the AZ senator strongly denied Fund's allegations:

"'Let me just look you in the eye,' McCain told me. 'I've said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I've said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed.' [...]

I asked whether McCain had ever drawn any distinction between Roberts and Alito. 'No, no, of course not,' McCain said.

I asked about the 'wore his conservatism on his sleeve' line. 'I'm proud of people who wear their conservatism on their sleeves, because they have to have a clear record of strict adherence to the Constitution,' McCain told me."

Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that Fund stands by his reporting:

"John Fund was on Mark Levin's show and said that he stands by his story, that he had multiple sources. John emphasized to Mark that his sources told him that McCain said that he might not appoint an Alito, not that he would not. But, again, sticks by the story.

This, of course, is important since it is one thing to vote the right way, it is another thing to know what you're dealing with in a president who will be nominating the justices."

RedState's Leon H. Wolf explains why McCain's alleged statement is so irritating to conservatives: "After the acrimonious fight over [Harriet] Miers, and the equally acrimonious confirmation fight over Alito, it is safe to say that the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is regarded by many voting conservatives as the most significant conservative victory of the last three or four years. If John McCain had repudiated the decision to nominate Alito because he was visibly conservative, he would have intentionally planted a dynamite charge in the weakest portion of his own base -- conservatives who had recently talked themselves into rolling the dice on his judicial nominations -- and detonated the charge. It would have shown an absolute deafness towards the central concern of the voters McCain is trying hardest at this moment to court."

Wolf continues: "If Fund does in fact come forward with sources who can substantiate this conversation, I think this remark finishes John McCain in the long run. It is a perfect soundbite made for commericals, and as I said, it hits McCain where he is most vulnerable with conservatives. Further, for him to have made such a remark with a crucial Florida primary right around the corner would speak to the fact that even with a zillion advisers constantly around him, he really just does not understand the issues that are of importance to conservatives, and he is not willing to meet us on our terms. You all know that I'm a Romney guy, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt. I'm still willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt on what was said, but if Fund turns out to have been right, I will have great difficulty supporting him even in the general, for whatever that is worth."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If you look at McCain's statements yesterday, you'll notice he and his campaign are careful to not come out and say, 'Fund and/or his sources are damn liars.' This is a stunningly damaging quote, with little detail on where and when it was said, stuck in the middle of a story about how McCain can warm his relationship with the right, coming the day before the primary that could make McCain the clear frontrunner and the guy in the driver's seat for Super Tuesday. If Fund's quote is wrong, isn't there a strange lack of outrage from McCain?"

Stephen F. Hayes thinks this story is bogus: "In the days before the potentially decisive Florida primary, someone (we don't know who) claimed to have heard McCain (we don't know where) say that he was concerned about Alito's conservatism (we don't know when). I understand the conservative objections to John McCain and I'm sympathetic to many of them, including his willing participation in the so-called Gang of 14. But this is scurrilous."

NRO's Andy McCarthy continues to distrust McCain on judicial nominations:

"I hope Sen. McCain's explanation to conservatives about his remarks on Justice Alito will include an explanation of (a) why he allowed the Gang of 14 deal to kill the nominations of several conservative judges, (b) why he and Sen. [Lindsay] Graham blocked Pentagon General Counsel Jim Haynes from even getting a vote; and (c) how he came to believe the 'advice' part of the Constitution's 'advice and consent' clause requires a president to consult with the Senate before nominating judges -- an assertion made by members in the Gang of 14 in the announcement of their deal.

Just as significantly, I hope he is asked to explain -- though no one seems too anxious to press him on this point -- (e) whether he agrees that the conservative justices he claims he will appoint to the Supreme Court are virtually certain to invalidate the McCain/Kennedy campaign finance reform law (as Justices [Antonin] Scalia, [Clarence] Thomas, Alito, [Anthony] Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts have voted to do), and (f), since liberal justices are much more likely to support McCain/Feingold (as Justices [John Paul] Stevens, [David] Souter, [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, and [Stephen] Breyer have consistently done), what he thinks is more important, campaign finance reform or conservative justices?"

NRO's Mark Hemingway asks McCain one of McCarthy's questions during a blogger conference call: "In the wake of McCain's alleged Alito comments earlier today, the Arizona Senator held a conference call to address the issue. I took the opportunity to ask him about whether he's concerned about conservative justices opposing McCain-Feingold, as per what Andy observed earlier today. This isn't an exact quote, I'm paraphrasing his answer a bit but he said, 'I'll trust their judgment. There are decisions to be made on the Supreme Court that are far more important than my particular legislative biases. I want them to strictly interpret the Constitution.'"

McCarthy's concerns are not assuaged: "Mark (H), the Senator says he wants judges to 'strictly interpret the Constitution.' Fine...but isn't the following a fair follow up question: If you believe judges must 'strictly interpret the Constitution,' is there any reason why the two other branches should not strictly interpret the Constitution? [...] If McCain is so devoted to a strict interpretation of the Constitution (by which I assume he means an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but perhaps not), can he explain by what strict interpretation of the First Amendment [...] McCain/Feingold is constitutional? Any straight talk appreciated."

OBAMA: Pass Him The Butter, Cuz He's On A Roll!

Open Left's Mike Lux: "So, Barack Obama's had a pretty damn good few days here. The size of the SC victory was big enough to get the traditional media pundits to switch from an 'Obama's on the defensive' narrative to a 'Clinton tactics backfiring' narrative. The Caroline [Kennedy] and Teddy [Kennedy] endorsements are being played very big, and add to the sense of building momentum...Now the question is whether Obama can capitalize. The Kennedy endorsement could help him with Hispanics, the swing liberals Matt and others have discussed here, and older Democrats -- all groups Obama desperately needs to move numbers in. Obama needs to focus on voter groups, because if he doesn't do better than he's been doing in those demographics, his wins will be limited to Illinois and the South. Above all, though, he needs to stay away from the defensive elitism that has at times characterized his performance since Iowa, and get back to the 'who will provide genuine change' frame that he won Iowa with. If he can do that, he will come from behind in CA and elsewhere, and come out of February 5th with a big victory."

Open Left's Chris Bowers examines Obama's SC momentum: "Both Rasmussen and Gallup have their first partially post-South Carolina national tracking polls today (about one-quarter and one-third post-South Carolina, respectively). Between the two polls, Obama has closed an 11% national gap to 9.5%. A crude estimate from these numbers suggests that once all of the data is post-South Carolina, Obama has cut a 9-11% national deficit roughly in half. This should be enough to keep him viable after Super Tuesday, but he will still be behind in delegates unless he can catch up a little further."

The Nation's Ari Melber notices some evidence of Obama's online popularity: "Barack Obama's South Carolina victory speech skyrocketed to the top of YouTube on Monday, shooting past new footage of a topless Britney Spears and netting over 323,000 views so far."

TAPPED's Sam Boyd finds this interesting: "The biggest evidence of Obama's success I've seen yet: video of Obama's victory speech is more popular on YouTube than video of Britney Spears topless. Really. On the one hand, it's kinda sad that's surprising, on the other hand it's still awesome."

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein urges Obama supporters to remain realistic: "It's worth remembering, even amid the bounce and the hype, that the math is still tough for Obama, and Hillary is still favored."

OBAMA II: That Ol' Camelot Magic

Sen. Ted Kennedy elaborates on his endorsement of Obama in a Huffington Post diary:

"Earlier today I endorsed Barack Obama for president, and I couldn't be more excited for the Democratic Party, the nation -- and the world.

Barack inspires me -- it's that simple. In the words of President Kennedy:

'The world is changing. The old ways will not do... It is time for a new generation of leadership.'

In Barack, I see that next generation of American leadership: a figure who can transcend the divisions in this country that my family and I have fought so hard to tear down. [...]

Looking out from the stage today, I realized just how powerful his campaign has become. It's a movement for change -- and one that I'm proud to be a part of."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias thinks Kennedy's endorsement is significant: "Ted Kennedy is just a great liberal leader. He's the guy you wish every senator with a safe seat would be. A guy who doesn't just vote the right way, but who's willing to give voice to unseasonable opinions...The man's not above criticism by any means. But I do think the theory that Hillary Clinton is the real candidate of commitment to progressive politics is put seriously to the test by Kennedy's judgment. His own commitment is, I think, above reproach. And he's been in a position to see Bill and Hillary Clinton and their gaggle of hangers-on for twenty years now all from a veteran perspective. Maybe he's just been blinded by the right-wing smear machine [or] something?"

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "I just watched Ted Kennedy's endorsement speech of Barack Obama from TAP's warm conference room, after Ezra [Klein] and I -- along with about 100 other journalists -- were turned away from the Obama rally's press entrance after waiting an hour outside in the cold...A few reporters had brought along their children -- on a school day no less! -- to participate in what actually felt (not to gush or anything) like a truly symbolic, historic event: The highest profile members of the Kennedy family turning out to name Obama as the successor to their brother's brand of transcendent Democratic politics."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "As I've noted more than once, I'm generally skeptical about whether high-profile endorsements translate to actual votes...But my hunch is, putting aside logic, polls, and charts, there are a whole lot of Dems who, on just a gut level, are willing to take Ted Kennedy's word for it."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The value of an endorsement is, of course, difficult to quantify, but we all know what having Ted Kennedy on the ground campaigning for Al Gore and John Kerry did for their respective primary campaigns and it looks like Teddy will be traveling on Obama's behalf as well...No accident that they would choose [AZ, NM, and CA] for Kennedy to stump for Obama as they have more in common than that they all vote on February 5th, namely their significant hispanic populations. This voting bloc is one of Hillary Clinton strongest bases of support (her 64%-26% win over Obama among this group in Nevada is widely considered responsible for her win there) and eating into that is a must for Obama if he hopes to win any of these three states. So, how is Ted Kennedy uniquely qualified to be able to swing this base to Obama? As Chuck Todd put it on MSNBC earlier today (I'm paraphrasing,) you go into the homes of Central Valley (CA) Latinos and you'll see two portraits on the wall: one of the Pope and the other of JFK."

Meanwhile, TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, who's been one of Obama's harshest critics, explains why he prefers Obama to HRC: "Since I rail against Obama's unity schtick all the time and find he and Hillary pretty much the same on the issues, it is fair to ask why I tepidly support him. Why not Hillary, who clearly has experience fighting the GOP. Here's why. Obama has more political talent than Hillary. The upside for Obama is clearly higher. If he can learn to fight partisan battles, he can be the best politician we have ever seen...The Media HATES the Clintons. Obama is a Media Darling. There is a real chance that Obama will recieve the most favorable Media treatment a Democrat has gotten since John F. Kennedy. And this is why I support Obama. Because it provides a possibility that Obama CAN get some of his agenda done with some adjustments to his political style. Obama will have a chance to succeed as President. I am not sure Hillary will get that same chance. It is not fair. But it seems true to me."

CLINTON: Hangin' On To Latinos?

Mike Lux offers HRC some advice: "If I were running the Clinton campaign, I'd be doing town hall format events rather than rallies in every state she flies into. The Clinton campaign gets off track when the focus goes off Hillary's hard work, digging into the issues that matter for regular people's personas, and into the media freefire zone the campaigns have been into lately. While they succeeded in getting Obama off his game for a while, they also got off theirs, and reminded people of what they don't like about the Clintons. I would also, were I in the Clinton campaign, focus like a laser beam on Hispanic voters. Obama is behind, and needs to make up ground in multiple demographics, but Hillary just needs to hold one big one to win most of the biggest states on February 5th, and that is Hispanics."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "As I see it, Clinton is still the significant favorite in California. She has a lot of important support within the state, particularly from leading Hispanic politicians like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and groups like the United Farm Workers (which was founded by Cesar Chavez), which seemingly puts her in a strong position to rely on the coalition that served her so well in the neighboring state of Nevada, namely women and Hispanics. With this in mind, it's little wonder why the repeated theme in Obama's post South Carolina victory speech was 'Yes We Can' -- roughly si se puede in Spanish, or the rallying call of Chavez decades ago -- and that Obama yesterday trotted out the endorsement of Los Angeles Congressman Xavier Becerra, the highest ranking Hispanic in the House. I would not be surprised to see Ted Kennedy in California over the next week likewise trying to peel of Hispanic support from Clinton to Obama. That said, Clinton does have a double-digit lead still about a week before election day, and one-fifth of California Democrats expected to vote in the Democratic primary have already sent in their ballots, according to Gallup. So I wouldn't put money on Obama to overtake Clinton in California just yet."

Meanwhile, Harvard law prof. Alan Dershowitz endorses HRC in The New Republic: "I favor the nomination of a centrist Democrat, one who is capable of attracting independents, moderates, and the growing number of anti-Bush Republicans. Hillary Clinton understands this and has not pandered to the extreme left of her party. She understands that this small but vocal faction helps to buoy candidates but then often helps to sink them in the general election...Clinton is a progressive on social issues, a realist on foreign policy, a pragmatist on the economy -- in other words, a centrist Democrat. I hope she becomes our next president."

In slightly more negative news for HRC, The Huffington Post's Al Giordano claims that she doesn't have the Hispanic vote locked up: "What was thought, just two days ago, to be a demographic vote locked up for Clinton may now be in play. And with important national Hispanic-American leaders like Cecilia Munoz now questioning Clinton's record, and the Kennedy organization highlighting Obama's leadership in the immigration reform battle as, in the words of one Kennedy associate 'a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided,' the competition for Latino votes is now very much on again."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Grubby Cheese Fries

NRO's Rich Lowry offers his take on the Dem race:

"[Hillary] entered the primary race a dubious general-election candidate, and she seems weaker now, with her overreliance on Bill and his nasty shots at Obama. In between his fits, Clinton must wonder how he managed, after a career of courting blacks, to get himself on the wrong side of a racial dispute in the Democratic party.

Obama promises a purer liberalism, without scandal and acrimony, and, on top of it all, electability. Why wouldn't Democrats jump at this deal? Because Obama isn't yet enough like the Bill Clinton of 1992. The blessing of Ted and Caroline Kennedy gives Obama even more of the aura of Camelot, a remote and shining liberal idealism. But Obama needs less of the haute cuisine of Olympian inspiration and more of the grubby cheese fries of Bill Clinton's emotional connection to economically distressed voters. Bill felt their pain, and -- a wonk at heart -- smothered them with proposals to revive the economy.

Hillary doesn't have the bond that Bill had with down-market voters, but she's been able to win them over with a workmanlike focus on the details of policy important to them. If she holds on to working-class whites, Latinos, and women, she can still derail Obama and keep the party from embracing his alluring new deal."

LEST WE FORGET: The State Of The Race

The Miami Herald's Dave Barry breaks it down:

"For those of you who plan to vote Tuesday, here's a quick overview of the political situation:The Republican race

-- It's still wide open. Mitt 'Mitt' Romney holds a slight edge in delegates, plus a heifer he got for winning Wyoming. Right behind him are John McCain, Chuck Norris and the late Ronald Reagan. Bringing up the rear is Rudy, who needs a win and has been frantically courting Florida voters. He's mowing your lawn right now.The Democratic race

-- It's down to Obama vs. Clinton, and it's getting nasty. They hate each other, with the kind of passionate hatred that you see only between two people who hold essentially the same positions on everything. [John] Edwards is still running, but at this point they don't even bother to put a microphone on him for the debates. He just waves his arms to indicate how he's going to take on the big corporations.

So that's the situation, Floridians. On Tuesday, it's your turn to stand up and be counted, unless of course you're a Democrat. But whatever you are, you should get out there and vote, even if you have no earthly idea what or whom you're voting for, or why, because that's what democracy is all about.

Also, Rudy, if you're reading this: My hedge needs trimming."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 29, 2008 01:13 PM