Decision ‘08

Barone on McCain

When Michael Barone is singing the praises of a candidate, all in earshot would be well-advised to pay attention; Barone is one of the most astute analysts in the game. Barone has just attended a dinner featuring John McCain and has clearly come away impressed. Barone says McCain is sincere in his praise of the Bush Administration, and in tune with the (Republican) electorate on many issues, though his disagreements are, of course, prominent. Make no mistake, though, McCain will run:

McCain of course was asked whether he would run for president in 2008, and he of course said that he hadn’t made any decision. He spoke evidently sincere words of praise for other possible candidates: Bill Frist, George Allen, Rudolph Giuliani. But if his demeanor Wednesday night was a fair indication, he’s running. Polls currently show him and Giuliani leading among Republican primary voters. His comments on spending and immigration were in line with the animating spirit of Republican primary electorates, even if some of the measures he continues to support (McCain-Kennedy, the McCain-Lieberman bill on global warming, campaign-finance regulation) are not.

Of course, McCain will never let go of those stances, popular with the Elephants or not…some call him a maverick for this, others a ~~sellout~~ RINO (and not the good kind, either).

Three issues, I think, will shed considerable light on McCain’s prospects:

(1) Can he stress his conservative bonafides enough to overcome the bad will so many on the right harbor against him?

(2) Will Rudy stumble or lose popularity before the horserace begins in earnest?

(3) Will Hillary continue to lead the Democratic pack? If so, is a New Yorker the answer, or will Arizona become more attractive?

To be continued…

UPDATE 10:27 p.m. central: More on this and many other topics at Searchlight Crusade…

13 Responses to “Barone on McCain”

1 Fred Says:
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:21 pm
I agree with Professor Bainbridge:
He doesn’t see anything wrong with gutting the First Amendment in the name of “reform.” And he has no idea what the term “limited government” means.

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/09/mccain_buzz_jus.html

And with Mark Levin at the NRO “The Corner”

“…. he’s a big-spender… In fact, he’s a big-government type through and through. His boneheaded embrace of Kyoto would expand the power of the federal bureaucracy over private activity like nothing we’ve seen in recent history. And it will kill jobs and wealth creation, creating even greater pressures for government welfare programs and federal spending. For all his talk about being tough on national security, he has joined the ranks of the environmentalist flat-earth society, opposing drilling even in ANWR…. he has opposed every major tax cut offered by this president. And on immigration, talk is cheap. He’s a Kennedyite who panders to the illegal immigration lobby. I will predict now, for what it’s worth, that he will not be president. And that he’s the only Republican who can lose to Hillary Clinton…. He has simply picked too many fights with the Republican base in his pursuit of liberal praise.”
2 Mark Says:
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Fred, certainly, Rudy G. is a more attractive candidate to me…I join with you in expressing dismay at his global-warming agenda…I could stomach McCain…but Rudy G. would go down a lot smoother…
3 Clint Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 1:27 am
Re: (3)

If Hillary is the candidate, Giuliani loses one of his big attractions — he probably doesn’t put New York’s electoral votes into play.

I still think the next Republican candidate is either going to be some nominated successor from the administration or else someone from out of the blue (Huckabee would count, but perhaps someone we haven’t had reason to consider yet…).
4 fatman Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 3:38 am
Mark, I have consulted my Magic 8-Ball and it has given me the answers to your queries. To wit:

1) No. (No one on the right is likely to forgive McCain-Feingold, the MoU or his arrogant nature. And a lot gun owners are not going to be happy with McCain’s 100% rating from ProgressivePunch on gun control. And thanks for that link, it’s fascinating.)

2) Unknown at this time. (Although if Giuliani’s stands on abortion, gun control and marital fidelity haven’t put conservatives off by now, I don’t what will.)

3a) Perhaps not. (Meaning that we may get lucky and people will be so sick of the Hildebeast two-and-a-half years from now that they’ll vote for almost anyone else just to get rid of her.)

3b) With any kind of luck, we’ll never find out.
5 Dennis Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:21 am
I can’t say Hillary’s presence puts New York out of play if Rudy is the nominee. Let’s not forget, she was initially going to run against him, but he dropped out early when he got sick and his personal life was at its nadir. So with him off the ballot, she was essentially handed the seat on a silver platter.

But Rudy’s already proven he is popular with New Yorkers, just as Hillary has now. The difference is Rudy can point to actual accomplishments, whereas Hillary is one of a hundred senators and thus has a harder time showing New Yorkers how she improved their lives.

At the very least, Rudy puts New York into enough play that the Democrats would have to pour money into a state that they would otherwise consider one of their sure-things. And every penny spent in the expensive New York market (don’t forget, Rudy was also popular among suburbanites in New Jersey, so Hillary will have to fight there too) is a penny that Hillary can’t spend trying to flip Ohio or Iowa or other battleground states.

It seems to me Rudy’s presence adds to the total number of battleground states, but mainly by opening battles on traditionally Democratic turf.
6 Ryan Bonneville Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:32 am
Public service announcement: MONEY IS NOT SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My wallet is not protected by the First Amendment. Get over it, people. This is really freaking absurd.
7 Mark Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:38 am
Ryan, I disagree with you completely on this topic…money is indeed a form of of political speech; see this excellent article:

Plainly, in Article I, section 4, and Article II, section 1, the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate federal elections. But, just as plainly, that regulation must conform to restraints imposed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. And here, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that, under the First Amendment, campaign contributions and expenditures are protected speech.
8 Ryan Bonneville Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:45 am
Okay, look. Money isn’t speech; it’s money. That money can be used to buy space for speech no one denies. And the Supreme Court has always been cognizant of that. But that doesn’t mean that any use of it goes. If Big Tobacco or the trial lawyers want to buy TV ads and take positions, no one can stop them from doing that. But that’s entirely different from just channeling money into the coffers of Congressmen. We can disagree about where to draw the line, but this talk of McCain “gutting” the First Amendment is nothing short of sheer hysteria. The goal of McCain-Feingold is in the spirit of the First Amendment, even if you think it doesn’t achieve what the First Amendment counsels for it. But “gutting”? Come on, get a grip.
9 Dennis Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:04 pm
As you said, Ryan, money can buy the time and space you need to make a speech that someone might actually hear. I don’t see how you can say it’s fine and dandy for any interest group to spend all the money it wants promoting its issues, but the minute it gives that money to a candidate who advocates those issues and is trying to get into a position to be able to act on those issues, it’s somehow suspect and thus subject to government oversight.

To me, this debate is exactly why McCain is so frustrating a candidate for me. I give McCain huge credit for actually saying we need to cut spending and names the Medicare and transporation bills as targets. He seems to be the only 2008 candidate speaking so frankly about this, and that makes me inclined to vote for him. But I think things like campaign finance “reform,” while based on the admirable desire to make politicians somehow more free of special interests, is so hopelessly impractical that the only way to make it work is to restrict free speech. I find McCain is like that on a lot of issues; he speaks to me better than any other pol on some topics, but comes off as diametrically opposed to me on others.
10 Fred Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:20 pm
If money isn’t speech let’s just forbid
Democrats from spending any money at all on campaigns. That way everyone wins.
11 Mark Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 1:01 pm
Ryan, obviously, McCain-Feingold is not the end of the First Amendment, on that we can agree; it is an infringement on the First Amendment, but we recognize other infringements such as hate speech limitations. The question, as you say, is where to draw the line. In my opinion, McCain-Feingold does indeed limit political discourse unacceptably, because it entrenches the benefits of incumbency; in a national, and in most cases, even congressional, election, the challanger has no recourse to seriously challenge incumbents but massive amounts of spending.

Now, I totally support increased transparency of political contributions, but I don’t think they should be limited, hard or soft…
12 Sean P Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 6:36 pm
I’m probably one of the more pro-McCain Republicans out there, and while I would definately vote fore him if he was the nominee, I really think the party and the country is better off with Rudy.

The 2000 version of McCain/ Feingold, which was limited to a soft money ban, was palatable, but the 2001 version, which went much further, has been every bit the free speech disaster many predicted. On domestic issues, McCain seems adrift, and trying to reach a position through triangulation, rather than an issue’s merits (truth be told, this is also what GWB does, but the right seems less annoyed when he does it).

McCain does seem to have a better grasp of foreign policy issues than any other candidate, with the possible exception of Sam Brownback (who would never get elected in a million years). But while Rudy has never sat on the Senate foreign relations committee, he is more effective than anybody at projecting toughness, which is essential in our negotiations with our enemeies and (especially) our allies.

Plus, while a Giuliani/Hillary matchup would probably not put New York in play (barring a popular vote landslide), it probably WOULD put New Jersey’s 14 electoral votes — and maybe even Connecticut’s 8 electoral votes — in play, since a large percentage of the voters in both states work in New York City and saw firsthand how much of a difference Rudy made in that state.
13 Sean P Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Whoops, New Jersey has 15 electoral votes (though it probably will be down to 14 by the 2012 election).