Archive for January, 2008

Faded Dreams

Posted by: Jason | January 20th, 2008 · 9:26 AM

No… I’m certainly not picking on Fred today. This is no time for shots. This is a time however for FredHeads across the land to admit the truth, as I had months ago, that Senator Thompson as president was fools gold from the very beginning.

It was painful to watch Fred’s speech last night, having followed him for the better part of a year, only to witness what would be his last appearance before an inevitable withdrawal from the race to follow soon. He was gracious to his supporters, then cited many of the same points he’s stressed since September (”free people doing free things, a country that doesn’t tax and regulate us to death, small town boys for Lawrenceburg playin’ by the rules” and whatnot).

Fred Thompson is a good man, a true conservative that believes in local control of local things. I hope his presence is felt within the party for years to come as an outspoken voice for less government. But proven in this primary season is that being the “most conservative” isn’t necessarily the formula for being the “most electable”. Fred never brought much more to the table than that, along with mere visions of an old coalition among particular Americans. He couldn’t out-border security any of the others, nor was he more gun-friendly than Huckabee, nor more seasoned on national security than John McCain, nor as vibrant as Mitt Romney.

It would be unfair to blame Fred’s demise on his waiting game in the summer of ‘07 alone, as many a commentator have. Lest we remember, Fred Thompson was atop the polls until shortly after his official announcement in early September, echoed by praises from those of us agreeing that the primary season was just too darn long. No, the truth to Thompson’s failure lies in all of us, who saw in Fred something there was not, a great communicator in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Despite an uncanny skill for knowing statistics and information, and a uniqueness in being the only candidate who branched out to all-three major components of the Republican stool, Thompson was never quite able to deliver it to us in a packaged and simple message.

And as I’ve commended other candidates, I will commend Senator Thompson as well for the nobility in running for president to serve, not to gain recognition or power. He’s a good family man and we trust his fortunes will only improve despite a tough ending to his campaign (let’s not go out on a limb and say hard fought). But his candidacy indeed amounts to one of the greater disappointments in recent political history. Candidates of the future take notice: Americans, even low-government conservatives, want you to earn our vote. I leave you with Senator Fred Thompson’s final concession speech.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Some thoughts on South Carolina

Posted by: Jason | · 1:45 AM

(image: nytimes)

Arizona Senator John McCain just won a state he had no business winning weeks ago. Despite a narrow three-point edging of rival southerner Mike Huckabee, this win is tremendous for the McCain camp. I predict that history holds true, and that South Carolina delivers our next Republican nominee yet again.

Some predictions: McCain goes on to win a hard fought battle against Rudy Giuliani and others in Florida. Giuliani shows better than expected (considering he’s ranked dead last in every contest thus far), Romney competes again for “another silver”, Huckabee holds his band of evangelical Christian voters but finishes a distant 3rd or 4th after a devastating blow this evening, and McCain rides the Florida victory momentum through Super Tuesday, winning most major states to seal the nomination.

While a McCain candidacy proves a challenge in many ways for some conservatives, having a nominee who can win a general election should fair attractive to Republicans across the spectrum (coupled with the fear of Hillary Clinton in the White House). McCain’s strengths could potentially outweigh his weaknesses, as he’ll run on a platform of sealing the border first, keeping the Bush tax cuts permanent, winning the war with honor, and restraining Washington spending.

Unlike many previous nominees, McCain’s is a story worth telling. A war hero, Vietnam POW, and someone who has served his country with honor and experience. Placed against Hillary Rodham Clinton, there isn’t a doubt in my mind that he could win that fight, ensuring another four years of security for this country.

Unlike Huckabee, he could unite the base behind a generally conservative message. Unlike Romney, he is a known leader with experience whose likability ratings are high with both Republicans and Independents. Unlike Giuliani, he shows an example of ethics. It could be that all along, John McCain was the best man for “winning” the job this fall. Time will certainly tell.

Congratulations to Senator McCain for a fine victory this evening.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Farewell My Friend…

Posted by: Jason | · 1:02 AM

(image: time.com)

Unlike the Hugh Hewitt’s of the world who would spin a 2nd place finish like it’s going out of style, you’ll get no such treatment from me. In almost prophetic fashion today, as the sleet and rain poured down on the religiously conservative region of northern South Carolina (the so-called evangelical stronghold), Mike Huckabee’s chance at the nomination slipped away in the form of a narrow three-point loss to Senator John McCain. We congratulate the Arizona senator for his victory tonight.

Agree with his policies or not, Governor Huckabee’s attempt at the nomination should be commended. He spoke from the heart about the types of people we all too often forget to expand into our base, in hopes of reestablishing that old Reagan tradition which included blue collar and working folks of moderate means. Without a fraction of personal fortune or funding, and at the expense of establishment attacks, Governor Huckabee came within a margin of error of defeating a party name, the next Republican monarch if you will. Well done Governor.

But 2nd place will not be enough for this Arkansas governor, as we prepare for the inevitable battle between the winner of the first in the south primary, John McCain, and some new rising challenger in either Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani for the eventual nomination. Fight on he may, winning his portion of social conservatives and evangelical Christians, but any hopes of expansion within the base through sheer momentum is now left behind in South Carolina.

In perhaps the height of honor, I commend Governor Huckabee for speaking to many of us who see the American culture fading before our very eyes. Where as terrorism and economics are certainly of great concern, and the bedrock of our Republican Party, so too is the concern that only through a people of moral decency does our nation survive. Where strong families provide the first foundation of who we are as a people.

Mike Huckabee understood this. It’s why many of us fled from other candidates to support him. His inspiration and sheer ability to communicate to the people will not be forgotten, for it was a hell of a run at building something different. But we go on, without him now perhaps, still fighting for other things we believe in. Whomever the nominee should eventually be in our Republican Party, we will support him with pride.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Rudy Tanks

Posted by: Jason | January 9th, 2008 · 4:13 PM

(image: observer)

New Rasmussen numbers out today have Rudy Giuliani dead last in the Republican field nationally. Also, John McCain and Mitt Romney are neck and neck in the polls behind Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee: 22%
McCain: 19%
Romney: 19%
Thompson: 12%
Giuliani: 9%

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Clinton vs Obama: Which is an easier opponent?

Posted by: Jason | · 11:39 AM

(image: abcnews)

So it’s all tied up, 1 to 1. As I dozed off yesterday evening, only to be awakened at 11pm by the confusing site of a Hillary Clinton victory speech, I realized immediately that the game had completely changed. Obama has the immediate edge as he enters a South Carolina race which features a half African American Democratic population, while Hillary continues her “national strategy”. But which Democratic opponent gives Republicans the edge this year, if any?

Let’s start with Barack Obama. Conventional wisdom suggests that Republicans would choose to run against the junior senator from Illinois. He’s barely a three-year guy in Washington, during which time he’s run for president nearly one full year. He hasn’t many accomplishments among his senatorial colleagues, is young and idealistic, and lacks the depth of knowledge and experience we often associate with a presidential candidate. To top it off, despite a rhetoric of bipartisanship that is often refreshing to those who despise hatred politics, he holds historically liberal positions. Obama voted against a bill to ban partial birth abortion in his state of Illinois, and likewise against a bill which would have protected children born alive from abortions. This is the extreme of the extreme in social terms, even for leftists. Likewise, he opposed the Iraq War when all intelligence suggested that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs, a position which will hurt his national security credentials in a general election.

Yet Obama possesses something Hillary Clinton doesn’t, he’s likable. Say what you want about this quality, in at least one primary thus far, likability and inspiration have proved to be the winning message. Obama has an ability to inspire people in a way that Clinton could never, and will be seen as a guy that could “bring Washington back together” (ignore the fact that these promises are never delivered). Personal character is another quality of Obama. He doesn’t have the baggage of a Clinton, doesn’t seem someone who bows at the almighty alter of special interests. In the “year of change”, this could be just the sort of quality which could tip the scale in a voter’s mind against someone like Rudy Giuliani. Likewise, his lack of experience could prove an asset to some, showing himself as new and exciting, not merely a return to the Clinton years in the 90s.

Hillary is a different horse altogether. On the negatives, she has many. No candidate in history has ever won the White House with above 50% negative ratings. Despite two terms in the White House as first lady, it’s become increasingly apparent that she had little to do with the major dealings of the Clinton Administration, other than friendly chats with world leaders and their wives. Clinton has played her senate terms well, showing herself as a moderate on her votes (whether this was all calculated or not is unknown), but will always be seen as a feminist of sorts, a character for which men are uncomfortable about supporting. She is divisive, and no theme is more a turnoff than division in this coming election.

Yet she is experienced, or at least lays claim to that brand against Obama. Hillary Clinton has been around for us to hate for years, but in turn, has been around for years. She shows herself a woman highly involved in her husband’s political machine, probably giving daily advise if we know the Clintons. Landing herself on the Armed Services Committee, she can at least lay claim to some foreign policy experience, coupled with diplomatic experience as first lady. Woman support her overwhelmingly, and proved the difference in last night’s New Hampshire shocker, Clinton carrying 50% of the woman vote. And while Obama seems idealistic in the mold of Bobby Kennedy, Clinton seems strong and willed, sort of a Margaret Thatcher type (without the charming eloquence).

What type of candidate do Republicans run better against in this general election? It’s a question I can’t figure out admittedly. To answer it fully requires a knowledge of which candidate becomes the Republican nominee. Each are different, each having their own qualities which compete well with certain elements of their Democratic rivals. A McCain does well with independents, but does he loose some of his own base running against Obama (if Hillary isn’t there to unite us)? A Huckabee does well in the “change” department, and could be the Obama alternative with more experience, but do his religious leanings hurt him in the west against a more moderate and secular (but Christian enough) Clinton? Rudy Giuliani does fine on security and management issues, but would his tough mannerisms look silly compared with Obama’s inspiration message?

Here is my quick overview by candidate. Mike Huckabee does well against Obama; I still believe that. Both having the same message of hope and change, the southern governor of 10 years wins out on experience against a three-year senator with no accomplishments. Huckabee and Clinton is a mystery to me. While Huckabee does well in likability (and experience I think vs the former first lady), Clinton’s moderate image could fair well against the governor in places which draw back from religious tones in their politics. Or, perhaps Hillary unites the base and independents to vote against her in that race (I believe Huckabee can win independents).

McCain and Obama is a strange matchup. Both change reformers, and with a war in Iraq going smoother, Obama’s younger and more vibrant message beats out the 73-year old McCain. McCain, a horribly boring speaker and potentially seen as a deflated old timer, would match up poorly against Obama, despite experience which wouldn’t play as much a role in the race. Or would it? McCain beats Clinton however, stealing most the independent votes due to Hillary’s likability problems. Because of his opponent, Giuliani, one of three candidates which I think can now win the nomination, competes with Clinton through the use of independents, but ultimately looses by not exciting his base by loosing them on the life issue. Giuliani looses even more to Barack Obama, running a 2004 campaign of fear against Obama’s politics of hope.

After all this analysis, I still can’t figure out which candidate is an easier opponent for the Republicans. If you believe that freshness and change will win the day, you say that Clinton is the easier nominee to beat. If you believe that experience and substance of the issues wins out, than Obama is your candidate to face. Approaching a now 2-man race within he Democratic Party, this political junkie still has a few more debates to watch before knowing the answer to my initial question.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

It’s McCain!

Posted by: Jason | · 10:36 AM

(image: washingtonpost)

Further along in my “anybody but Romney” quest for the Republican nomination, McCain thankfully wins the New Hampshire primary:

McCain: 37%
Romney: 32%
Huckabee: 11%
Giuliani: 9%
Paul: 8%
Thompson: 1%

A few thoughts…

Not quite the 9-point lashing Huckabee put on Romney in Iowa, but McCain’s victory was decisive enough hopefully for the pundits to begin questioning how Romney can win. How can a guy spend $8 million in both Iowa and New Hampshire and win neither? Yet again, proof positive that Mitt Romney is a weak candidate.

Mike Huckabee carries third place, slightly impressive considering his former 5th-6th place standing before the Iowa victory. He beats a northeastern Rudy Giuliani who actually campaigned 40 times in New Hampshire. Huckabee leaves the granite state in great condition, able to compete in Michigan, and up in every major South Carolina poll.

Fred Thompson is officially finished. I don’t care if he didn’t campaign here. You can’t take 1% of anything and expect to be taken seriously anymore. He’ll stake his claim in South Carolina, and I’d wager won’t go over the 12% mark, only to drop out afterwards.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Carolina’s a waitin’

Posted by: Jason | January 7th, 2008 · 11:38 PM

(image: destination360)

George W. won Iowa in 2000. He went on to loose New Hampshire and Michigan shortly after to John McCain. But the old moderate soldier just couldn’t outlast his southern rival once South Carolina had a say in the matter. Sound familiar?

New Rasmussen numbers out of South Carolina:

Huckabee: 28%
McCain: 21%
Romney: 15%
Thompson: 11%
Giuliani: 10%

Two significants points to consider with these numbers: First, if Romney wins NH and goes on to fight another day, he’ll need to make up a 13-point lead against Governor Huckabee in a state that caters to gun-touting Baptists more than Mormons from Massachusetts. Likewise, if McCain wins NH and sets up 2000 Part Duex, he’ll need to do what he failed to do before (at a much younger age), beat a southern conservative in a southern conservative state.

Second to consider is Fred Thompson. Most Huckabee fans had to worry about Fred catching fire in South Carolina, if anything, as the potential spoiler with pro-lifers and gun owners. These numbers may change as Fred spends more time there, but it seems his South Carolina organization has completely tanked for the moment, and I’m not sure we should predict a further increase after NH (most polls show him at 3-5% support). Plus, Ed Rollins will surely frame the South Carolina debate as conservatives needing to rally with Huck to stop Romney or McCain.

*Most recent polls have Huckabee up 8-10 points.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

SC SurveyUSA Poll: Huck+17

Posted by: Jason | · 11:12 PM

SurveyUSA poll just out of South Carolina:

Huckabee: 36%
Romney: 19%
McCain: 17%
Thompson: 11%
Giuliani: 9%