Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Taps For McCain
Forget writing on the wall.
This is a big, fat neon sign on the terminal nature of John McCain's presidential campaign.
Terry Nelson is one thing; he worked for Bush in the 2000 campaign. But with notable exception of ghost-writer Mark Salter, John Weaver is McCain's strategist-alter ego. This is the equivalent of Karl Rove quitting the Bush operation in 1999.
Oh, and how surprising -- the departures preceded by a volcanic eruption by the candidate. Who would have predicted that?
Say good night, John.
UPDATE: Salter, the other alter-ego, quit shortly afterwards. The question to ask now is whether McCain even plans on remaining in politics for much longer. Oh, and if Salter plans to sue for the royalties to the two best-selling McCain "autobiographies" and three other books for which Salter was larely responsible.
A rather sad ending to a political career.
UPDATE: Salter, apparently, is officially quitting the campaign, but plans to remain as an unpaid adviser.
|
This is a big, fat neon sign on the terminal nature of John McCain's presidential campaign.
Terry Nelson is one thing; he worked for Bush in the 2000 campaign. But with notable exception of ghost-writer Mark Salter, John Weaver is McCain's strategist-alter ego. This is the equivalent of Karl Rove quitting the Bush operation in 1999.
Oh, and how surprising -- the departures preceded by a volcanic eruption by the candidate. Who would have predicted that?
Say good night, John.
UPDATE: Salter, the other alter-ego, quit shortly afterwards. The question to ask now is whether McCain even plans on remaining in politics for much longer. Oh, and if Salter plans to sue for the royalties to the two best-selling McCain "autobiographies" and three other books for which Salter was larely responsible.
A rather sad ending to a political career.
UPDATE: Salter, apparently, is officially quitting the campaign, but plans to remain as an unpaid adviser.
Labels: Senator John McCain
Friday, July 06, 2007
Ryan's Hope
Congratulations to my friend, erstwhile colleague and inveterate campaign finance reform nemesis Ryan Sager as he weds Emily Gitter this coming Sunday evening in the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens.
I'm not sure about Emily, but I'm pretty sure that Ryan is registered at RudyYesMcCainGodNoPleaseGodNo.org (heh heh).
Given that, this little item should amuse him to no end.
UPDATE: Yep, Ryan is amused to no end. At the risk of turning this post into something semi-serious, perhaps he should give more love to the Paul-heads. I mean, what does it say that the so-called "fringe" GOP candidate has more cash-on-hand than three former governors (Huckabee, Gilmore and T. Thompson), two currently-serving U.S. senators (Brownback and McCain) and his two other House members running for POTUS (Hunter and Tancredo).
|
I'm not sure about Emily, but I'm pretty sure that Ryan is registered at RudyYesMcCainGodNoPleaseGodNo.org (heh heh).
Given that, this little item should amuse him to no end.
UPDATE: Yep, Ryan is amused to no end. At the risk of turning this post into something semi-serious, perhaps he should give more love to the Paul-heads. I mean, what does it say that the so-called "fringe" GOP candidate has more cash-on-hand than three former governors (Huckabee, Gilmore and T. Thompson), two currently-serving U.S. senators (Brownback and McCain) and his two other House members running for POTUS (Hunter and Tancredo).
Labels: Ron Paul, ryan sager, Senator John McCain, wedding
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
GOP Cash Overview
Rudy by a nose over Romney -- though they weren't that far in front of McCain's truly disastrous showing (McCain was worse off because of his awful first quarter and his cash-on-hand situation).
As Jonathan Martin points out, Hillary and Barack raised $12 million more in primary money than McCain, Giuliani and Romney did combined.
Ouch.
It's hard out here being in the "party of the rich."
The upside? A lot of people are holding their fire (and their wallets) for Fred Thompson's official jump into the race. That should help the overall picture for the GOP.
How much?
We'll see.
|
As Jonathan Martin points out, Hillary and Barack raised $12 million more in primary money than McCain, Giuliani and Romney did combined.
Ouch.
It's hard out here being in the "party of the rich."
The upside? A lot of people are holding their fire (and their wallets) for Fred Thompson's official jump into the race. That should help the overall picture for the GOP.
How much?
We'll see.
Labels: fundraising, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain
Straight Talk Express Crash
With barely restrained glee, my pal Ryan Sager analyzes the presidential campaign equivalent of this year's Yankees -- John McCain.
Ryan has long disliked McCain -- primarily because of campaign finance reform (I tended to like McCain, despite CFR).
Still, despite McCain's occasionally acerbic personality and his feuds with social conservatives, this total collapse is still something of a shock (though we did predict here that the immigration bill would likely be the final straw, and that seems to be the case).
|
Ryan has long disliked McCain -- primarily because of campaign finance reform (I tended to like McCain, despite CFR).
Still, despite McCain's occasionally acerbic personality and his feuds with social conservatives, this total collapse is still something of a shock (though we did predict here that the immigration bill would likely be the final straw, and that seems to be the case).
Labels: fundraising, GOP 2008 President, immigration, Senator John McCain
Friday, May 18, 2007
McCain's End
I have a million things going on right now, so I'm sorry that I can't give the immigration deal the full attention that it deserves. However, one thing that definitely jumps out: Fairly or unfairly, this agreement likely drives the final stake through the heart of John McCain's presidential campaign.
It's another semi-tragic irony for McCain. The guy who ran as the maverick in 2000 against the GOP establishment candidate George W. Bush now finds two separate anvils around his neck that are the self-described "priorities" of President Bush. They are the dreaded "I" words -- Iraq and immigration. McCain's support for the former has caused his popularity among Democrats and independents to crater. Now his support for the latter (along with his earlier apostasies on campaign finance reform and taxes) is likely fatal for his quest for the Republican nomination. National Review calls the agreement, "Bush-Kennedy."
It must have driven the McCain campaign into conniption fits to see their candidate photographed with the one-time heir to Camelot as the deal was announced. Jim Antle is right: "Conservative voters will remember the immigration partnership between John McCain and Ted Kennedy. In a Republican primary, that is dangerous company to keep."
McCain may have done the right thing, but it is a suicide pact for his already fading White House hopes.
As a quick aside, I disagree with my former boss that the deal is "a sellout of every conservative principle". Immigration policy hardly lines up on a perfect liberal-conservative spectrum. The business and libertarian parts of the conservative movement believes in a more open-ended immigration policy. They don't necessarily see this compromise as a "sellout." But more on that anon.
|
It's another semi-tragic irony for McCain. The guy who ran as the maverick in 2000 against the GOP establishment candidate George W. Bush now finds two separate anvils around his neck that are the self-described "priorities" of President Bush. They are the dreaded "I" words -- Iraq and immigration. McCain's support for the former has caused his popularity among Democrats and independents to crater. Now his support for the latter (along with his earlier apostasies on campaign finance reform and taxes) is likely fatal for his quest for the Republican nomination. National Review calls the agreement, "Bush-Kennedy."
It must have driven the McCain campaign into conniption fits to see their candidate photographed with the one-time heir to Camelot as the deal was announced. Jim Antle is right: "Conservative voters will remember the immigration partnership between John McCain and Ted Kennedy. In a Republican primary, that is dangerous company to keep."
McCain may have done the right thing, but it is a suicide pact for his already fading White House hopes.
As a quick aside, I disagree with my former boss that the deal is "a sellout of every conservative principle". Immigration policy hardly lines up on a perfect liberal-conservative spectrum. The business and libertarian parts of the conservative movement believes in a more open-ended immigration policy. They don't necessarily see this compromise as a "sellout." But more on that anon.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, immigration, Senator John McCain
Thursday, May 03, 2007
The Other "G"-Man
Even though he's considered a "second-tier" candidate, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore impressed me the most at the first Republican presidential debate. He came across as informed and polished, but not slick (as Mitt Romney did). His mantra that he was a "consistent conservative" might actually gain traction, if he manages to raise some money. He brought in the different parts of his resume when appropriate and didn't make it sound random. His explanation of his views on abortion -- pro-choice, but with a history of signing reasonable restrictions as governor -- was far more coherent than Rudy Giuliani's (who now says that he does support the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding after saying last month that he advocated federal funding). Giuliani still can't say that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided -- but that Justices should consider it as "precedent." This sort of reasoning would have never gotten, say, Plessy v. Ferguson overturned.
Giuliani gets credit for showing that he understood the basics of the Sunni-Shiite divide -- though it was clear that he was praying that there wasn't a follow-up! Some New Yorkers might have rolled their eyes in noting his response to the question about if he had any "regrets" with regard to his relations with blacks: He pointed in a rather halting manner to his reduction of crime and welfare. One can argue that crime and welfare culture have a proportionally greater affect on the black community. But, he seemed to shy away from saying that. The question goes directly to the perception of his creating a climate that led to police shootings of unarmed black men. It's not an easy question to answer, but it's something he should have figured out how to answer by now.
Gilmore also gets kudos for standing up for the right of federal prosecutors to indict someone on perjury if that person lies to a grand jury in the middle of an investigation. That was the correct response to the question about whether Scooter Libby should be pardoned. Half the respondents fell over themselves (Romney in the lead) to denounce the idea that Patrick Fitzgerald shouldn't have continued his investigation once he found out who the "leaker" was in the Valerie Plame saga. As if that gave Libby license to lie when Fitzgerald did ask him questions.
Of all the former governors there (including Romney, Huckabee and Thompson), Gilmore came across as the most "real." And I say that as someone who was more favorably disposed toward Huckabee coming in. Huckabee did manage to steal some of Brownback's territory on the "life" issue. However, he seemed to want to be the most-left candidate economically by coming out against excessive CEO pay and raiding of pensions. Huckabee's line about "not giving a letter grade in the middle of a test" with respect to the Iraq War was corny -- but, given the question, was a really on-point improvised answer.
Brownback, the avowed pro-lifer, also got some good "moderate" credits by saying that he could support a pro-choice GOP presidential candidate -- and for mentioning his support for issues in Africa.
Romney is a very good-looking guy and he "looks" presidential. But he didn't blow me away with anything tonight. His assertion that he became pro-life after he "studied" the issue (which just happened to be the time when he was "studying" the idea of running for president) still sounds as plastic to me as it did when I first heard it. Others can disagree, but that's how I feel. Romney, however, did make the clearest -- and, for me -- most correct answer on the Terri Schiavo question. On the other hand, he gets major demerits for making the already-difficult-to-understand stem-cell issue even more incomprehensible (something about "nuking" something).
John McCain often seemed hesitant and off his step. In 2000, his laugh lines sounded vibrant and off-the-cuff (even after he had said them countless times). Tonight, they sounded very canned. Yes, he made it clear that he was the "warrior candidate." However, it was ironic: While bashing Bush's handling of the war, the maverick has adopted the establishment White House's talking points: "We have a new general; we have a plan." McCain gets kudos for managing to shoe-horn the issue of judges in at the end of the debate. However, his "The first pork-barrel earmark spending bill that crosses my desk I'll veto." Right, as any Congress will introduce a bill called the Pork-Barrel Earmark Act of 2009.
Ron Paul's best line was that he was in the line of Eisenhower and Nixon trying to get America out of difficult, poorly-run wars. Unfortunately, that was probably his high point. I cheered him occasionally for his purist libertarian comments ("We don't need a national ID card."), but he said nothing that actually made one say, "Hmmm...maybe this guy isn't a fringe candidate.
Three out of ten Republican presidential candidates don't believe in evolution (Brownback, Tancredo andone other I couldn't identify on the full-panel shot when Matthews asked the question Huckabee). Hmmm....
Matthews' Bill Clinton question at the end was an embarassment ("Do you want Bill Clinton back in the White House?"). The obvious answer was the one everybody gave -- "No, because it would mean that Hillary Clinton was president." What else would a GOP presidential candidate say? But that wasn't what Matthews was getting at. He was making a Monica reference without actually saying it. So, he comes across as the giggly Catholic schoolboy who feels the need to make a smarmy reference -- but just wants to hint at it and let other people make the smarm explicit. Pathetic.
UPDATE: Peggy Noonan's take: "Mitt Romney won, Rudy Giuliani lost, and John McCain is still in."
|
Giuliani gets credit for showing that he understood the basics of the Sunni-Shiite divide -- though it was clear that he was praying that there wasn't a follow-up! Some New Yorkers might have rolled their eyes in noting his response to the question about if he had any "regrets" with regard to his relations with blacks: He pointed in a rather halting manner to his reduction of crime and welfare. One can argue that crime and welfare culture have a proportionally greater affect on the black community. But, he seemed to shy away from saying that. The question goes directly to the perception of his creating a climate that led to police shootings of unarmed black men. It's not an easy question to answer, but it's something he should have figured out how to answer by now.
Gilmore also gets kudos for standing up for the right of federal prosecutors to indict someone on perjury if that person lies to a grand jury in the middle of an investigation. That was the correct response to the question about whether Scooter Libby should be pardoned. Half the respondents fell over themselves (Romney in the lead) to denounce the idea that Patrick Fitzgerald shouldn't have continued his investigation once he found out who the "leaker" was in the Valerie Plame saga. As if that gave Libby license to lie when Fitzgerald did ask him questions.
Of all the former governors there (including Romney, Huckabee and Thompson), Gilmore came across as the most "real." And I say that as someone who was more favorably disposed toward Huckabee coming in. Huckabee did manage to steal some of Brownback's territory on the "life" issue. However, he seemed to want to be the most-left candidate economically by coming out against excessive CEO pay and raiding of pensions. Huckabee's line about "not giving a letter grade in the middle of a test" with respect to the Iraq War was corny -- but, given the question, was a really on-point improvised answer.
Brownback, the avowed pro-lifer, also got some good "moderate" credits by saying that he could support a pro-choice GOP presidential candidate -- and for mentioning his support for issues in Africa.
Romney is a very good-looking guy and he "looks" presidential. But he didn't blow me away with anything tonight. His assertion that he became pro-life after he "studied" the issue (which just happened to be the time when he was "studying" the idea of running for president) still sounds as plastic to me as it did when I first heard it. Others can disagree, but that's how I feel. Romney, however, did make the clearest -- and, for me -- most correct answer on the Terri Schiavo question. On the other hand, he gets major demerits for making the already-difficult-to-understand stem-cell issue even more incomprehensible (something about "nuking" something).
John McCain often seemed hesitant and off his step. In 2000, his laugh lines sounded vibrant and off-the-cuff (even after he had said them countless times). Tonight, they sounded very canned. Yes, he made it clear that he was the "warrior candidate." However, it was ironic: While bashing Bush's handling of the war, the maverick has adopted the establishment White House's talking points: "We have a new general; we have a plan." McCain gets kudos for managing to shoe-horn the issue of judges in at the end of the debate. However, his "The first pork-barrel earmark spending bill that crosses my desk I'll veto." Right, as any Congress will introduce a bill called the Pork-Barrel Earmark Act of 2009.
Ron Paul's best line was that he was in the line of Eisenhower and Nixon trying to get America out of difficult, poorly-run wars. Unfortunately, that was probably his high point. I cheered him occasionally for his purist libertarian comments ("We don't need a national ID card."), but he said nothing that actually made one say, "Hmmm...maybe this guy isn't a fringe candidate.
Three out of ten Republican presidential candidates don't believe in evolution (Brownback, Tancredo and
Matthews' Bill Clinton question at the end was an embarassment ("Do you want Bill Clinton back in the White House?"). The obvious answer was the one everybody gave -- "No, because it would mean that Hillary Clinton was president." What else would a GOP presidential candidate say? But that wasn't what Matthews was getting at. He was making a Monica reference without actually saying it. So, he comes across as the giggly Catholic schoolboy who feels the need to make a smarmy reference -- but just wants to hint at it and let other people make the smarm explicit. Pathetic.
UPDATE: Peggy Noonan's take: "Mitt Romney won, Rudy Giuliani lost, and John McCain is still in."
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Jim Gilmore, Mitt Romney, Republican presidential debate, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Senator John McCain
Pre-GOP Debate Open Thread
What do you want to hear? What questions asked?
Thread on.
|
Thread on.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, immigration, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain
Thursday, March 08, 2007
McCain's War Blues
A new Wall St. Journal/NBC News poll underscores the problem John McCain is having with the Republican base (sub. required for full story) -- and that base's restlessness with Iraq:
Another irony: even though McCain and Cheney hate each other -- as demonstrated by the Veep's defending Rumsfeld two weeks ago -- McCain is the one whom GOP voters may punish as Bush's VP-stand-in during the primaries.
Meanwhile, though Giuliani supports the "surge" idea, it's not "his" plan. He hasn't been out front commenting on it and offering strategic guidance from the Senate from the start; thus, as noted here last week, he hasn't had to suffer the collapse of GOP support for the war to the degree McCain is. He is free to offer a new perspective:
|
The poll shows Mr. McCain's problems are partly personal, and partly the result of the Iraq war's shadow over the broader political environment. After years in which his maverick stance on issues from taxes to campaign finance grated on the party faithful, one in five Republicans express negative views of Mr. McCain and a similar proportion vow not to vote for him. That is double the negative views about Mr. Giuliani.But, McCain isn't just "supporting" sending more troops to Iraq: He has been front-and-center on the more-troops issue from the beginning. Indeed, his ongoing battle with Donald Rumsfeld was over the troops issue. But, what was the right idea -- policy-wise and politically -- on Day One, may not be the right one politically now. Sadly for McCain, the public isn't buying it. He's in the worst of all possible worlds: He criticized the Bush administration for going into Iraq without enough troops, but now that the administration is sending more troops in, McCain is suffering the political cost of a war that the public has given up on.
Some 30% of Americans overall, and 22% of Republicans express reservations about the fact that Mr. McCain, now 70 years old, would be the oldest president elected to a first term. More ominously, 72% of Americans and 50% of Republicans express discomfort with his support for sending more U.S. troops to Iraq.
Another irony: even though McCain and Cheney hate each other -- as demonstrated by the Veep's defending Rumsfeld two weeks ago -- McCain is the one whom GOP voters may punish as Bush's VP-stand-in during the primaries.
Meanwhile, though Giuliani supports the "surge" idea, it's not "his" plan. He hasn't been out front commenting on it and offering strategic guidance from the Senate from the start; thus, as noted here last week, he hasn't had to suffer the collapse of GOP support for the war to the degree McCain is. He is free to offer a new perspective:
Mr. Giuliani's camp is counting on his strong security profile as "America's Mayor" after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks -- and that a restless public will seek change from outside Washington. The latest encouraging sign for that view: the criminal conviction this week of former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the CIA leak case.
Labels: Iraq, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Brother, Here For Art Thou
Well, well.
It looks like a clear winner emerged from that David Geffen-initiated Obama-Clinton dust up. Based on this new Washington Post poll, it is that certain ethnic candidate from Illinois. At least in terms of blacks, Obama has surged (so to speak) past Hillary.
I don't think that is simply a sudden "Oh, wow, he really is black" moment from African Americans for this switch (thought that may be a factor). Last week's war of words shine some intense light momentarily on the race.
The added light accrued to Obama's benefit, because he's the new kid on the block. Furthermore, the greater attention makes more people aware of his clear anti-Iraq war views -- and Hillary's more complicated position. It happens that African-Americans have been the most solidly anti-Iraq electoral group for some time.
Now, they have a candidate with whom they can coalesce their views.
The anti-war element in the country may also be a factor in McCain's losing support to Rudy Giuliani among Republicans. While the former New York mayor supports the war, McCain has attached himself to George W. Bush -- particularly with respect to the surge -- to such an extent that the war has now become "his." Yes, McCain has many problems with respect to the GOP base, but Iraq remains the predominant issue. And the news that McCain did make last week was all about the war: He went after Rumsfeld; Cheney went after him for going after Rumsfeld, etc. And Giuliani's lead increased: This suggests that Republican electorate is sick of the war as well, but want to vote for a clear, authoritative leader: Right now, that seems to be Rudy.
Both McCain and Hillary are losing support to candidates who have no fingerprints on either the authorization or strategic implementation of the Iraq war.
|
It looks like a clear winner emerged from that David Geffen-initiated Obama-Clinton dust up. Based on this new Washington Post poll, it is that certain ethnic candidate from Illinois. At least in terms of blacks, Obama has surged (so to speak) past Hillary.
I don't think that is simply a sudden "Oh, wow, he really is black" moment from African Americans for this switch (thought that may be a factor). Last week's war of words shine some intense light momentarily on the race.
The added light accrued to Obama's benefit, because he's the new kid on the block. Furthermore, the greater attention makes more people aware of his clear anti-Iraq war views -- and Hillary's more complicated position. It happens that African-Americans have been the most solidly anti-Iraq electoral group for some time.
Now, they have a candidate with whom they can coalesce their views.
The anti-war element in the country may also be a factor in McCain's losing support to Rudy Giuliani among Republicans. While the former New York mayor supports the war, McCain has attached himself to George W. Bush -- particularly with respect to the surge -- to such an extent that the war has now become "his." Yes, McCain has many problems with respect to the GOP base, but Iraq remains the predominant issue. And the news that McCain did make last week was all about the war: He went after Rumsfeld; Cheney went after him for going after Rumsfeld, etc. And Giuliani's lead increased: This suggests that Republican electorate is sick of the war as well, but want to vote for a clear, authoritative leader: Right now, that seems to be Rudy.
Both McCain and Hillary are losing support to candidates who have no fingerprints on either the authorization or strategic implementation of the Iraq war.
Labels: Barack Obama, Democratic 2008 Presidential, GOP 2008 President, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Senator McCain Was Not Asleep
A storm of unfair attacks have been launched against Senator McCain following last night's State of the Union. The Senator, who will be 70 in 2008, was caught on camera last night with his eyes closed for at least more then a few seconds. Lets be fair folks. His eyes were not closed. Every member in the House last night had a copy of the State of the Union. At the moment, the Senator more then likely was looking down at his own copy, and the camera shot made it appear that he was asleep.
[Update] Critics who have been waiting to have an opportunity to publicly admonish McCain, especially since he has not been a "maverick" in regards to his support of Bush's foreign policy...finally have an opening to attack McCain. And the attack line is perfect: "he's too old to be President."
I admit that the image of him, slumped over, with his eyes cast downwards, was not the greatest image you want the American people to see. But the Senator was not asleep! So lets cut him some slack, and move on.
[Update] Critics who have been waiting to have an opportunity to publicly admonish McCain, especially since he has not been a "maverick" in regards to his support of Bush's foreign policy...finally have an opening to attack McCain. And the attack line is perfect: "he's too old to be President."
I admit that the image of him, slumped over, with his eyes cast downwards, was not the greatest image you want the American people to see. But the Senator was not asleep! So lets cut him some slack, and move on.
Labels: Senator John McCain
