Category Archives: 2012 Presidential

What I almost said in Key West

Last night it occurred to me that I wrote out a lengthy opening statement for the panel discussion down in Key West over the weekend, and never used it. And I hate writing stuff without it going to some purpose…

As I told y’all previously, I had written out this whole argument about why Romney was inevitable in SC, and then got the jitters after seeing Gingrich gaining in the polls, and scrapped the whole thing. I decided to wing it instead, which in the end worked much better. I don’t speak well from notes.

So while I have no idea at this point what I actually said, I can at least share with you what I was gonna say. I still believe most of it, including the fact that Romney’s gonna win.

Here it is:

Senate Presidents’ Forum
January 14, 2012
Brad Warthen opening remarks

My home state, South Carolina, is an awkward size by comparison with its aspirations.

In 1860, hearing that his native state and mine had just seceded from the union, James L. Petigru famously said, “South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.” Often in its history, including quite recently, the state has seemed to be trying to be one or the other, and sometimes both at the same time.

We are… interesting.

Jon Stewart adores us, and Stephen Colbert is very proud to be a native of the Palmetto State. But it’s not just that we’re funny. For my part, I started blogging six years ago because there just wasn’t room on a daily editorial page to say everything that needed to be said about our politics. Now that I’m not with the paper, I still blog, and the only challenge is that I never have enough time to write about it all.

Now, all of that said and fully acknowledged, I want to say this: We’re not really as crazy as y’all think we are.

The last few days, I keep reading and hearing about how NOW it’s gonna get down and dirty and wild and woolly and all sorts of overdone hyperboles. Because supposedly, South Carolina is where civility and decorum and all rationality end. In the last few days, I’ve seen the word “dirty” used to describe South Carolina politics in website headlines from CNN, NPR, CBS, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Time magazine. Huffington Post, to be different, used the phrase “bloody mess.”

And indeed, it will be interesting. This is last-ditch time. The end of the line for the also-rans from Iowa and New Hampshire, if they can’t put a serious dent in the Romney juggernaut. If Romney wins in South Carolina as big as he did in New Hampshire, I’m going to feel sorry for the folks down here in Florida, spending all that money on a foregone conclusion.

And yes, it’s possible that something unseemly will happen. You know the stories. In 2000, someone accused John McCain of fathering an illegitimate child of mixed race (something Strom Thurmond actually did, by the way, but that was a long time ago). Then there were those Christmas cards that went out in 2007 with pictures of the Romney family and controversial quotations from the Book of Mormon. These things have a way of happening in South Carolina, even though Lee Atwater is long gone.

But… when all is said and done, when the last skull has been cracked and the barroom brawl is over, you know what you’re going to have? A coronation of the official, duly-appointed Establishment candidate.

That’s what we do in South Carolina. Very early in the process, and often with little regard to what has happened in Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina annoints a candidate, and then the Republican Party goes ahead and nominates that guy. It’s been happening ever since 1980. Ronald Reagan wasn’t the establishment candidate when the process started in Iowa – George H.W. Bush won, in fact. But it was his turn, after 1976. And ever since then, there has been this moment, every four years, when South Carolina Republicans all settle down and pick the most palatable, most presentable candidate. The one that other Republicans across the country will eventually embrace as inevitable.

The respectable candidate. The one whose turn it is.

This has happened every presidential election for that last 32 years. You can set your clock by it. Or your calendar, at least.

Now, that said, I was afraid that the pattern was going to be broken this year.

After the loss in 2008 – when many, such as our own Jim DeMint, were convinced that the GOP lost because it wasn’t conservative enough – South Carolina Republicans have spent some time wandering in the wilderness.

And the definition of conservative was rapidly changing. This had happened before. In 1992, Bob Inglis seemingly came out of nowhere to unseat incumbent congresswoman Liz Patterson, which marked the rise to power of religious conservatives in the state party. That marked a shift from the state GOP being dominated by economic-development types such as Carroll Campbell to the values faction.

Less than a generation later, in 2010, Bob Inglis would be CRUSHED by a Tea Party candidate, for the sin of not being conservative enough. Which, if you know Bob Inglis, is rather startling.

That wasn’t the most startling thing that happened that year. The most startling thing was that a little-known, untested legislative back-bencher won the Republican nomination for governor over several far more established candidates.

The nation is amazed that an Indian-American woman is South Carolina’s governor. South Carolina is more amazed that Nikki Haley came out of nowhere to run right over Henry McMaster and Gresham Barrett.

That Republicans would pick her so recently made it seem very difficult to predict what would happen next in Republican politics in South Carolina.

That uncertainty continued, with regard to the presidential primary, until a month ago. As late as Dec. 14, one month ago today, I wrote on my blog that I had no idea what was going to happen. There were a number of things that were odd about this year, aside from not being able to gauge what sort of sway the Tea Party still held:

— As measured by traffic on my blog, interest in the primary had peaked in August, when I had more than a quarter of a million page views. That was the month when Rick Perry announced in Charleston, and initially there was a lot of excitement about him. But over the next couple of months, as he faded, my traffic dropped off. That was in contrast to what happened four years earlier, when blog traffic increased steadily leading up to the primary itself.

— During the last few months, likely primary voters staggered in confusion from Perry to Herman Cain to Newt Gingrich, according to polls. There was such a lack of a discernible pattern that I began to think that maybe South Carolina was so unsettled that maybe it wasn’t going to go with the establishment candidate this time, the candidate whose turn it was. And if that happened, we probably weren’t going to pick the eventual nominee. And that meant that four years from now, the nation wasn’t going to be nearly as interested in South Carolina as it customarily is.

But then, over the holidays, things started to shift. It wasn’t a change in the polls that first made up my mind about what was going to happen. Nor was it the results in Iowa or New Hampshire.

I had been getting a feeling, nothing more, that the stars were lining up for Romney. But I really figured out what was going to happen on Dec. 31, when I read that Warren Tompkins had decided to support Romney – for free. Warren is sort of the gold standard of political consultants in South Carolina. All the other politicos who usually pick the winner had committed to other candidates early on – a surprising number of them [McMaster, Courson, Campbell, Alan Wilson] for Huntsman, and some [Harrell, Wilkins] for Perry.

But Warren waited until he was sure. Until he was seeing what I was seeing, and a lot of stuff that would be invisible to me. That was it. What happened over the next couple of weeks in polls, and in Iowa and New Hampshire, just confirmed what I already knew, which is that Warren had called it.

Nothing this side of the grave is certain. And in fact, Newt Gingrich has been rising fairly quickly in polls released the last couple of days. American Research Group has him within striking distance, and Rasmussen not far behind that. So maybe all that superPAC money is paying off.

But I think Romney pretty much has it sewn up. Maybe Gingrich will win the coveted second spot. Or maybe someone else will.

But you know what? I don’t think it matters much who’s in second. Because after South Carolina, Romney will have it sewn up.

What would surprise you most on Saturday?

8 Replies

I’m doing a number of interviews these days. I was interviewed by Canadian public radio yesterday, and taped a segment for Jeff Greenfield’s show on PBS (to air Friday). Then I had a couple of beers last night with E.J. Dionne. This morning, before I left the house, I spoke with Tom Finneran (former speaker of the Massachusetts House) on his Boston radio show.

When I got in, I was interviewed by email, which is a twist. Karin Henriksson of the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet asked me two questions:

– how has the dynamics in the state changed compared to four years ago (I was here then, too)?

– what would surprise you the most on Saturday night after the votes are counted?

Here’s how I answered:

Question 1: This is the complicated one. After 2008, the GOP in South Carolina — and elsewhere as well, but I know SC best — was traumatized. Sen. Jim DeMint and others on the right said the party had lost the White House because, in nominating McCain, it had failed to be right-wing enough. This was the start of DeMint’s rise as a national power on the far right of the party. Then, in 2010, Nikki Haley — a small-time back-bencher — rode a populist, Tea Party, Sarah Palin-flavored tsunami right over more establishment Republicans to become governor. Ever since then, observers — and the GOP itself — have been left to wonder what it means to be Republican in this state. As 2011 arrived, many of the Republicans who usually backed the winner in SC lined up behind Jon Huntsman, while others went to Rick Perry. Almost none of them backed Romney. And throughout the last few months, we saw the GOP electorate bounce from Perry to Cain to Gingrich, and then, reluctantly, start to settle for Romney.

So… while the electorate that will vote Saturday is different from four years ago, it is expected to do what it usually does: Back the closest thing to an Establishment candidate, the candidate whose turn it is.

Question 2: What would surprise me most? A win by Rick Perry. Which is ironic, since several months ago he looked like the perfect candidate for South Carolina, like he was assembled according to a South Carolina recipe. But now he’s farther from the nomination than anyone still in it.

So what do y’all think? What would surprise you the most?

What’s up between Jim DeMint and Ron Paul?

7 Replies

A normally very knowledgeable Republican told me recently that Warren Tompkins’ decision to back Mitt Romney was a signal to the base that Jim DeMint, despite his public neutrality, was really for Romney.

Why, I asked, didn’t DeMint just come out for Romney the way he did four years ago? The answer: It was OK four years ago to support the author of Romneycare. But not now, when the GOP is defining itself in terms of its staunch belief that Obamacare — which was based on Romneycare — is the end of the world as we know it.

Interesting thesis.

But if it’s true, how come DeMint keeps saying all these nice things about Ron Paul? Check out the video above, or this from earlier this month:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Wednesday the Republican presidential candidates need to listen to Ron Paul and would benefit from integrating some of his libertarian ideas into their platform.

“One of the things that’s hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul,” DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”…

DeMint said he does not agree with the Texas congressman on everything but that the rest of the GOP presidential field should capture some of what Paul’s been talking about for years because the Republican Party “needs” the libertarian movement.

“You don’t have to agree with everything he’s saying, but if the other candidates miss some of the wisdom about what he’s saying about monetary policy … that will be to our detriment,” DeMint said…

So what’s up with that?

Not that there’s anything wrong with that

6 Replies

Yesterday was so busy that I didn’t get around to this. Since then, I hear it was a subject of discussion on Morning Joe, having already appeared on Politico and other places.

You may have already seen it by now:

12.27pm: Our reporter Matt Williams has been on the phone to one of the senior editors at The State newspaper, which as we learned earlier, endorsed Jon Huntsman only yesterday. She was sanguine about his decision.

Cindi Scoppe, associate editor of The State, said Huntsman’s decision has left the newspaper feeling like a spurned lover.

Scoppe, who penned the endorsement piece on the former Utah governor that was published a day before he dropped out, said: “It is rather like having gone through a courtship for some period of time and finally making love with a man, for him to suddenly turn around and say, ‘you know what, I think I’m gay’.”

She said Mitt Romeny enjoyed South Carolina’s largest newspaper’s “implied endorsement”, now that Huntsman had dropped out. “We intended to make clear that Romney was our second choice. But whether we write a formal endorsement or not – we haven’t figured it out yet.”…

What’s really funny about this — painfully so — is that Cindi is not the sort of person to talk about her feelings. She’s all about thought. She’ll rattle off a logical explanation at the drop of a hat, and be perfectly comfortable doing so. But ask her about her feelings, and she’ll look at you with disgust, for bringing up a subject unworthy of discussion.

I guess the reporter from The Guardian caught her at a weak moment. So she gave him both barrels as to how it felt.

You know how Michael Corleone let Kay ask him, just this once, about his business? Well, just this once, Cindi let somebody ask about her feelings. I doubt that she’ll do that again, now that so many have been entertained by it.

Personally, I thought it was a good answer. The situation was SO absurd (Joe Lieberman at least waited until he got crushed in the SC primary before dropping out, three whole days after the endorsement) that you have to wonder: Huntsman has had staff here for months. You pay people all that time, you go to all those chicken dinners, and you don’t even stick it out until the primary?

Scuttlebutt has it that there was a deal. But what sort of deal? What would Romney, or whoever, have offered Huntsman that would be worth such a precipitous exit? And why would it have been worth offering ANYthing to such an adversary? Huntsman was barely registering in the polls, getting less support than Stephen Colbert.

It was all very odd. And Cindi captured well how odd, how disconcerting, it was.

3 SC state senators endorse Ron Paul, who talks about how great Nullification would be for SC

21 Replies

Ron Paul in the State House lobby today with Sens. Verdin, Bryant, Bright and Davis.

Which is not usually the kind of event I turn out for, but it was my first chance to see Ron Paul in person. This time around, anyway (and maybe ever; I’m not sure).

To end the suspense — he looks just the way he does on TV, like the cranky crazy uncle who sits in the corner and only occasionally says cryptic things.

Not to insult him. You can look like that and be a great guy; that’s just the way he looks. Lord knows how I’d get described if I were running for president. I’m often shocked at photos of myself.

Anyway, the news was that three SC state senators were joining their colleague Tom Davis in endorsing Dr. Paul. They were:

Danny Verdin from Greenville and Laurens counties, chairman of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. He said he’d “never heard a message that… resonated in my heart more.”

Lee Bright of Spartanburg. I seem to recall him supporting Michele Bachmann earlier. “Dr. Ron Paul is conservative in all areas,” he said, unlike all those other candidates who are only “conservative” here and there, in spots. “… and he says what he believes.”

Kevin Bryant of Anderson, whom you may know as one of the first lawmakers to take up blogging. He quoted Goldwater: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” and went on to say “We’re going to have to do some extreme things to turn around America.”

For his part, Dr. Paul expressed his gratitude. In response to a question, standing in the presence of a likeness of John C. Calhoun, he said that nullification is still a viable idea, at least academically. And he almost wistfully longed for it to be a fact. While he doubted it would be often used (he don’t know us very well, do he?), he thought it would be great for South Carolina to be able to exercise that power. This helps explain why Sen. Bright is backing him.

I want to go back and listen to my recording and get that verbatim for you, but I’ll have to do it later. Gotta go see Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee (yes, Huck!), and possibly others, at another event. The subject is foreign policy.

Live-blogging the Myrtle Beach debate

77 Replies

Or perhaps I should say, live-commenting. I’m watching it here, since I don’t get that channel on TV.

And here’s my first comment — I thought Romney did a good job of deflecting criticism of his Bain record, early on there. What did you think?

Seeking auxiliary reporters, photographers

I have no landline! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, you suckers!

25 Replies

In the past 24 hours I have heard heartfelt complaints from three people — my Dad, ADCO’s Lanier Jones and frequent commenter Steve Davis — about being overrun by robocalls and pollsters. Here’s what Steven said:

If Mitt Romney doesn’t control his robocallers soon he’s going to lose my vote. Two calls yesterday and three calls today.

To which I can only say: “Hah! You suckers! I got rid of my landline months ago, and haven’t been pestered by a one of these since!”

I mean… I feel for y’all; I really do…

Insult to injury: Huntsman quits; Romney disses him

5 Replies

(My spellcheck thinks I’m misspelling “disses.” Looks right to me…)

Jon Huntsman had been through enough humiliation, what with trailing behind Stephen Colbert in the polls, not getting any bounce from New Hampshire, being called nasty names (like “moderate”!), and then having to face facts and surrender…

But he kept his chin up and quite like a man, giving the nod to Romney and urging all the GOP candidates to pull together like a team and quit trying to eviscerate each other.

And what did he get for it? Dissed, that’s what:

Romney downplays Huntsman support

By Cameron Joseph and Daniel Strauss – 01/16/12 12:12 PM ET

Mitt Romney’s campaign has been notably slow to promote Jon Huntsman’s endorsement, a sign it doesn’t see it as much of an asset in a Republican primary.

Romney did not join Huntsman to receive his endorsement this morning, and his campaign took hours to mention Huntsman at all on Monday, first promoting an endorsement from Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) and sending out an alert about a South Carolina campaign stop.

Romney’s eventual email on Huntsman was terse and, and a tweet barely mentioned the endorsement. “I salute Jon Huntsman and his wife Mary Kaye,” Romney said. “Jon ran a spirited campaign based on unity not division, and love of country. I appreciate his friendship and support.”

That stands in contrast to Romney’s embrace of Tim Pawlenty’s endorsement. After the former Minnesota governor endorsed Romney in September, Romney named him a national co-chairman of his campaign…

Maybe Huntsman should have just urged the nation to unite around Obama. He might have gotten more respect that way.

Which candidate is more likely to go “boom!” in SC?

5 Replies

Maybe I’ve got my metaphors confused.

On a previous post, I likened Newt Gingrich to a hand grenade with the pin pulled. But I couldn’t remember what you call that clip thing down the side of the grenade that you have to hold in place manually after pulling the pin if you want to hold it without getting blown up. So I Googled “hand grenade parts,” and got this page, which told me it was called the “safety lever.” Fine.

But after I posted my metaphor, I noticed that there was a political ad on the hand grenade page — and it wasn’t for Gingrich. Yeah, it appears to be a Google ad, and therefore is showing up because I, a South Carolinian, went to the page, but still….

Wait a sec! Whom will I vote for now?

25 Replies

You know, I was so busy last night writing about the Huntsman departure from the race that only now has this thought occurred to me: For whom will I vote on Saturday, now that he’s out of it?

That’s a toughie. Let’s look at my options, in alphabetical order:

Newt Gingrich — He’s a knowledgeable guy. As one uncommitted Republican (the same one who called Romney a “Plastic Banana Rock ‘n’ Roller”) said to me the other night, Newt Gingrich is like the professor and the others are like the students in debates. But knowledge and wisdom are not the same things. And a vote for Newt Gingrich is like a vote for a live grenade with the cotter pin pulled out. You’re only going to be able to hold the safety lever in place for just so long…
Ron Paul — No way in the world. As I often say, despite being an UnPartisan I can frequently find points of agreement with both Democrats and Republicans. But Ron Paul comes about as close as anyone can to being the polar opposite of what I believe in. Some times you can with justice call me liberal or conservative (even though I don’t like it), but no one who knows me would call me a libertarian.
Rick Perry — Nope. He just doesn’t bring anything to the table that I’m looking for. If all you can offer me is that you’re a Christian and you served in the military, as fine as those things are, you aren’t telling me why you should be POTUS.
Mitt Romney — We know about all his failings, mostly arising from his fundamental opportunism. In his favor I’ll say that I don’t think he’d lead the country down a wrong path. But that’s because I don’t think he’d lead it down any path at all. He would just manage what we have.
Rick Santorum — I like this guy more than I thought I would (I just thought of him as that culture warrior who got crushed by Bob Casey), and of course as a Catholic I share a lot of fundamental values — more so than with the evangelical Perry. But as much as he touts his foreign policy experience as a former senator, I find it hard to see what about his resume demonstrates a readiness to be POTUS.

I’ve got to pick somebody, because this is my one chance as a South Carolinian to have my vote count (since the November vote here is always a foregone conclusion).

However I do vote come Saturday, I doubt that I will share the decision with y’all — because I won’t feel good about it, and won’t feel like defending it…

Yo, Lee: David Yepsen says “Hey”

2 Replies

Above you see David Yepsen and me, looking relieved and happy that we’re done with our panel presentation at the Senate Presidents’ Forum in Key West over the weekend, and that it went well. Funny how those kinds of things — just talking — can take a lot out of you.

It was an honor to meet David, the legend of Iowa political journalism. And of course when we met, he asked after another legend of political journalism, a man whom everyone knows — and, more remarkably, everyone likes and respects — my longtime friend and colleague Lee Bandy.

I’m lucky to have worked with both Lee and the Tennessee legend, John Parish. And while it was brief, I was honored to share the panel with David Yepsen, who is now director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute (he left The Des Moines Register about the same time I left The State), Saturday. And to get to know a couple of political pros I had not met before, who also served on the panel: First, John Marttila, longtime friend and ally of Joe Biden ever since he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972. John continues to be a senior political adviser to the vice president. From the Republican side, we had Mike DuHaime, who ran Chris Christie’s successful run for governor of New Jersey in 2009.

We had a great discussion, both during the panel and at meals and events before and after.

What did I say during the presentation? Well, not anything I haven’t shared here. I essentially scrapped my prepared remarks, as mentioned previously — which is probably a good thing, because things flow better when I’m winging it. But preparing — not only the writing, but all the conversations I had with top Republicans in SC, right up to a couple of minutes before the program — did help me get my thoughts in order. Hey, if I hadn’t made all those panicked calls Friday night and Saturday morning after seeing those poll numbers, I wouldn’t have known to call Romney a “Plastic Banana Rock ‘n’ Roller,” which still cracks me up — the idea of Romney as ANY kind of rock ‘n’ roller, actually.

Anyway, I’m back from Key West. And it’s going to be a busy week…

Mike DuHaime (or the back of his head, anyway), David Yepsen and John Marttila, during the panel discussion.

In an interesting parallel, Tom Davis backs Ron Paul

24 Replies

Tom Davis signs on with Ron Paul.

Earlier this evening, Sen. Tom Davis put out this release:

SENATOR TOM DAVIS ENSORSES RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT“It’s easy to campaign on lower taxes, less spending and fewer regulations – it’s another thing entirely to stand up for these limited government principles when the entire Washington establishment is aligned against you. Yet for more than three decades Ron Paul has cast thousands of lonely votes in our nation’s capital based on the constitutional principles that this country was founded on – and that the Republican Party has promised to protect. Yet while generations of politicians – including far too many Republicans – were losing their way or caving to the status quo, Ron Paul was standing as a Tea Party of one against a towering wave of red ink.”
“2012 marks the fifth consecutive year in which the federal government is going to spend well over $1 trillion in money it doesn’t have. Each and every American taxpayer is now on the hook for $135,000 worth of federal debt – and last year’s debt deal adds another $7 trillion in deficit spending over the coming decade. Meanwhile the U.S. Senate hasn’t passed a budget in nearly 1,000 days.”

“I’m endorsing Ron Paul because enough is enough. Despite this wave of unprecedented government spending, our unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for the last 34 months and 146.4 million Americans – one out of every two people in this country – are now classified as poor or low-income.”

“Government activism and government intervention clearly hasn’t fixed our economy – which is why the Republican Party needs a nominee who isn’t wedded to that failed approach. We won’t chart a path to fiscal solvency or victory in November by running toward the failed ideas of the left – we will achieve those victories by returning to the principles that the Republican Party once stood for.”

“That is why I am proud to endorse Ron Paul for president.”

“Ron Paul’s record matches his rhetoric, his fiscal plan matches the fiscal challenges that our nation is facing and his movement represents the taxpayers whose interests have been ignored in the political process for far too long.”

“I’m also endorsing him because unlike what the pundits have led you to believe, he is the candidate who gives the Republican Party the best chance to beat Barack Obama in November.”

“We have a choice: We can keep electing candidates who talk about change only during political campaigns as a way to get elected, or we can finally elect a candidate who will walk the walk and make that change a reality – restoring our bottom line, our individual liberties and our national pride in the process.”

To learn more about Senator Tom Davis visit www.senatortomdavis.com

My first thought was “Wow.” I’ve always liked Tom and have a lot of respect for him, and even though he worked for Mark Sanford all those years and was so close to him, I never regarded him as being nearly as much of a radical libertarian as the former governor. But with this move, he has exceeded his friend in that regard.

But you know what? In his own way, he has done much the same thing that The State did in endorsing Jon Huntsman. Yes, in one regard he did the polar opposite — Ron Paul is the last of the GOP candidates that The State, or I, would endorse. As Cindi Scoppe wrote:

Like any libertarian, Ron Paul embraces the worst positions of the far right and the far left: no social safety net, unregulated markets, an isolationist foreign policy and no moral standards. He is the candidate for those who refuse to accept that they are part of a society and can’t see how much their vision of a crippled government would hurt all of us, themselves included.

But in another sense, the two endorsements were alike.

Surely Tom knows that Ron Paul will never be the Republican nominee for president just as well as The State knew that this was not to be for Huntsman this year. But he went with the candidate he thought it should be, rather than the candidate that it would be. So good for him.

Oh, and lucky Tom. As hopeless as his candidate’s cause is, at least he won’t embarrass Tom by suddenly pulling out. Ron Paul’s candidacy is forever.

All in the family now.

Huntsman, the best man for the job, drops out

18 Replies

I was accustomed over the years to being interviewed by national media on the Sunday morning when a presidential endorsement came out in the paper. Today was no different, as a reporter with NBC called to ask me about The State and and its endorsement, prior to interviewing Jon Huntsman today.

I was happy to explain the Huntsman endorsement within the context of the ongoing consensus of the editorial board. I could well have written many of the words that appeared in the paper today. And I told her to remember the one thing I have said, more often than anything else, in explaining what an endorsement is not, and what it is: It’s about who should win, not who’s going to win. We all knew Huntsman wasn’t going to win, just as we knew Joe Lieberman wasn’t going to be the Democratic nominee in 2004. But he should have been.

And Huntsman was the man who should have won the Republican nomination, as well expressed in the editorial:

We need a president who can work within our poisonous political environment to solve our nation’s problems, not simply score partisan points. Someone who understands that negotiation is essential in a representative democracy, and that there are good ideas across the political spectrum. Someone who has a well-defined set of core values but is not so rigid that he ignores new information and new conditions. Someone who has shown himself to be honest and trustworthy. And competent. Someone whose positions are well-reasoned and based on the world as it is rather than as he pretends it to be. Someone with the temperament and judgment and experience to be taken seriously as the commander in chief and leader of the free world.

We think Mr. Romney could demonstrate those characteristics. Mr. Huntsman already does. And we are proud to endorse him for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

Exactly. And Cindi’s accompanying column (Nina Brook years ago dubbed this sort of pairing “steak and steak”) went on to explain why none of the other candidates would do. All well reasoned.

And The State‘s reward for having done the right thing, and having clearly stated why, will be catcalls from detractors delighted that its chosen candidate quit only hours after the endorsement was published. (This will particularly thrill the ones who truly hate the newspaper, and maintain that its endorsement is the “kiss of death.” So seldom does anything happen to support their erroneous thesis — the newspaper’s chosen candidates win about 75 percent of the time in general elections — that I suppose we must indulge them in having their fun, eh?)

Have you seen the news? It just broke a few minutes ago:

Huntsman Says He’s Quitting G.O.P. Race

By JIM RUTENBERG, JEFF ZELENY AND MICHAEL D. SHEAR

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. informed his advisers on Sunday that he intends to drop out of the Republican presidential race, ending his candidacy a week before he had hoped to revive his campaign in the South Carolina primary.

Mr. Huntsman, who had struggled to live up to the soaring expectations of his candidacy, made plans to make an announcement as early as Monday. He had been set to participate in an evening debate in Myrtle Beach.

Matt David, campaign manager to Mr. Huntsman, confirmed the decision in an interview Sunday evening. “The governor and his family, at this point in the race, decided it was time for Republicans to rally around a candidate who could beat Barack Obama and turn around the economy,” Mr. David said. “That candidate is Gov. Mitt Romney.”

Huntsman was right to back Romney, thereby seconding The State’s point that he would be the second choice.

But the nation is worse off for not having Huntsman as an option.

Capt. Romney’s crew fights both sides at once

3 Replies

Note the two sides, above and below, of a mailer I received at home.

One of the good things about being a Patrick O’Brian fanatic is that it provides one with so many good metaphors.

For instance… one of the most difficult things for a man of war’s crew in the age of sail was to fight both sides of the ship at once. One way this might occur would be if a ship sailed between two enemy ships and fired with its larboard and starboard guns at the same time. This took not only a very well-trained crew, but a numerous one — remember, it took a lot of men just to keep changing sail and maneuvering the ship, plus twice the usual number of gun crews. Each gun required a crew of several men, and they weren’t much good if they hadn’t had plenty of experience firing live ammunition at targets under all sorts of conditions.

This required a wealthy commander, because the Royal Navy provided a minuscule amount of powder and shot, and the captain had to shell out his own money if he wanted his men to be able to perform well, even to survive, in a fight.

And only a captain with a numerous, well trained crew would attempt anything so taxing as dashing between two enemy ships to fight both sides at once.

Either that, or a very desperate captain.

I suppose you could interpret this mailer I got at home either way. It was sent out by Restore Our Future, Inc., which exists to promote Mitt Romney.

We know he’s a wealthy captain, with a numerous crew. But is he also desperate?

His foes are the ones who should be desperate. They know that if they don’t stop him in South Carolina, they are done for. But he also knows that, and probably just as soon have done with them all.

So he fires both broadsides at once; never mind the cost.

That plastic banana rock ‘n’ roller Romney is letting me down

14 Replies

Drat.

To borrow from an SNL skit, this is something you can put under the heading of White People’s Problems.

While others at this conference were out playing golf and having fun, I was sitting here in my room in this Key West resort overlooking the aquamarine water, sweating away over my presentation for the panel discussion tomorrow.

In their longest form, my notes were 1,825 words in length, so I pared and whittled, and got it down so it glittered and shone.

And the upshot? After all the hemming and hawing GOP voters have done over the last few months, Romney has it sewn up.

But then I started looking at these polls Gingrich has been touting today:

ICYMI: Recent Polls Show Newt as

Clear Conservative Alternative in SC

Three recent polls show Newt Gingrich emerging as the clear conservative alternative to Mitt Romney in South Carolina.

An American Research Group (ARG) poll shows Newt Gingrich closing the gap with Mitt Romney to just four points in South Carolina, while support for Rick Santorum has collapsed from 24% to just 7% in 7 days.

The results: Romney 29%. Gingrich 25%. Paul 20%. Perry 9%. Santorum 7%. Huntsman 1%. Other 2%. Undecided 7%.

These polls reinforce trends that show Gingrich emerging as the clear conservative alternative to Mitt Romney in South Carolina.

· Evangelical Support. Gingrich has a commanding lead among evangelical Christians with 40% support compared to Governor Perry with 15% in second.

· Tea Party Support. Gingrich leads amongst supporters of the Tea party 28% to Governor Romney’s 24%.

Meanwhile, Governor Romney is losing his support amongst independents to Ron Paul, suggesting that the Governor’s support amongst independents is not strong, and would be lost to President Obama in the general election.

Poll Results: http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/sc/

This poll from ARG echoes the findings of two other recent polls.

An Insider Advantage Poll from January 11^th shows Newt Gingrich in a statistical tie with Governor Romney with 21% support to the Governor’s 23%. Rick Santorum has faded to 14% support, with Ron Paul at 13%, Jon Huntsman at 7% and Rick Perry at 5%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/InsiderAdvantage_SC_0111.pdf

A Rasumussen Poll from January 12th also shows Newt Gingrich well ahead of Rick Santorum and Ron Paul with 21% support compared to their 16%. The poll results are available here.

###

And I started to fret. Gingrich has mo. Here we have all these pols from all over the country ready to hear me in the morning, and what if I make a prediction that was completely off? David Yepsen is here. Today, a guy with PBS was asking me on the phone, “Who is the David Yepsen of South Carolina.” I resisted the temptation to say, “You’re talkin’ to him, baby!”

In any case, the actual David Yepsen (he’s the Brad Warthen of Iowa) is here, and I’m about to make a fool of myself in front of him.

So I started making phone calls to Republicans whose judgment I trust in South Carolina. And the very first one I reached said there’s no way this thing is sewn up, that there’s movement and Gingrich is impressing people.

He said he suspects Romney is going to fail in South Carolina for the same reason he failed with our voters four years ago.

Why is that, I asked?

“Because he’s a plastic banana rock ‘n’ roller.”

What does that mean, I croaked?

It means South Carolinians look at him and see a phony.

Oh.

Anyway, I’m scrapping my presentation for tomorrow. I’m going to wing it. Here’s hoping my “winging-it privileges” haven’t been revoked.

In the end, SC Republicans vote for the ‘boss’

11 Replies

Thought I should share with you this story by my friend and former colleague Aaron Sheinin, writing in the Atlanta paper. I think this is officially the umpteenth story about South Carolina to put “down and dirty” in the headline.

Here’s the good part:

Brad Warthen, who spent 22 years writing and editing political news at The State newspaper in Columbia, said South Carolina voters are typically “boring” when it comes to presidential contests.

“Even though we are the state that seceded first and would do it again and all that kind of stuff, there is this anti-establishment, anti-government, hyperindividualism thing, but when it comes right down to it, we kind of vote for the ‘boss,’” said Warthen, now a public relations executive who still writes about politics on his personal blog.

The 2012 cycle seemed different, though, until about mid-December, Warthen said. Perry leaped to the top of the polls after joining the race in August. Then it was Georgia’s Herman Cain who enjoyed front-runner status while Gingrich held that role from late November through mid-December.

“Finally, it’s like, ‘Oh, well, we know we’re going to nominate Romney, let’s just get on with it,’” Warthen said…

After I gave that “boss” quote to Aaron, I told him I had been about to say, “in the end we kind of vote for the massa,” playing a bit on our history. But I had decided against it, partly because people might have found the reference confusing. He said he thought that was a good call.

(Here’s what I was thinking when I thought of “massa.” I was thinking of all the poor whites who got suckered into fighting the Civil War by the massas back then. Nowadays, while those same whites’ descendants love to get excited about fringe candidates, particularly the ones who appeal to their sense of personal freedom — which was the same thing the slaveowners played on in 1860 — in the end they go with the candidate who looks most like the master of the plantation. See? People wouldn’t have gotten all that. They would have thought I was saying something about black voters, and gone, “Huh?”)

The big news in South Florida tonight

7 Replies

This is the big news in these parts tonight:

The company that manufactures Mercedes-Benz luxury cars unleashed outrage among Cuban-Americans in Miami and other cities on Thursday for using the image of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara to promote their vehicles.

While Daimler AG, the German company which controls Mercedes-Benz, quickly apologized for the use of the image in a presentation in Las Vegas this week, the damage was done.

Many Cuban exiles in South Florida who have fled the island since Fidel Castro took power with the help of Guevara in 1959 not only rejected the ad campaign but also expressed disgust that such a prestigious company would use the image of the revolutionary blamed for executions and implementation of communism on the island…

Oh, one other thing. Apparently, Mitt Romney was down this way (remember, I’m in Key West) today campaigning. Sounds like somebody’s taking South Carolina for granted, a little bit.

Jon Stewart enjoying SC, as always

4 Replies

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Indecision 2012 – In the South of Madness

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Note that this time, he’s not even waiting for us to make fools of ourselves. He’s just riffing on our reputation.

I guess this is what you call pre-emptive mockery…

A day in the life of the South Carolina primary

20 Replies

Huntsman speaks to students at USC.

Yesterday I was so busy running from one candidate event to another that I didn’t have time to write about any of them. I left the last one while Rick Santorum was still talking, and grabbed a late dinner and packed and hit the sack for about five hours sleep.

So here are some brief notes from what I saw out there on Wednesday:

Rick Perry — The event was set for 1:10 p.m. at Doc’s Barbecue — Kirkman Finlay‘s place. Or one of them, anyway. Kirkman was there, as was Sunny Phillips, the ex-blogger (y’all remember the Crunchy Republican? she’s thinking about starting it back up!) who is working for the campaign. So were plenty of media, as mentioned back here.

Perry arrived reasonably close to the scheduled time, then went around and shook some hands among the sparse, late-lunch crowd. Then he went into the back room, which was packed. But it was a tiny room. There were maybe, maybe 30 people in there who were not press. Tops.

He pretty much gave his standard God and Country speech, and it was well-received. But as I said, not many there to receive it. Later in the day, an operative with a competing campaign would claim to me that our own Katon Dawson called Perry in Texas after Iowa and talked him into staying in through South Carolina. Next time I see Katon, I’ll ask him about that. I’ll bet Perry’s wondering about that advice.

Jon Huntsman — He also spoke to a full room, but it was a much bigger one, on the top floor of the Moore School at USC. I’m guessing about 300. Of course, it was mostly students, and who knows how many were assigned to be there? Still, they seemed less bored than such groups often look to be.

The room was stifling, it was so packed. Hard to get in or out. Cindi Scoppe actually got out of the office to attend, and had to stand in the doorway. There were USC faculty and staff types there whom I recognized, but mostly a young crowd. When I arrived, Henry McMaster said he was glad to see somebody else there with gray hair. Thanks, Henry. I guess he couldn’t see Richard Quinn, who was out in the hall. Richard was griping about the play Huntsman’s strong New Hampshire finish had gotten. He and others with the campaign told me about how they had been surging ever since the Sunday morning debate, and the NH result showed it, but analysts were saying Huntsman hadn’t done as well as expected.

For his part, Huntsman talked less about the red-meat stuff he’d been talking about in recent days (term limits, etc.) and concentrated more on wonkish stuff, perhaps because of his academic audience. He talked about congratulating ourselves on what we’ve accomplished in Afghanistan (kicking out the Taliban and al Qaeda, encouraging civil institutions and the like), and getting out. And he talked about the economy, saying banks that are too big to fail are too big — and that government policies encouraged them to be. (OK, that last bit was kind of populist, but he said it in a respectably wonkish way).

He was well, but politely, received. Perry’s tiny assemblage was more into the stuff he was saying.

Mitt Romney — This gathering, which was at The Hall at Senate’s End (former site of Sterling Garden Center), was completely unlike any other I saw on Wednesday. Of course, it was after work, but that doesn’t explain the crowd that I can’t begin to estimate (I couldn’t get to a vantage point to see it all), but I’ll just call it 1,000 people.

This wasn’t a typical, come-out-and-hear-what-this-guy-has-to-say gathering. This was a victory party, and every Republican who wanted to be on the winning team (and that’s a big crowd) was there. Nikki Haley, Curtis Loftis, Ralph Norman, Chip Huggins and all sorts of elected folks, and a lot of people were there to cheer for the presumptive nominee.

The program started late, and a miracle happened: Nikki Haley acknowledged Curtis Loftis — who, after all, was supporting Romney before she was. But she didn’t share the limelight. She and Romney were the only ones I could see — they were on some sort of platform — from where I stood. Unfortunately I got no good pictures, as both my camera and iPhone set exposures automatically, and exposed for the crowd, not for Nikki and Romney, who were over-illuminated by TV lights.

Yep, Nikki basked in that light. And basked, and basked, and basked. I didn’t think she was ever going to let Romney speak, and I wasn’t the only one thinking that. Someone behind me uttered a grunt of irritable satisfaction when she finally started to wrap it up.

Romney, of course, just did what he’s been doing in recent days, talking about that awful Obama fella, who has singlehandedly ruined the economy and given the country’s security away to foreigners. And the crowd ate it up, occasionally making roaring sounds. Like a pep rally.

I had to leave while he was still talking to make it to any of the next event.

Rick Santorum — Things were quieter at the next event. It was a good crowd — bigger than Perry’s; smaller than Huntsman’s. It filled the building out back of the Springdale House on Platt Springs Road. But this was a sit-down-and-listen crowd, very polite and attentive. A number of parents had brought babies and small children. The seats were filled, and the standing room pretty packed as well, with some spilling outside. On the veranda, among others, were Hogan “Chuckles” Gidley and Ted Koppel. Later, I saw Koppel posing for a picture with a fan. (For some reason, a nice lady was also impressed that I was there and wanted to take my picture. I know know why. Maybe she thought I was there as a supporter.) Rusty was there, of course. Rusty was wearing a sweater vest; the candidate was not.

This was a crowd less interested in being on the bandwagon than in hearing the answers they wanted to hear. And in an understated fashion, Santorum provided them. I arrived in the middle of his opening remarks (I would have missed them entirely if I had waited for Romney to finish).

Wrapping up, Santorum did this really effective thing that I’ve never seen before, at least not done this well. Instead of building to a big, rah-rah finish (which Perry had done, for instance), Santorum said something about not really wanting to run for president, having better things to do as a family man, and then said, very quietly, “… but it’s my duty.” The crowd didn’t roar, but you got the sense that they loved him for it.

He talked about three reasons Romney would be weak in a general election: He can’t hit Obama on health care because of Romney care; he’s vulnerable as a Wall Streeter, and he has no more foreign policy experience than Obama himself had.

One woman got up and said she wanted to know his positions on three things: abortion, the family, and Israel. The juxtaposition, the way she said it, caused laughter in the room, even from Santorum. But he politely presented his bona fides on those scores.

In spite of what Ron Paul may say about him, Santorum is pretty hard core on federal spending. He not only wants a balanced budget amendment, but he wants the Constitution to limit the budget to 18 percent of the economy.

I had to leave before he was done, to go pack.