Category Archives: John McCain

South Carolina is about Huckabee and McCain

Huckabee_2008_wartthurs

Politico.com called it a "knife-fight." The New York Times merely called it a "street fight," which I suppose means "knives optional." Either way, they’ve got it right: The South Carolina Republican primary is about John McCain and Mike Huckabee.

With Mitt Romney executing a disorderly retreat — he pulled his money out yesterday, and Mitt goes where his money goes — and Mr. Giuliani having been "Rudy Who?" for weeks around here, it’s all about the winners of the Iowa and New Hampshire contests in the Palmetto State. And the stakes for those two candidates are about as high as they can get.

McCain has to break the South Carolina curse — our state having the shameful distinction of having given the momentum to George W. Bush after a particularly vicious whispering campaign. He came here eight years ago after having won in New Hampshire, riding high. Now, here we go again — will this time be the charm?

Meanwhile, Huckabee has to prove that Iowa wasn’t a fluke. Sure, you could give him a free pass on his dismal showing in New Hampshire, seeing as how the conventional wisdom has it nobody goes to church up there. But he will have no excuse for a loss here.

McCain has a handicap Huckabee lacks — the stakes for the Arizonan are just about as high (again, according to conventional "wisdom") in Michigan, if only because it’s of supreme importance to Romney to beat him there. Romney loses his daddy’s state, and it’s no more Romney.

Not only does he not have to fight a two-front battle, Huckabee’s new and fresh and expected to make rookie mistakes. The handicappers have been far less forgiving to ultimate veteran McCain all year; if he strikes out anywhere, they’ll write his political obituary yet again.

Yes, yes, I know — there are some of you out there who will cry, "No, you’re forgetting Ron Paul!" Or Fred Thompson, or Duncan Hunter, or … I don’t know — who else out there is still alleging to be in this?

But while I had hoped it would be otherwise — still, if Romney or Giuliani wanted to come in for an interview as late as Friday morning, I’d try to change all our plans to accommodate them — but at this point, conventional wisdom actually seems to have it right for once. In South Carolina, and increasingly nationally, it’s about McCain and Huckabee.

Mccain_2008_wartthurs

McCainiacs at play

Mccainnhparty_007

A
s I mentioned back here, I tried dropping by some of the campaign gatherings last night. I had received e-mail invitations to gatherings the McCain and Obama folks were having (both of them anticipating wins), and I thought I’d swing by any others I could find.

Seeing the lights on at the Romney HQ, I stopped there first, but my timing wasn’t good. I had first dropped by my daughter’s place to hold my grandchildren for an hour, so I was out of touch. To my surprise, as I walked in, Mr. Romney was giving his NH concession speech. As bad as my timing was (seeing as how I wasn’t invited), I bugged Will Holley yet again about getting the candidate in for an interview before Friday, then left, seeing as how no one was in much of a chatting mood.

I then went by the McCain gathering at The Back Porch, which was the only place with a crowd, so I shot these pictures just as McCain was giving his victory speech. No one seemed to take much notice of the flash (which I hate using, because it’s generally so intrusive), with all that was going on. Then it hit me that I needed to go redo the editorial page, so I split.

After I left the paper again, a little after 10, I went looking for the Obama "party." Needless to say, there wasn’t one. There had been an intended party, at Damon’s, but by the time I got there I saw only 4 or 5 people standing around looking dazed. I decided to head to Obama HQ, but on the way I called Zac Wright, the only Clinton staffer whose number I had programmed into my Treo. I figured the Clinton people were probably having a party that would make the McCain gathering look like a funeral. But I couldn’t get Zac. (Haven’t been able to get him today, either — although Warren has talked to Darrell Jackson.)

At Obama HQ things were quite subdued. I only saw one person I knew at first — top staffers seemed to be in a back room in a conference call or something. I did chat with Inez Tenenbaum as she passed through the entrance area on her way out, but I’ve already mentioned that.

So all I have to show for all that would-be party-hopping is these few snaps from the short while I was at the McCain thing. Make of the photos what you will. You probably already knew that Speaker Bobby Harrell, Attorney General Henry McMaster, Sen. Mike Fair, Rep. Gloria Haskins and ex-Rep. Rick Quinn were in the McCain camp, and that B.J. Boling and Buzz Jacobs were on staff (The staffers reminded me that the last time I’d been to the McCain HQ — which is right next door to The Back Porch — it was a much lonelier place). I didn’t know about Glenn McConnell, but then for all I know he was just looking for a free drink on the night of the first day of the legislative session. I didn’t ask; I only saw him (and snapped the pic) on my way out the door.

And yup, that is TPS blogger Adam Fogle whose McCain sticker the attorney general is pointing at in the picture at top. The rest of the pics follow…

Mccainnhparty_001_2

Mccainnhparty_014_2

Mccainnhparty_017

The Hillary cartoon that wasn’t

08ari0109

L
ast night, while I was making the rounds of campaign HQs in Columbia, it suddenly hit me that I needed to come in and revamp the editorial page for today, which at that point had gone to the pressroom hours earlier.

The first thing that hit me was that a couple of passages in my column for today were wrong — more about that in a minute. But the thing that would have really hit you in the eye and make you wonder what we’d been smoking was Robert Ariail’s cartoon. What you see above is what would have landed on your doorstep today if I hadn’t gone back in to the office a little before 10 p.m.

When Robert had left for the day, the cartoon was as fine as prognostication could make it. The polls almost uniformly had said, right up until the day of the New Hampshire primary, that Obama and McCain were going to win up there, and that Obama would win by a bigger margin than McCain. All of the talk about Democratic Party insiders was about how Mrs. Clinton would probably have to skip South Carolina, conceding it to Obama, and concentrate on the big states coming up in February.

By 8:30 or so, it was becoming obvious that even if Obama won New Hampshire, it would be close. An hour later, it was looking increasingly like Hillary had achieved an upset win. And this morning, I have yet to find anyone who offers a plausible explanation as to why that happened. People mention the tears, but to me, that remains implausible. I guess I just don’t want to admit voters can be so swayed by something that that. Perhaps I should know better.

Here’s the cartoon I put in place of the Hillary one (it’s also reproduced below) — fortunately, Robert had finished it earlier in the day, only deciding to do the Clinton one late. All I had to do was scan it in and put it on the page.

Due to a glitch in software that automatically searches for each day’s cartoon and puts it on thestate.com, some of you may have already seen the Hillary cartoon. But we’ve fixed that, and at least I was able to keep it out of the paper.

Oh, yes, here are the changes I had to make in my column. Originally, the relevant passage in my column went like this:

    Let’s do Republicans first, since y’all face S.C. voters first (on the 19th) and come back to the Democrats (assuming, of course, that Barack Obama hasn’t sewn up the nomination before this column lands on your doorstep).
    We’d like some specifics beyond the vehement claims that pretty much each and every one of you is “the real conservative” in the race.
    We’ll start with John McCain, the likely winner (as I type this) in New Hampshire Tuesday.

Once again, that was based on the best info available at the time our page needed to go to meet our normal production schedule. Here’s what it changed to:

    Let’s do Republicans first, since y’all face S.C. voters first (on the 19th) and come back to the Democrats (after the cliffhanger night Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton just went through, they could probably do with a rest today).
    We’d like some specifics beyond the vehement claims that pretty much each and every one of you is “the real conservative” in the race.
    We’ll start with John McCain, the big winner in New Hampshire Tuesday.

As the world keeps changing several times a day over the next couple of weeks, this sort of thing is likely to keep happening. I just hope I can always catch it before an error is published.

08ari0109a

Each Republican faces a different challenge in S.C.

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
TO ALL THE candidates seeking the presidency of the United States of America: Welcome to South Carolina. Iowa is behind you; so is New Hampshire, and we understand that we are to have your undivided attention for the next couple of weeks, which is gratifying.
    So let’s take advantage of the opportunity. The South Carolina primaries have little purpose unless we learn more about you than we have thus far, so we have a few matters we’d like you to address while you’re here.
    Let’s do Republicans first, since y’all face S.C. voters first (on the 19th) and come back to the Democrats (after the cliffhanger night Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton just went through, they could probably do with a rest today).
    We’d like some specifics beyond the vehement claims that pretty much each and every one of you is “the real conservative” in the race.
    We’ll start with John McCain, the big winner in New Hampshire Tuesday.
You’re a war hero, and you’ve got the most experience in national defense and foreign affairs. You take a back seat to no one in fighting government waste. You were for a “surge” in Iraq long before the White House even considered the idea, and you weren’t afraid to say so. It’s no surprise that you lead among retired military officers, and others who have been there and done that.
    But folks who are not retired would like some reassurance that the oldest man in the race, with a spotty medical history, is up to the world’s most demanding job.
    Most of all, though, South Carolinians need to better understand your position on immigration. You’re the one who decided to try to lead on this radioactive issue in the middle of a campaign, and plenty of folks around here don’t like the direction you chose. Start explaining.
    Next, Mike Huckabee. You have qualities that Sen. McCain lacks: You’re (relatively) young, fresh, new and exciting. As a Baptist preacher, you’re definitely in sync with S.C. Republicans on cultural issues. More than that, you are on the cutting edge of a new kind of Republicanism, one that is more attuned to the concerns of ordinary working people, from health care to education.
    But let’s look at some headlines from this week: The U.S. Navy almost had to blow some Iranian gunboats out of the water. Hundreds are dead in Kenya, one of the few African countries we’d thought immune to such political violence. Pakistan, nuclear power and current address of Osama bin Laden, continues to teeter on the edge of chaos after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. I could go on.
    Every day, something that threatens the security of this country happens in yet another hot spot, calling for a depth of knowledge and experience for which on-the-job training is no substitute. Those blank looks you’ve given when asked about current events are disturbing. Reassure us. We know you don’t get daily intelligence briefings yet, but you could at least read the paper.
    Mitt Romney, you come across as Central Casting’s idea of a Republican: Perfect coif, square jaw, a private-sector portfolio that confirms your can-do credentials. Moreover, as governor of Massachusetts you presided over health care reform that many other states are looking to as a model.
    But increasingly, 21st century Republicans are less impressed by a business suit, and I think you’ll find South Carolinians a lot like Iowans in that regard. You’ve got to have more to offer.
    Also, voters here would like to hear more positive reasons to vote for you, and less about what’s wrong with everybody else. In all the years since I’ve been getting e-mails, I have never seen anything like the blizzard of releases from your folks trashing this or that rival.
    After the nasty whispering campaign that sank Sen. McCain in 2000, South Carolinians have had a bellyful of the whole “going negative” thing. Just forget the other guys, and tell us what’s good about you.
    As for Rudy Giuliani, we know you’re a tough guy, and a tough guy can be a good thing to have in the White House. You inspired the nation through some of Gotham’s darkest days, and you took on all Five Families at once as a mob-busting federal prosecutor, which is why John Gotti and some others on the Commission wanted to have you whacked. You’re definitely a man of respect.
    But if you do bother to campaign down here, South Carolina Republicans might be forgiven for wondering whether you’re one of them. You were doing OK in polls a couple of months ago, but let’s face it — that was just the early national media buzz, and we’ve gotten past that.
    You need to do some fast talking — we hear New Yorkers are good at that — about some of those “cultural issues” that, to put it mildly, distinguish you from candidates who happen to be Baptist preachers.
    Finally, Fred Thompson — you certainly have no need for a translator. As your wife, Jeri, reminded me when she dropped by our office Tuesday, you speak fluent Southern.
    But there’s a reason y’all were campaigning down here rather than up in New Hampshire: After the biggest “will he or won’t he” buildup in modern political history, your campaign failed to catch fire nationally after it finally got rolling.
    That could be because, while you can play a “conservative” well on TV, you have yet to communicate exactly what you bring to the campaign that other candidates don’t bring more of. Are you better on national security than McCain, or more in tune on abortion than Huckabee? And if what the party was crying out for was a guy who was tough enough on immigration (as your supporters keep telling me), why didn’t it go for Tom Tancredo?
    Once again, welcome one and all to the Palmetto State. Whether you go on from here may depend in large part on how you answer the above questions.
For my blog, go to http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

Whoa! Looks like Zogby did his sums wrong

Hey, wait a minute! Wasn’t Obama supposed to run away with this thing tonight, while McCain was supposed to win by a relatively smaller margin on the GOP side? Wasn’t tonight supposed to spell the end for Hillary Clinton?

Sure, the results are not all in yet on the Democratic side as I write this, but what’s happening is far from what I expected, point spreadwise.

That’s what I get for putting too much stock in Zogby. Here’s what he had as of this morning:

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby New Hampshire Tracking Poll: Obama, McCain Enjoy Solid Leads As Election Day Dawns

UTICA, New York — The big momentum behind Democrat Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination, continued up to the last hours before voters head to the polls to cast ballots in the New Hampshire primary election, a new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll shows. Fed by a strong win in the Iowa caucuses Thursday, Obama leads with 42% support, compared to 29% for rival Sen. Hillary Clinton.
    In the Republican primary race, Arizona Sen. John McCain extended his lead over rival Mitt Romney from five to nine percentage points since yesterday, the survey shows.
    Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards mostly held steady, winning 17% support, though he has begun to lose steam. Though he won the Republican Iowa caucus Thursday, Mike Huckabee found himself in the same position as Edwards, unable to build Obama-like momentum and stuck in third – a distant third in Huckabee’s case….

OK, so he wasn’t so far off on the GOP side — he had McCain beating Romney 36-27 percent — but the Democratic contest doesn’t look anything like what anyone expected.

McCain locked and loaded, weapons free

After being done in by some particularly vicious push-polling in 2000, John McCain’s campaign has served notice that this time it’s at least prepared to shoot back:

McCain 2008 Launches Truth Squad In South Carolina To Counter Negative Attacks

COLUMBIA, SC — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today announced the formation of the Truth Squad in South Carolina to counter any negative or misleading attacks targeted at John McCain.
    "We saw what happened in Iowa with the negative attacks. We see what’s happening in New Hampshire, and I can tell you for certain, we won’t stand for it here in South Carolina," said Adjutant General Stan Spears. "Some candidates are spending more of their campaign war chests on telling voters why John McCain shouldn’t be president rather than telling voters why they should. Voters in South Carolina need to be on the lookout for these kinds of negative attacks."
    "Our goal is to set the record straight," said Attorney General Henry McMaster. "As soon as one of these negative attack ads goes up on the air or hits the mailboxes, we’ll let the voters know the truth. Hopefully candidates will have learned, given what happened in Iowa, that negative campaigning just doesn’t work. But, just in case, we’ll be ready."
    In the event of a negative attack on John McCain, the South Carolina Truth Squad will issue statements to voters and to members of the media that set the record straight. Additionally, members of the Truth Squad will be available to respond quickly to inquiries from the media regarding negative attacks.

SOUTH CAROLINA TRUTH SQUAD
Seventh Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy
SC Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell
Attorney General Henry McMaster
Adjutant General Stan Spears

Can that group really stave off a sneak attack, if it happens again? Will it happen again? I hope not. Last time was enough of a dark stain on the honor of South Carolina.

Oops. Looks like I was scooped on this yesterday by Adam. Hey, I’ve been busy.

Zogby: Obama gets N.H. boost from Iowa; Huckabee does not

Zogby reported this afternoon that Barack Obama is surging in New Hampshire after his Iowa win, but no such luck for Mike Huckabee:

    Democrat Barack Obama’s dramatic post-Iowa momentum has come to full bloom in the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby New Hampshire daily tracking poll, rocketing to a 10-point lead over rival Hillary Clinton and a 20-point over Edwards. In New Hampshire’s Republican primary race, the survey shows Arizona’s John McCain had a very good day at the same time that Massachusetts’s Mitt Romney lost ground, resulting in a five-point lead for McCain.
    Iowa’s GOP caucus winner Mike Huckabee has fallen into a distant third at 10%, barely ahead of Rudy Giuliani, who enjoyed a slight uptick and rests at 9%.

I guess that sort of follows the conventional wisdom line — New Hampshire is all about independent voters, who tend to favor Obama and McCain. Bad news for Hillary Clinton. But with fewer evangelicals, there’s no bump for Huck — It’s still McCain in the lead, with Romney firmly in second.

Could be that Mrs. Clinton has missed her chance.

Anyway, click here for poll details.

It’s now-or-never time for our endorsement decisions

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
ON TUESDAY, New Hampshire votes. On Wednesday, presidential candidates will descend on South Carolina in such numbers as we’ve never seen, and stay for the duration — the Republicans until the 19th of this month, the Democrats through the 26th.
    Time for us to get busy on The State’s editorial board. Not that we’ve been slacking off, but our pace starting this week is likely to make the past year look like a nice, long nap.
    Watch for more columns than usual from me on this page or the facing one. And between columns, keep an eye on my blog. But the main work of the next two weeks will be interviewing the remaining viable candidates and writing our endorsements. Our plan, from which we will deviate only under the most extreme circumstances, is to endorse in the GOP primary a week from today, Jan. 13, and to state our choice in the Democratic contest Jan. 20.
    But, asked regular gadfly Doug Ross on my blog last week, our endorsements have “already been written,” right? And as another writer, who goes by the pseudonym “weldon VII,” asked, “Why would Romney waste his time coming to see you, Brad?”
    Such are the pitfalls of blogging. Some folks mistake my passing observations for final conclusions and (an even greater mistake) my opinions for those of the whole editorial board.
    Right now — since I have not once asked any of my colleagues whom they currently prefer in the two primaries (I want that discussion to happen after the last interview — it makes for a more intense debate, but a much better-informed one), and since they haven’t hinted aloud or in print, I don’t know how near or far we are from our eventual consensus. (Ask me next week this time.)
    As for “weldon’s” comment — well, let’s be frank: He’s thinking of my oft-stated respect for John McCain. You don’t have to read the blog to know about that; it’s been stated here often enough.
    But I’ll say two things about that: First, I had good things to say about Mike Huckabee, too, after I met him for the first time on Sept. 20. He made a stronger impression than expected; he’s made a similar impression on a lot of other people since then.
    Secondly, I was a big admirer of Sen. McCain back in 2000, too — but we ended up endorsing George W. Bush.
    Let me tell you about that — and also answer another question Doug asked: Who breaks a tie on the editorial board?
    It generally doesn’t come to a tie, because we work really hard for a consensus. Some of us change our minds during the discussion, while others concede to a second choice, seeing that their first isn’t going to carry the day. It’s complicated.
    I can think of only two times when we had a “tie” to break, and one of them was in February 2000. Gov. Bush came in at 8 a.m. on the Wednesday before our endorsement; Sen. McCain joined us Thursday afternoon. (Alan Keyes had been in the previous week.) The moment Sen. McCain left, we began our final discussion.
    The previous weekend, I had written and e-mailed to my boss, the publisher, a 4,000-word memo explaining why I believed we should endorse Sen. McCain. I did so knowing that he (this was two publishers ago, I should add) was just as firmly for Gov. Bush. But he was leaving the question open until after the interviews.
    We went into those meetings with most of the group leaning toward McCain (based on comments volunteered to me). It’s amazing what a good meeting can do for a candidate, or what a bad one can do to a candidate. That Wednesday, George W. Bush had the most “on” hour of his life. I have never seen the man, before or since, present himself so well, or so articulately. (Maybe it was the time of day; maybe it was the two cups of coffee we watched him drink; most likely it was his firm knowledge that this was a make-or-break moment.)
    John McCain was in a funk on Thursday. I’ve never seen him so “off” as he was that day. In a downcast voice, he spoke of a young boy who’d come up to him that day and told him the senator had been his hero, but not any more, after what a caller had told the boy over the phone. (Neither he nor we fully appreciated yet the devastating impact that smear campaign would have.)
    The publisher had come prepared for our internal debate. He had a six-inch stack of documents he had gathered to support his position. When he was done, and I was done, we went around the table. Two people had changed their minds. It was a tie. And in a tie in which the publisher is on one side and the editorial page editor on the other, the publisher’s side wins.
    Do I make my decision solely on the basis of a single meeting? Of course not. But some of my colleagues don’t pay the kind of attention to these candidates that I do day after day; that’s not what they’re paid to do. They come in with relatively fresh perspectives.
    And while it doesn’t happen often, I’ve been known to change my mind in these meetings. I’m wary of this, and reluctant to give it too much weight. But if I don’t give it some weight, what indeed is the point of the interview?
    We’re working with the campaigns to firm up the appointments, but I’m hopeful that we’ll have spoken with Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson by the end of the day Thursday. Once those are out of the way, we hope to see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — and John Edwards, if he’s still in it after Tuesday.
    I don’t know exactly how it’s going to go, but I know this is going to be interesting.

Jake Knotts shocker!

Mccainbus_135

Were you shocked to read on Friday that state Sen. Jake Knotts just endorsed John McCain?

Well, I certainly was — on account of the fact that I was under the impression that he had been openly and visibly supporting Sen. McCain for quite some time.

Unless we have an even more incredible case of "separated at birth," that’s him standing behind McCain, next to Adjutant Gen. Stan Spears, in these pictures I shot at a McCain event in Lexington on Sept. 17.

Maybe he was just there to be polite.

Mccainbus_169

Aesop updated: The Fable of Mitt and the ‘Sour Grapes’

Romney_2008_wart

An interested party with a certain other campaign pointed out to me the irony in Mitt Romney having duly sought the endorsement of a certain newspaper — the Concord Monitor — only to scorn that endorsement as something he wouldn’t have wanted, after he didn’t get it. Here’s what Mr. Romney’s campaign had to say about the Monitor‘s endorsement of John McCain (who so far has received about every endorsement a candidate would want):

GOV. MITT ROMNEY: THE CHOICE OF CONSERVATIVES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
Liberal Press Disagrees With Real Conservatives’ Choice For President…

And so forth, yadda-yadda, with various quotations in the same vein. In an odd wording, the release claims that the Monitor‘s "Editorial Board Personally Attacked Gov. Romney." Golly, I hope he’s gonna be OK, don’t you? Anyway, you can see the entire release here.

It’s really sort of disturbing that a supposedly serious candidate for POTUS would engage in such mindless, vapid name-calling — saying "liberal" over and over, as thought that constituted an argument. It’s the sort of thing I usually see in the less-worthy candidates for the state Legislature — the sorts of candidates who are not plugged into their communities and their real concerns, the sort who are recruited and backed by out-of-state money that knows nothing and cares nothing about our state’s concerns. It’s just plain cheesy.

But there’s nothing remarkable about Mr. Romney acting as though he didn’t want the endorsement, after he sincerely went after it. We see this sort of Aesop’s Fable phenomenon quite frequently. We have several candidates who do that right here in S.C. in every election cycle. Right up until the day the endorsement editorial runs, they are as cloyingly ingratiating as an insurance salesman, and then (after they don’t get the endorsement they had wanted so badly), they act as though they wouldn’t have accepted the newspaper’s support at gunpoint. All of a sudden, it was the last thing they ever would have wanted. That’s another sort of cheesy behavior.

But campaigns do a lot of cheesy things. Here’s hoping that Mr. Romney rises above that level as he comes to South Carolina. I look forward to interviewing him for our endorsement. Like Messrs. Giuliani, Obama, Edwards and Mrs. Clinton, he has yet to set an appointment for that. And we need to get them set soon. We’ll only have about two good days to devote to the Republicans between the time they’re done in New Hampshire and the time we have to get the endorsement written and ready for publication.

We’re aiming for Sunday the 13th on that, by the way.

Caucus_countdown_wart2

Which Democrat would the UnParty embrace?

Joe Lieberman’s endorsement of John McCain dramatizes the Arizonans status as the one Republican most in tune with the UnParty. To quote from Sen. Lieberman’s statement:

    "I know that it is unusual for someone who is not a Republican to endorse a Republican candidate for President. And if this were an ordinary time and an ordinary election, I probably would not be here today. But this is no ordinary time — and this is no ordinary election — and John McCain is no ordinary candidate.
    "In this critical election, no one should let party lines be a barrier to choosing the person we believe is best qualified to lead our nation forward. The problems that confront us are too great, the threats we face too real, and the opportunities we have too exciting for us to play partisan politics with the Presidency.
    "We desperately need our next President to break through the reflexive partisanship that is poisoning our politics and stopping us from getting things done. We need a President who can reunite our country, restore faith in our government, and rebuild confidence in America’s future.
    "My friend John McCain is that candidate, and that is why I am so proud to be standing by his side today…"

Does anyone else on the Republican side have UnPartisan potential? Sure, to differing degrees. Rudy Giuliani has certain appeal across party lines, and one of our commenters had it right when he compared Mike Huckabee to Jimmy Carter (Lee didn’t mean it as a compliment, but that doesn’t make the comment less true).

But Lieberman definitely gave McCain a big leg up in this regard.

That said, who on the Democratic side is most likely to appeal to UnPartisans? This is a tricky question. David Brooks (who, as you will recall, wrote of the McCain-Lieberman Party last year) framed part of the dilemma well in a column that will run on our op-ed page tomorrow. One the one hand, Hillary Clinton has been a significant bipartisan force as a senator:

    Hillary Clinton has been a much better senator than Barack Obama. She has been a serious, substantive lawmaker who has worked effectively across party lines. Obama has some accomplishments under his belt, but many of his colleagues believe that he has not bothered to master the intricacies of legislation or the maze of Senate rules. He talks about independence, but he has never quite bucked liberal orthodoxy or party discipline.

All very true. On the other hand, Barack Obama is the guy who wants to be president of all of us, while Mrs. Clinton tends to attract those who want to "take back" the White House for their partisan faction:

     Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn’t deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn’t been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what’s needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side.
    But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.

Then, of course, there’s Joe Biden, who has more experience working effectively across the lines toward pragmatic policies than either of them. Unfortunately, David Brooks isn’t writing about Sen. Biden, and too few are thinking about him. But he certainly deserves the UnParty’s careful consideration.

I’m sure that’s a great comfort to him, don’t you think?

McCain endorsements today

The fact remains that those who step back and consider the matter with dispassion and careful deliberation tend to favor John McCain for the GOP nomination. Today, Sen. McCain gained two major newspaper endorsements.

The Des Moines Register:

    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….

The Boston Globe:

    CONVENTIONAL wisdom among political handlers used to hold that a candidate needed to capture the political center. The last two presidential campaigns proved that wrong. The Republicans scraped out victories by pressing just enough buttons and mobilizing just enough voters. But such wins breed political polarization and deprive a president of the political capital needed to ask Americans to sacrifice in difficult times.
    The antidote to such a toxic political approach is John McCain. The iconoclastic senator from Arizona has earned his reputation for straight talk by actually leveling with voters, even at significant political expense. The Globe endorses his bid in the New Hampshire Republican primary….

He also picked up the nod of the Portsmouth Herald:

    U.S. Sen. John McCain will tell you the truth, even if it costs him the election.
    He has a very clear-eyed view of the truth having spent his life fighting for our country and leading the U.S. Senate for the past 20 years on virtually every critical issue facing our nation.
    In our view, John McCain stands head and shoulders above the rest of the Republican field and deserves the support of those voting in the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary Jan. 8….

Add those to the one he got two weeks ago from The New Hampshire Union Leader:

    We don’t agree with him on every issue. We disagree with him strongly on campaign finance reform. What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination. Simply put, McCain can be trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water.
    Competence, courage, and conviction are enormously important for our next President to possess. No one has a better understanding of U.S. interests and dangers right now than does McCain. He was right on the mistakes made by the Bush administration in prosecuting the Islamic terrorist war in Iraq and he is being proved right on the way forward both there and worldwide.

McCain with the WSJ editorial board

Here’s an account of what John McCain had to say to the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal the day before he came here to announce the endorsements of all the brass:

    Mr.
McCain is 71. But the tired, sluggish, former front-runner you may have
read about was nowhere in evidence when the senator came to the
Journal’s offices yesterday. In his place was a combative
and–yes–straight-talking candidate with no qualms about rising to a
challenge or speaking his mind. In short, he looks once again like the
spry 63-year-old who nearly knocked off front-runner George W. Bush
eight years ago….

He said some of the same things he said here, but of course the interview was more wide-ranging, more like the session we had with him back in August.

And over in the horse-race department, it’s interesting that he tells folks up on Wall Street how important South Carolina is to his chances:

The
senator says he doesn’t worry too much about the electoral tactics, but
he does know what lies ahead. "We’ve got to win New Hampshire," he
says, or at least exceed expectations there. "And then I think we can
do well in South Carolina. In South Carolina we’ve got the base this
time. The Attorney General, the Speaker of the House, Lindsay Graham,
most of the base."

Whether
that’s true or not, Mr. McCain still trails by 15 points on average in
South Carolina. But assuming he can do well there, "then I think we’re
obviously very much in the game. What happens to Huckabee, what happens
to Rudy, what happens to Romney–all this stuff is in such flux now
that it’s very difficult to predict and so we’re not paying a lot of
attention, obviously." Still, he’s paying some attention, apparently.

It’s interesting how, whenever anyone takes a careful, dispassionate look at McCain, he looks good. But for the immigration issue, he’d still be the nominee apparent. There is actually a significant number of Republicans who would decide who should lead this country on the basis of that, rather than the broad range of critical issues, is amazing to professional observers from The Economist to the Journal to little ol’ me.

Of course, that’s just a bonus for the immigration hotheads, because they tend to be folks who don’t like professional observers any more than they like illegal Mexicans.

If McCain doesn’t make it, I’ll be able to do what he’s doing on the surge now — saying "I told you so." But I’ll get a lot less satisfaction out of it. Back when he stepped out front in an effort actually to solve the immigration problem rather than demagogue on it, I asked him why — trying to lead on that issue would only earn the enmity of those who find any practical, sensible approach to be anathema.

Of course, his answer was what it always is when he steps out of everybody else’s comfort zone on an issue — he saw it as the right thing to do.

Save this woman’s life! Vote for McCain


Dropping by the Starbuck’s on Gervais after this morning’s McCain event, I found his national press secretary, Brooke Buchanan, standing outside smoking while other aides were inside picking up the senator’s joe. I had a rather stern chat with her about her nasty habit, and she promised to give it up as soon as Sen. McCain wins the nomination, a pledge I captured on video so she couldn’t wriggle out of it later.

So now it’s up to you, the voter. The fate of this lovely, vibrant young woman with her whole life before her (the NYT says she’s 26) is in your hands. To save her, you must vote for McCain in the Jan. 19 primary.

Doesn’t this just make the choice so much simpler?

The brass come out for McCain

Mccainadm

This morning, I turned out for a campaign announcement by John McCain, and realized when I got to the State Museum that I should have dressed better — or at least shaved. He was there with four admirals, representative of the 110 admirals and generals who are endorsing his campaign.

It wasn’t just the brass; there were some impressive people from the ranks as well. Command Sergeant Major James "Boo" Alford, formerly of the U.S. Army Special Forces and veteran of Korea and Vietnam, was among them. That’s him pictured below with Tut Underwood, P.R. guy for the museum.

Here’s video from the event:

And here’s an excerpt from the release (which you can read in its entirety here):

Today over 100 retired admirals and generals endorsed John McCain for President of the United States at a press conference in Columbia, South Carolina. These distinguished leaders supporting John McCain come from all branches of the armed services and include former POWs, Medal of Honor recipients and former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

John McCain was joined today in Columbia by five distinguished military veterans: Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, USN (Ret.); Vice Admiral Mike Bowman, USN (Ret.); Rear Admiral Tom Lynch, USN (Ret.); Rear Admiral Bob Shumaker, USN (Ret.); and Major General Stan Spears, USA, Adjutant General of South Carolina.

"This nation is at war and we’d better damn well understand that fact," said Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, USN (Ret.). "John McCain understands it, and he is the only candidate that has not wavered one bit in his position regarding the importance of victory in the war against Islamic extremism or in his commitment to the troops who are doing the fighting. He has consistently demonstrated the kind and style of leadership that we believe is essential in our next Commander in Chief. Our nation faces a growing array of serious foreign policy challenges. John McCain is the ONE candidate who, in our view, truly understands the strategic landscape and is fully prepared to deal decisively and effectively with those who wish to be our friends and, importantly, those who wish us harm."

RobertadamsThe event was held on the museum’s fourth floor. Sen. McCain and the admirals stood behind a twisted
steel beam from the World Trade Center — what you might call a way of focusing civilians’ minds on what’s important. (Inset, at right, you see Green Diamond opponent and McCain supporter Robert Adams and his kids by the beam.)

Anyway, when the event was over, I paused only to grab a quick coffee before going straightaway to get a nice short, regulation haircut. Next time, I’ll be ready.

Alford

The case for John McCain: The Economist reminds us of what should be obvious

As I believe I mentioned in the last few days (I forget where), I like to read British observers of American politics from time to time, because their perspective enables them to go straight to things that should be obvious, but which we forget over here amid the trees of day-to-day nonsense.

Therefore I read with particular appreciation this column from the most recent edition of The Economist, headlined "The case for John McCain." An excerpt:

    Mr McCain’s qualifications extend beyond character. Take experience. His range of interests as a senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign affairs and military issues as anybody in public life. Or take judgment. True, he has a reputation as a hothead. But he’s a hothead who cools down. He does not nurse grudges or agonise about vast conspiracies like some of his colleagues in the Senate. He has also been right about some big issues. He was the first senior Republican to criticise George Bush for invading Iraq with too few troops, and the first to call for Donald Rumsfeld’s sacking. He is one of the few Republicans to propose sensible policies on immigration and global warming.
    Mr McCain’s qualities are particularly striking if you contrast him with his leading rivals. His willingness to stick to his guns on divisive subjects such as immigration stands in sharp contrast to Mr Romney’s oily pandering. Mr Romney likes to claim that his views on topics such as gay rights and abortion have “evolved”. But they have evolved in a direction that is strikingly convenient—perhaps through intelligent design. Can a party that mocked John Kerry really march into battle behind their very own Massachusetts flip-flopper?

Over here, many are quick to dismiss him as having no chance — to which I say, if John McCain has no chance, America has no chance. Besides, Republicans are in a hunt for something better than their "front-runners," which has most recently led them to Mike Huckabee, about whom Lexington wrote:

    The weakness of the two front-runners is persuading many Republicans to turn to Mr Huckabee. Mr Huckabee is indeed an attractive candidate—a good debater and a charming fellow. But he is woefully lacking in experience. He knows next to nothing about foreign and military affairs, and his tax plans are otherworldly. A presidential debate between Mr Huckabee and Hillary Clinton would be a rout.

I hadn’t really thought about that, possibly because I don’t think like a Republican — I don’t sit up nights worrying about how to stop a certain person (a decreasingly relevant worry). It has occurred to me, and I don’t think I’ve noted it here, that she would beat Rudy Giuliani fairly handily, which makes it ironic that some throw away their principles because they think Rudy would win that match-up. (Think about it. Remember when he dropped out of the Senate race against her? Nothing’s changed about either candidate since then.)

But now that I think about it, I suspect Mrs. Clinton would tear up Gov. Huckabee without breaking a sweat.

What ABOUT a McCain-Huckabee ticket?

Mccain07

This piece by David Broder, which we ran on our op-ed page, intrigued me. Broder is of course the dean of national political writers, so when he says here’s a political combo that would work, I tend to take notice. I had meant to call attention to it on the day that it ran, but got busy and forgot.

So, for the sake of y’all’s discussion, here it is now:

Principles Amid the GOP Pack
By David S. Broder
Sunday, December 2, 2007
If the Republican Party really wanted to hold on to the White House in 2009, it’s pretty clear what it would do. It would grit its teeth, swallow its doubts and nominate a ticket of John McCain for president and Mike Huckabee for vice president — and president-in-waiting.
    Those two are far from front-runners. They trail Mitt Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire and lag behind Rudy Giuliani in national surveys of Republican voters. But, in a series of debates, including last week’s CNN-YouTube extravaganza, McCain and Huckabee have been notable for their clarity, character and, yes, simple humanity.
    From everything I have heard on the campaign trail, it’s obvious that they are the pair who have earned the widest respect among the eight Republican candidates themselves. McCain is the eldest and the most honored, not only for what he endured as a Vietnam prisoner of war but as a principled battler for what he considers essential on Iraq and other national security issues.
    Huckabee, who previously was known only to those of us who cover state government and governors, has been the surprise discovery of the campaign season. His combination of religious principle, good humor, tolerance and clear passion on education and health care complements McCain’s muscular foreign policy and aversion to wasteful domestic spending.
    The two of them seem often to be operating on a different — and higher — plane than the quarrelsome Giuliani and Romney, whose mutual contempt is as palpable as it is persuasive.
    Fred Thompson appears perpetually grumpy — a presence hard to imagine inhabiting the Oval Office. The three House members — Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter — are exercising their lungs but running for exercise, happy to be part of the proceedings but with no hope of being nominated.
    What sets McCain and Huckabee apart is most evident in the way they treat the contentious issue of illegal immigration. Both of them have been burned by it — Huckabee in a losing battle with his legislature over tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants; McCain for his sponsorship of President Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform. Both now acknowledge — as everyone must — that the failure of the federal government to secure the southern border has produced broad public outrage.
    But, unlike the others, who seem to take their rhetorical cues from the rabidly anti-immigrant Tancredo, Huckabee and McCain always remember that those who struggle to reach the United States across the deserts or rivers of the Southwest are human beings drawn here by the promise of better lives for their families.
    After outlining the failed Senate effort to pass a bill that included a temporary guest worker program and a pathway to earned citizenship for the illegal immigrants already living here, McCain said, "What we’ve learned is that the American people want the borders enforced. We must . . . secure the borders first. But then . . . we need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God’s children as well, and they need some protections under the law and they need some of our love and compassion." That answer was interrupted by applause.
    Huckabee was asked to defend a bill he sponsored that the questioner said "gave illegal aliens a discount for college in Arkansas by allowing them to pay lower in-state tuition rates."
    The former governor corrected him. The bill, he said, "would have allowed those children who had been in our schools their entire school life the opportunity to have the same scholarship that their peers had, who had also gone to high school with them and sat in the same classrooms. . . . It wasn’t about out-of-state tuition."
    Romney was not appeased. He said Huckabee sounded like a Massachusetts liberal, giving the taxpayers’ money to people who are here illegally.
    To which Huckabee replied: "In all due respect, we’re a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We’re a better country than that." He, too, was applauded.
    I think we are that better country. And I hope the Republicans agree.
    davidbroder@washpost.com

Huckbeas

Talkin’ in the Boys’ Room

Henry
O
n the way into Rotary today, I stopped in the men’s room at Seawell’s, and ran into Henry McMaster. I congratulated Henry on the good turnout he and other McCainiacs had out at the smokehouse in Lexington last week. With this post fresh in my mind, I observed to Henry that I continue to find it hard to believe that Republicans would actually want either Giuliani or Romney as their candidate.

As I was saying that, Trip King (late of Fritz Hollings’ staff, now working for the Biden campaign) walked in, and both of them agreed (surprise) with the observation — McMaster saying if Giuliani gets it, it will be the first time he can remember a GOP nominee who flat didn’t believe in some core values of the party he’s known, and Trip just shaking his head over those whacky Republicans in general.

Both took advantage of the chance to push their respective teams. Trip noted that polls show Biden would run neck-and-neck with either Giuliani or Romney — that was news to me — and Henry noted a fact I’ve already heard a number of times (sort of a McCain talking point), that polls indicate McCain would have the best chance to beat Hillary. (Trip, and another correspondent I’ve heard from today, were also pretty pumped about Biden moving up to fourth place in Iowa at the expense of Bill Richardson, for what that’s worth.)

They were right, and I went into Rotary thinking yet again, what are the Republicans thinking this year?

By the way, the photos were not taken in the men’s room. The above shot, with Henry circled, is at the smokehouse event; Trip is seen posing with fellow Biden staff at the College Democrats confab back in July.

Trip

McCain on Murtha


T
his video clip, poor as the quality is thanks to the dim lighting at Hudson’s Smokehouse in Lexington last night, reminds me of a discussion we had regarding the "b-word" clip a couple of weeks back.

Some, who are not inclined to think as highly of John McCain as I do, tended to think of the way he spoke of fellow Sen. Hillary Clinton — with sober, collegial respect — AFTER he regained his composure as the phony part of that earlier clip. I saw it as consistent with the way Sen. McCain talks about everybody. Respecting others, regardless of political differences, is an essential part of the man’s character.

Here we see another partisan gathering — a larger one this time — and another case in which an apparent supporter tees up an opportunity for the candidate to trash a political opponent. In this case, it was someone asking about John Murtha’s past comments with regard to the conduct of American troops in Iraq.

Without the flustering factor of the profane language in that earlier incident, McCain answers in a way typical of him: He soberly expresses his respect for Congressman Murtha (in the same tone in which he expressed his respect for Sen. Clinton, the same tone in which he generally speaks of other people), then expresses his strong disagreement with the congressman and other Democrats on policy.

This speaks to the essence of what I am always seeking in political discourse — the kind of civility in which ideas can be discuss, and even debated fiercely, without the distraction of ad hominem bashing.

You don’t normally see this sort of clip, and with good reason — it’s not an explosion or a pratfall, and it doesn’t break new ground. McCain says things he says all the time. But my point, is that day in and day out, this is the way he speaks of people with whom he disagrees.

McCain and The Right Stuff (among other things)

This was written as a response to something Phillip said back on this post. I got a little carried away, going from one digression to another, so I’m making this into a separate post. Here’s what Phillip wrote:

I couldn’t agree more about McCain, so again, how is it that he
seems to have dropped off the face of the earth with regards to the GOP
primary race? Now I don’t think he walks on water quite as much as you
do, I have been disappointed by some of the slight "triangulation" he’s
done on occasion, vis-a-vis the religious right, etc., but on a gut
level I share the feeling Brooks was conveying.

I believe there are two main reasons why McCain has faded from the
race: 1) the radicalization of the GOP implemented by the Cheney-Bush
years (yes, the reverse name order is intentional) that we see
manifested, for example, by the GOP Prez hopefuls outdoing each other
for the title of Torturer-in-Chief (acknowledgement to Frank
Rich)…and 2) Age. Sad to say, but I’m afraid that plays into it in a
big way.

Relating to your "Bush-hatred" column of last Sunday, had McCain won
in 2000 I seriously doubt we would have the degree of partisan divide
we do today. Wouldn’t you agree with that, Brad? McCain would (then and
now) view himself as the President of all the people, quite differently
from what we ended up with. This is not a matter of partisan politics,
it’s a matter of character: McCain is indeed a "great" man if that
means being a man of substance and integrity, and the man who slimed
him successfully in SC on his way to the White House turned out to be a
very small and befuddled man way out of his depth who knew nothing of
the larger world, only the cosseted world of comfort and privilege into
which he was born.

Phillip, you are absolutely right about how different things would be if McCain had been elected. The entire world would have been vastly better off. As I said in my previous column linked above, this is the man who should have been president for the past seven years.

And Phillip, I honestly don’t understand why people like bud and Doug have such a powerful compulsion to drag down a man like that. I don’t think he walks on water; I think he is a very human man, with his own frailties like the rest of us. The difference is that he has resolved to discipline himself to overcome those frailties, and to do his best to do the right thing, even when it’s not in his self-interest.

And THAT is why he dropped off the radar — although there is reason to believe he’s climbing back up. It has nothing to do with Cheney and Bush; it has a lot to do with Juan and Rosalita. He ran afoul of the people who just HATE the idea that they are "surrounded" by Mexicans. You’d think we were all in the Alamo, the way these people react.

That brings me to another point. It’s interesting to see how people react to a journalist when he actually says something good about somebody. Because I think Bush hatred (like Clinton hatred, only more advanced) is a corrosively harmful force in our society, I’m seen as a Bush defender, when I actually don’t much like the guy, and harbor bitterness over the wasted years when McCain could have been in his place, the nation would be more united, and Iraq would not have been so shamefully mishandled. But when I raise even mild objections to people having viscerally spiteful reactions to him, suddenly I become part of the problem in their eyes. Even, to some extent, in yours, since you didn’t seem entirely sure that I would agree with you that we’d have been better off with McCain. Because of this I find myself hesitant to demur at your characterization of Bush and Cheney as extremists in their party — but they’re not; you have to look at the Pat Buchanans for that. Ironically, sometime the most polarizing figures are not the most ideologically extreme. Take, for instance, Mrs. Clinton. She’s essentially a mainstreamer, a triangulator in a good sense, which is one reason a lot of folks in her party reject her. But she is the most polarizing candidate among the Democrats, the only one (more so even than Edwards, with his demagogic tendencies) likely to take president hatred to another, worse level. That’s not really fair to her, but there it is. And it’s why, even though I might end up agreeing with her on more issues, particularly foreign policy, I think the country would be better off if Obama got the nomination.

Anyway, back to my point: There are few people I will write about with respect, admiration and even awe (thanks to my recognition of their rarity). On the national scene there is John McCain, and Joe Lieberman. In South Carolina, there is Joe Riley, and increasingly, Lindsey Graham.

Once, there was John Glenn, and I am reminded of him by Gordon’s comments, wondering about the character of anyone who would seek the job. Tom Wolfe wrote of Glenn’s self-esteem mixed with his monklike self-denial. Glenn, to him, was the Presbyterian Pilot, ambitious without the baser manifestations of that quality. I think that maybe Glenn and McCain have more in common beyond the fact that they are both former aviators. Or maybe they have it in common BECAUSE they are former aviators — men of exceptional ability who climbed "right to the top of the pyramid," although in different ways. In any case, I see them both as having the Right Stuff, and McCain possibly more than Glenn.