 |
| From 2008-01, NH |
A Democrat (Independent Democrat, but still) is an effective surrogate in a GOP primary. But while John McCain was campaigning in Iowa, his wife Cindy and Joe Lieberman were barn-storming New Hampshire. Incidentally, Lieberman doesn’t think that he wants to be VP.
Tags: McCain, New Hampshire
I asked John McCain what he thought of Mitt Romney’s "notes" comment. The Senator said that when Romney checks his notes:
The record will show that he was looking at his shoes.
Mitt Romney made what may prove to be a major league gaffe today. In response to a reporter’s question, perhaps triggered by an aggressive web ad, Romney said:
Mr. Romney: I don’t recall all the things that I said at that time, so I’d just have to go back and look at my notes at that time.
This is, of course, reminiscent of Romney’s statement that he would need to check with lawyers before defending the United States against Iran. At a time when he is falling in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney cannot afford gaffes that emphasize his inexperience in foreign policy.
While it may be that McCain’s web ad was a little over-the-top, it appears that the Romney campaign fell for the trap, hook, line, and sinker.
Tags: McCain, National Security, Romney
Mitt Romney dropped a negative ad in New Hampshire attacking John McCain. However, it seems that Romney, again, has some truthiness problems. Given the factual errors below, it is clear why McCain goes straight to Romney’s credibility problem.
Factcheck.org, "More Mitt Malarky":
Romney’s latest ad attacks McCain in New Hampshire with false and misleading claims
Mitt Romney, who targeted Mike Huckabee in an earlier commercial, is now running the most negative campaign of any presidential candidate in either party. … Romney’s description of McCain’s failed immigration bill — which was backed by President Bush — is so selective as to be misleading.
Specifically, Mr. Romney assails Mr. McCain on both tax policies and immigration. On both topics, the commercial presents facts that could be construed either as selective or worse, misleading.
Mark Halperin from Time points out:
First negative ad against Romney by any candidate, first negative ad by McCain, first negative ad by any candidate besides Romney.
Negative campaigning. Lying. Debating what the definition of "saw" is. Who does that sound like?
Tags: Immigration, McCain, Media, New Hampshire, Romney, Taxes
It is clear that in Iowa, the debate is not about experience. It will be a fight between Mitt Romney’s money and Mike Huckabee’s churches. There are real doubts that Huckabee can sustain a challenge to any mainstream GOP candidate. Ultimately, his foreign policy and other flubs might create real problems. One imagines the pressure of the establishment and the media turning on him in a big way.
The fight in New Hampshire seems increasingly the decisive one on the GOP side. (Of course, if Fred Thompson were to come in 3rd in Iowa, that might shift to South Carolina) There, the fight is between Romney and John McCain. Especially in the context of the Bhutto assassination, McCain is trying to frame the debate as around experience, as is Hillary Clinton. Romney is focusing on judgment:
“If the answer for leading the country is someone that has a lot of foreign policy experience, we can just go down to the state department and pick up any one of the tens of thousands of people who spent all their life in foreign policy,” he said. “That is not what a nation needs in a president. The person that is president of the United States we look to have leadership skill. Which is the ability to assemble a great team of people, to be able to guide and direct them to understand what decision has to be made on the basis of data and analysis and debate and deliberation. An individual who knows how to make difficult decisions.”
Romney is focusing on his ability to "manage", something long-time campaign-mouthpiece Hugh Hewitt has focused on. There is a reason that Hewitt and Romney focus on management skills. He doesn’t have much in terms of experience. As Hugh says in his book on Romney:
And Romney knows the war. He he worked to learn its complexities and the nature of our diverse enemies, constantly reading the sorts of books that must be absorbed.
McCain contrasts this "book-learning" with his knowledge. From the Des Moines Register:
"I knew Benazir Bhutto. I know Musharraf very well," McCain told an audience of about 200 at the Elks Club in Urbandale. "If I were president of the United States I would be on the phone right now and I would be meeting with the National Security Council."
Seemingly a contrast between book-smarts and street-smarts. McCain knows the actors (thus his thoughts about Putin, which President Bush seems to have gotten wrong and McCain right) and operates from that position. One gets to argue from data though. How have people argued in the past from the input of experts? Ronald Reagan, of course, rejected the experts on "tear[ing] down that wall" and the SALT Treaty. He even created a new intelligence agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency because he wasn’t satisfied with the experts at the CIA.
Of course, if you rely too much on the experts, you run into the problem of being "brainwashed by the generals and the diplomats," to quote Romney’s father. (National Journal/MSNBC notes that Romney is closing on, in part, his father) It seems that if you take Romney’s "judgment" answer, you are trapped by your advisers, a problem that Reagan transcended.If you have your own experience, you have something to work with.
I think that I know where I would prefer to be. I wonder where the people of New Hampshire will land.
Tags: International, McCain, New Hampshire, Romney
Imagine what would happen if this happened on the first day of a Barack Obama or a Mitt Romney presidency, from the New York Times:
An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon at close range before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker.
That’s why Michael Medved said:
In the last week before the caucuses, voters are finally taking a serious look at which candidate represents the most plausible commander-in-chief. McCain’s biggest advantage in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the country involves his military background, personal heroism in Vietnam, and courageous consistency concerning the Iraq War. The unmistakable success of the surge (even Harry Reid now admits that the new policy has delivered big time military progress) validates McCain’s leadership and underlines his expertise on defense and foreign policy. A month before making up their minds, citizens may cast about for a “fresh face” or an “agent of change,” but when they face a fateful decision on caucus night or primary day they generally prefer a president who’s ready to lead the ongoing war on Islamo-Nazi terror from day one.
For all the guy’s warts, John McCain really is ready to be commander-in-chief.
Tags: International, McCain
|
Core Favorability/Opposition Among All Voters |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Candidate |
Def. FOR |
Def. AGAINST |
Net |
|
29% |
36% |
-7 |
|
|
22% |
33% |
-11 |
|
|
21% |
34% |
-13 |
|
|
21% |
34% |
-13 |
|
|
23% |
38% |
-15 |
|
|
30% |
47% |
-17 |
|
|
23% |
42% |
-19 |
|
|
19% |
47% |
-28 |
|
|
10% |
48% |
-38 |
|
|
5% |
49% |
-44 |
|
Rasmussen has released another set of polling that allows us to compare all the candidates. The summary table to the right captures the main facts. You will recall that there is a horrible environment for Republicans in 2008. On the generic ballot, Democrats crush Republicans. However, Clinton has such an awful public image that the generic GOP problems are counter-balanced. Well, the conclusion from Rasmussen is that Mitt Romney has a comparable problem:
Among the leading Presidential candidates, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney have the highest level of core opposition among voters. Forty-seven percent (47%) say they will vote against each of these candidates no matter who else is on the ballot.
Republicans often argue that Hillary is beatable because of this opposition. What about Romney who has no environmental advantages? Back to Rasmussen, which notes that John McCain is doing the best:
At the opposite end of the spectrum is Arizona Senator John McCain. For the second straight month, McCain finds himself with the smallest level of core opposition–just 33% say they will definitely vote against him. That figure is unchanged from a month ago, down from 39% a two months ago and a peak of 42% in June. These results are just one part of the reason that it is a good time to be John McCain.
Assume for a second that swing-voters will be the key in a general election, consider the additional facts among unaffiliated voters:
McCain has the lowest level of core opposition among unaffiliated voters–just 26% are committed to voting against McCain.
On a net basis, McCain (-6) and Obama (-11) have the best numbers among unaffiliated voters. Clinton (-26) and Romney (-20) have the weakest showing among this group.
In other words, the Clinton/Romney unelectability numbers extend into unaffiliated voters. While McCain gives Republicans the best chance of picking up substantial independent voters. That means keeping the White House.
The day of the CNN/YouTube debate, Matt Drudge, handmaiden of Mitt Romney’s campaign, raised the issue that became known as "Shag Fund." The claim was that Rudy Giuliani had improperly hid expenses for visiting his then girlfriend. Well, it turns out that it just wasn’t true. Powerline and Captain’s Quarters have the details. Total exoneration from the New York Times.
In other words, Drudge pushed a bogus story at a time that was quite opportune for the Romney campaign.
Yesterday, Drudge pushed a story on John McCain. Drudge first claimed that an NYT story was in the works. Then he claimed that it would publish tomorrow. McCain was forced to answer a question. What happened?
No story. Nothing happened in the Times. And, in fact, it was clear from the facts Drudge provided that no story would be there. No substance, as was made clear in the Washington Post story today.
That’s the story guys. Matt Drudge is a Romney shill.
UPDATE: My friend Erick at Redstate makes the same point.
Today, John McCain got some press for stating, as a number of people had already, that David Petraeus should be Time’s Man of the Year, not Vladimir Putin. He is transparently correct.
But there is a broader point that should be made in the context of the GOP’s presidential nominating contest. Look what McCain said in 2000 about Putin. (H/T Instapundit) The guy understood what Putin was. President Bush, who got many things right in our foreign policy, got Russia horribly wrong. If he had more experience, he might have gotten it right. And having good advisers isn’t enough. Condi Rice, a Sovietologist, should have known better.
Never mind McCain being right on Iraq.
So when we have these discussions about people’s foreign policy credentials, we should at least give credit where credit is due. Experience, at least in McCain’s case, would have mattered. As we look forward, we need to remember that. When people attack Mike Huckabee for his foreign policy but praise Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, or Rudy Giuliani, we should remember something fundamental. Their foreign policy statements are ghost-written. John McCain’s aren’t. That’s a real difference.
This shines an important light on National Review’s endorsement of Mitt Romney, which I discussed previously. They had a conference call today to defend it. I didn’t hear a single supportive question, and no one spoke up in favor of their endorsement. Ari Richter of the Concord Monitor asked why so little discussion of foreign policy twice. The first time, Rich Lowry responded that all the candidates were pretty similar. They shared the same views, so the only differences are execution.
But you know what? I don’t think that’s true. Experience and demonstrated judgment matter in this stuff. A lot. And it says a lot about National Review that they are playing that down. And John McCain’s statements today and almost 8 years ago demonstrate that.
Tags: International, McCain
The Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe endorsed John McCain today. The Register’s key quotes:
Yet, for all their accomplishments on smaller stages, none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership.
In an era of instant celebrity, we sometimes forget the real heroes in our midst. The defining chapter of McCain’s life came 40 years ago as a naval aviator, when he was shot down over Vietnam. The crash broke both arms and a leg. When first seeing him, a fellow prisoner recalls thinking he wouldn’t live the night. He was beaten and kept in solitary confinement, held 5 ears. He could have talked. He did not. Son of a prominent Navy admiral, he could have gained early release. He refused. …
McCain would enter the White House with deep knowledge of national-security and foreign-policy issues. He knows war, something we believe would make him reluctant to start one. He’s also a fierce defender of civil liberties. As a survivor of torture, he has stood resolutely against it. He pledges to start rebuilding America’s image abroad by closing the Guantanamo prison and beginning judicial proceedings for detainees.
McCain has his flaws, too, of course. He can be hot-tempered, a trait that’s not helpful in conducting diplomacy. At 71, his age is a concern. The editorial board disagrees with him on a host of issues, especially his opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. McCain foresees a “long, hard and difficult” deployment of troops in Iraq. The Register’s board has called for withdrawal as soon as it’s safely possible.
But with McCain, Americans would know what they’re getting. He doesn’t parse words. And on tough calls, he usually lands on the side of goodness — of compassion for illegal immigrants, of concern for the environment for future generations.
The force of John McCain’s moral authority could go a long way toward restoring Americans’ trust in government and inspiring new generations to believe in the goodness and greatness of America.
Pretty good language. It should be pointed out that these are not huge endorsements in Republican primaries, unlike McCain’s endorsement in the Union Leader. That said, any candidate would be touting them.
Tags: Endorsements, Iowa, McCain, Media
My 2008 Ticker
