Right Said Fred And Big Mac
I was sorry to see Fred Thompson drop out. I wasn't planning on voting for him, but he sure was better than that nut Huckabee. Many claim his candidacy was a blown opportunity. They have a good case, but then, in politics, blown opportunities are the norm.
Meanwhile, a lot of Republicans are moving over to John McCain. This is partly because of the absurd but classical reason that people like to back a winner. But there's another common reason that may be even worse--many view him as the most electable.
Forget any Repub versus Dem poll right now, they're meaningless. No one has any idea which of the major candidates has the best chance to win. (Except Huckabee--no chance.) It's not until we're coming out of the conventions, and the public is paying attention while both sides are attacking each other full-bore, that you start getting an honest idea of how your candidate plays.
posted by LAGuy @ 1:54 AM
13 Comments:
It seems like the GOP is about to nominate their version of John Kerry. Few people in McCain's own party are truly crazy about him. Like Kerry, McCain can be a bit haughty if you disagree with him (ask Sen Cornyn). And as was the case with Kerry, everyone mistakenly believes that past military service alone will make this guy electable -- while shielding him from any and all criticism. It's amazing to me.
I disagree- Kerry was the establishment candidate that the party regulars rallied around to stomp on the movement behind Howard Dean. I think the GOP establishment (except to the extent they think he's electable)are not that crazy about McCain who is less doctrinaire. McCain appeals to those across the aisle and Kerry had little if any appeal outside his party.
I'll disagree with your disagreemnet, NEGuy, at least a bit. Kerry was seen as more "electable" than Dean, no question. Kerry was a respectable centrist who could go across the aisle, while Dean was seen (fairly or not) as a wild-eyed leftist even before the Scream.
I happen to support McCain at this time, though not with tremendous enthusiasm. My reason is not that I think he is most electable - as you said, who knows who is most electable at this time. No, my reason is that, of the various viable Republican candidates, I believe McCain could accomplish the most if he were to become President, facing a hostile Democrat Congress.
When you think about judicial appointments, managing the war on terrorists, improving US energy independence, etc., McCain's objectives would be mostly the same as any other Republican candidate, but I think he would be most likely to be able to forge a compromise with Deomcrats in Congress to see some of these initiatives accomplished. i also happen to agree with McCain on Immigration issues more than I do with most Repuiblicans. I think McCain over all would be best positioned to counteract Democrat initiatives through plain, direct speach to the American public because the American public is inclined to trust him, moreso than it is to trust any other Republican candidate, precisely because he carries the impression of being a "maverick."
All I ask in Supreme Court justices is that they overturn McCain-Feingold. Do you think McCain will do a good job appointing judges who can do that?
Denver Guy is correct that McCain has demonstrated his ability to work with the Democrats. This is precisely the reason the conservative base doesn't like him.
As for myself, my default rule is the less laws passed, the better.
A lot of McCain Feingold has already been declared unconstitutional. Frankly, it is not my highest concern right now (since it was largely ineffective in what it sought to do anyway).
In any case, as we saw with Bush's attempt to nominate Harriet Meiers to the S.Ct., the President does not operate with a free hand in his judicial nominations. McCain will have to have support of Repuiblicans in Congress, let alone Democrats, to accomplish anything. McCain's nominations would probably be better than Regan's nomination of Kennedy and Bush Sr.'s nomination of Souter, given much greater party scrutiny these days.
The "Left/Right" dichotomy confuses the issues. McCain is attractive to voters not because of ideology because of straight talk and personal integrity (or at least the perception thereof)- he's not attractive to to Democrats because of any centrist positions- his war support alone is an anathema to them- he is popular because he conveys the impression that he gives a fair hearing and does not seem that bound by ideology.
Note the post above referred to the movement behind Howard Dean (he was just the surfer on the wave) which was not necessarily "leftist" (whatever that means) as much an anti-establishment, anti-insider phenomena
McCain's biggest triumph was that in New Hampshire he won even among registered Republicans.
The pundits always say "The Republicans like to nominate the senior party insider, like Bob Dole." (Dole is the canonical example, because there seems to be no other explanation for his nomination.) And then they talk about the Party Insiders.
They are confusing two things. Terms like "insiders" and "mavericks" signify whether someone is "in" or "out" in the eyes of the party leaders, big donors, kingmakers, and so on.
But these guys haven't been in charge of picking the nominee since 1936 (or even earlier). The nominee is picked by the voters. And regardless of what our congressional leaders feel, a lot of lifelong registered Republicans see John McCain as one of them. Without their votes, he would have no chance. As it is, I would bet on him winning the nomination (though not with very strong odds).
I also think the "independents" are not going to help the Republicans this year. The independents like both McCain and Obama. Pro-choice and anti-war independents are voting for McCain in significant numbers. But if he gets the nomination, the election will pit McCain (strongly pro-war and generally pro-life) against Hillary (strongly pro-choice and vaguely anti-war). Given this lineup, pro-choice and anti-war independents will almost all vote for the Democrat.
This is a good argument for not letting independents vote in your party's primary, by the way.
Does the following shatter or reinforce stereotypes?
According to CNN's exit poll of voters in the South Carolina Republican primary:
* Among voters born in South Carolina, Huckabee beat McCain 36-to-32.
* Among voters born outside the state, McCain beat Huckabee 34-to-26.
* 55% of the voters were not born in South Carolina.
So one could attribute McCain's victory to non-natives....
Good points Lawrence. However, I believe the war issue will continue to fade as we approach November. Already, major anti-war activist groups like MoveOn.org have decided to reduce their pressure on Democrats to effect an immediate withdrawal, now expressing a willingness to see a staged withdrawal. They did this because, regardless of one's opinion on the original reasons for going to war in Iraq, the majority of Americans do not see any sense in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, if we are actually starting to get the upper hand in Iraq.
The election will likely turn on the economy. Independents will vote for the person they think has the best chance of letting them keep their job. Hillary has relatively high negatives among Independents, while Mccain has relatively high negatives among Republicans. But when push comes to shove, Republicans would vote for McCain, so I think he has the edge in a battle against Hillary. If Obama gets the Dem nomination, I have no idea who has the edge, except I think McCain would have an edge with Hispanics (since he has not been entirely opposed to some sort of amnesty program for illegal aliens).
I guarantee the Dems have the edge with the hispanic vote. The only question is how much can the Repubs get--40% is considered great. And the reason they're attracted to Repubs it due to their social conservatism. As to immigration, the average American is hugely in favor of fairly tough enforcement, and McCain is not credible on the issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home