Wait, DKL, who are you supporting again?

:)

Naomi, I’ll give you three guesses, but only three.

queuno, did you even read the post?

Romney/Obama is what husband Dave is hoping for too, Margaret. He just wants to hear them both talk (although I think a Paul/Kucinich debate would have been more entertaining).

(However, if you’re just presenting a McCain-will-say-anything analysis in abstract, completely disconnected from anything relating to Romney, and you’re not in fact supporting Romney, then my comment in #2 would be inappropriate, I will concede.)

Sorry, in the category of “saying or doing anything to get elected,” McCain is more sinned against than sinning.

Bill,

I suppose that excuses anything that he might say or do in this campaign, right?

Isn’t that a question better posed to Democrats and Independents?

The last thing the GOP needs is a candidate who appeals to independents, like McCain. You guys need to redouble your efforts to keep the nomination away from that guy.

In other news, Obama got more votes in the SC primary by himself than McCain and Romney combined. In fact, Obama got more votes all by himself than McCain, Thompson, Romney and Guiliani taken together.

If Romney had taken a state like Obama took SC tonight, the headlines would read “1 in 3 prefer McCain to Romney.” I’m not surprised McCain is going so negative; he has always had a mean streak (supporters say tough), and he absolutely hates Romney. I foresee no McCain/Romney ticket. To the point that Romney has also campaigned negatively, that’s true in that he pointed out differences in records, but he didn’t outright lie. As to what he told MI auto-workers, as George Costanza said, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”

Still, I’m in wait and see mode.

John, you’re talking from hindsight in 2008 and not the point of view of the 1980 primary season. It’s easy to speculate about what made Reagan so successful now, because it’s so obvious that he was successful.

Before Reagan became a successful president, he fought hard for the Republican nomination two times, meeting defeat on his first time out in 1976. And during the primary season of 1980, the conventional wisdom was that Reagan was far too conservative — Bush was the electable one. To this day, many media outlets repeat the myth that Reagan’s victory is traceable back to his excellent performance against Jimmy Carter in their debate, claiming that it was only by appearing grandfatherly that he was able to overcome the liabilities of his conservative positions. Stagflation and the hostage crisis are a footnote in this explanation. In 1980, people were voting against Carter every bit as much as they were voting for Ronald Reagan.

And even when there hasn’t been an unpopular Democratic president to kick around, the truth is that the Democrats have had a devil of a time winning the White House at all since Truman, winning only 5 out of the last 14 presidential elections. Moreover, Democrats have had only 1 president who was elected to 2 terms, while the Republicans have had only 1 president who was elected to a single term thanks, in part, to a 3-way election (plus, oddly enough, the Republicans had a president who was elected to 0 terms).

Furthermore, there’s a sense in which it’s trivial to say that Democrats made Reagan successful. Since the Democrats were in the majority party through the mid-90s, one can argue that they made every Republican president successful.

The truth is that in a 2-way presidential election, any candidate from the two major parties will get 40% of the vote from his base (cf., Mondale and Goldwater). The 20% in the middle is what’s up for grabs, no matter how they identify themselves. Reagan won the entire 20% in the middle one time, but that’s not what made him successful. At most, it was symptomatic of his success.

Moreover, Democrats have had only 1 president who was elected to 2 terms, while the Republicans have had only 1 president who was elected to a single term thanks, in part, to a 3-way election (plus, oddly enough, the Republicans had a president who was elected to 0 terms).

This has always struck me as more of a historical accident than an accurate indication of partisan strength. While it’s true, it’s just as true to say that Jimmy Carter was the only incumbent Democratic president to be defeated in an election in the twentieth century, compared to four Republicans (Taft, Hoover, Ford, Bush). The Republican presidential coalition was more or less dominant between Nixon and Clinton, but I think it’s fair to say the New Deal coalition had greater strength before 1968.

DKL–
I’m really enjoying your political posts–probably only because I agree with you though.

I think John McCain is a legitimate military hero. But I don’t think he can be considered a political hero of anyone but Democrats, incumbents, and illegal immigrants.

<blockquote”jjohnson, nowadays, you can’t even mention a candidate’s record without being accused of going negative. As I mentioned in my response to Bill, Romney’s brand of negativity against McCain was only negative for those who didn’t like McCain’s record, which is bad enough to repel Republicans without distortion (e.g., here’s George Will’s take on it).
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I totally agree. When I say going negative, I don’t mean the candidates are making something up, they’re usually just stating facts about someone’s record. The problem is how they present these facts, and for some reason the public and the media seem to think Romney is the guy that is “going negative” the most (at least he was earlier in the race, maybe he isn’t anymore). Even though every candidate will go negative/discuss the opposition record eventually, I think it will be bad for him if the public perceives him as the one that did it first and more often.

:D — that’s a great quote. When did he say that?

Far be it from me to question Harry Truman — who was not only a great president, but he was also a native of Jackson County, Missouri — but he was proved wrong the next election. The GOP ran Eisenhower, whom the Democrats had been begging to run as a Democrat, and won.

Following your 1980 primary conventional wisdom, the Republicans should have run Robert Taft and left the Democrat (Eisenhower) to the real Democrats.

Romney responded to McCain’s allegation, saying, “That’s simply wrong, and it’s dishonest, and he should apologize.”

Can I just say I’m getting really, really tired of Romney declaring who needs to apologize to whom, and for what? What an arrogant jerk!

If this was the only time Romney demanded that some candidate apologize to someone for something they said, I’d see it differently, “Casual.” Unfortunately, it’s more like the fourth time. Usually it’s a matter of him demanding that someone apologize to George W. Bush, Romney’s hero, for daring to question Bush’s policies or performance. It’s insincere showmanship, like much of Romney’s campaign.

I too can do without Romney’s proclamations of who is owed an apology from whom. But I must admit to being very disappointed with McCain’s unctuous response in this case. Romney certainly doesn’t owe the troops an apology. McCain does, for having used them as a painfully transparent propagandistic battering ram.

The troops benefit most from a vigorous questioning of policy and not some kind of idolatry that pays lip service to their glorious mission and neglects their practical needs.

John Hamer, Truman’s actual words were closer to, “When you run a Republican against a Republican, the Republican wins every time,” by which he seems to have intended, “when you run a real Republican against a wanna-be Republican, the real Republican wins every time.” I reversed the party for my own purpose, because the logic works on both sides.

The context was that he was talking with Demacratic party leadership about strategy. The consensus among the Democratic leadership was that they should try to appropriate issues from the Republicans. Truman famous statement was his way of saying that political parties do best in elections in which they meaningfully differentiate themselves from the other party and fight for these ideas.

People make a good deal of Dick Morris’s triangulation strategy for Bill Clinton. It may have made Bill Clinton palatable, but I don’t think so. Bill Clinton is among the most talented and astute politicians of the 20th century, and he could succeed doing just about everything — including by his own sexual misconduct and positing massive conspiracies to bring him down. Dick Morris’s triangulation strategy simply ensured that the Clinton administration was largely bereft of new ideas, which was a shame for Democrats and a boon for Republicans.

More germane to this discussion is probably Emerson’s statement, “The more a man proclaimed his honor, the faster we counted the spoons.” McCain has run as a man of honor, prancing around on his high-horse, while lying and deceiving and dissembling the entire time.

[McCain's] immigration policies are going to hurt him.

Sadly so since I think this is one area where he is much more right that Romney.

Can anybody who follows Romney please explain what his immigration plan really is? As far as I can tell he is basically pushing for mass deportations. That sounds like the most ridiculous (and economy destroying) plan I could imagine. Does he even have a plan besides beefing up border security?

Ok, so McCain broadcasted the propaganda because they held a gun to his head, and beat him until he did it. But… this guy says that McCain didn’t sound all that reluctant on the loudspeaker.

And this proves what? That McCain was really enthusiastically working for the enemy? That all the time he was faking that sense of duty and love for country so that he could have the opportunity to get captured and tortured by the Viet Cong because he really secretly wanted them to succeed? This is a ridiculously pointless anecdote–from someone who admits that he hates McCain and therefore his suspicion is to be treated as fact? It makes no sense.

I do not support McCain’s candidacy. In fact I will be quite disappointed if he gets the nomination because I don’t think he’s the right man for the job, and no, he doesn’t “deserve” it by virtue of being a war hero. But to refer to him as a “fake hero” and compare him to John Kerry, who came home from Vietnam denouncing his own service there and slandering his fellow veterans, is really beyond the pale. It’s disgusting, actually.

Here’s a polling update for Romney supporters:

Fred Thompson’s supporters in Florida appear to be turning their support to Romney. Thompson dropped out of the race on 1/22. A daily poll taken the next day had Romney up by 4 points (Rasmussen) and McCain up by 1 point (Insider Advantage). The same pollsters now have Romney up by 6 (Rasmussen) and Romney up by 2 (Insider Adv).

A third poll by Reuters/CSpan/Zogby uses a 3-day rolling sample. Although they now show Romney and McCain tied, compared to the survey taken 2 days ago, Romney gained 2 points and McCain lost a point.

Go here to see the polling data at Real Clear Politics.

Hopefully he can maintain this level of support despite the recent endorsements by the Florida Governor and Mel Martinez; Martinez is very popular with Cuban-American voters.

I dunno Eric. I really hope that is true — mostly because mass deportations is a ludicrous idea. But in the debates Romney was talking about wanting people to “get to the end of the line”. What does that mean if not mass deportations?

I think the current ambiguity is intentional so as to allow him to pull back to a somewhat more moderate position in the general election.

I hope that is true Eric.

jjohnson, you should read the link that I gave to George Will’s column. McCain is a lowlife.

John Hamer, this just in from Rasmussen: McCain doesn’t do much better than Romney against Hillary or Obama:

Hillary beats McCain 47% to 45%
Hillary beats Romney 47% to 42%
Obama beats McCain 46% to 41%
Obama beats Romney 47% to 38%

In the end, McCain’s much-vaunted support among Democrats and independents isn’t actually worth a hill of beans.

jjohnson, McCain’s biggest political asset is his supposed character and “straight shooting.” McCain’s uninventive and blatant and transparent lies about Romney’s record (so transparent that even the press is characterizing McCain’s accusations as inaccurate or dishonest) end up surrendering the only thing that makes him palatable to Republicans, and a large part of what independents seems to like about him.

My guess is that due to McCain’s last minute accusation, if McCain he loses Florida, then he’s finished. If McCain’s win’s Florida, it will be largely attributed to his last-minute lies, so story will be that McCain lies to win. Consequently, he’ll enter Super Tuesday as damaged goods, again free of the momentum that has been so absent from this campaign.

What’s key about this distortion is how transparent and dishonest it is (again, even the press is characterizing it that way), and that it comes from the candidate who’s self-proclaimed “straight talk” is a primary draw. McCain has really shot himself in the foot here.

The above is for Florida only.

mad and jjohnsen: If McCain gets the nomination, the dems and liberal press will dig out any dirt they can on him, and the allegations of any dishonorable conduct as a POW will likely get national exposure. The allegations and stories are out there, they just haven’t been picked up by any national press. If they were, they seem to have been forgotten or shelved, along with the Keating 5 episode.

One of the unwritten rules of former POW’s is not to talk of these things publicly, or at least not outside veteran circles (or even POW circles, which is an exclusive group within veteran groups, because not even other veterans fully understand what a POW in Vietnam went through), because like my navy pilot friend said, every POW eventually collaborates to some degree, and our military fully understands that, and tries to prepare the pilots for that.

(Whether or how the Army prepares ground soldiers, I don’t know. And the National Guard soldiers who got activated for Desert Storm and then Bush’s Iraq invasion probably had even less POW preparation.)

One of the big things that goes unmentioned is that according to US military law, if you’re a POW, you’re not allowed to accept early release by the enemy. The North Vietnamese wanted to score points by releasing an Admiral’s son. McCain rightfully turned down early release. But he would have been disciplined by the Navy had he accepted it. So it was not really a heroic gesture in declining it, he was merely following orders and our military’s standard protocol.

And McCain’s POW controversy is not just limited to his own time as a POW, but also how he treated other former POWs after the Vietnam war.

There’s more to this issue than I can summarize here, as I don’t have all the references handy (some actually came out in the 2000 campaign when McCain ran back then).

The point I’m trying to make is that many (not just a few) Vietnam veterans, including former POWs agree with DKL’s assessment of McCain. McCain isn’t doing anything now that he hasn’t been doing for 30 years.

There are some very strong and bitter feelings towards him concerning his behavior concerning his military service both during the war and after the war. And the dems will dredge it up and do to him what the republicans did to Kerry if he gets the nomination.

Remember that for several decades Kerry also got a free pass on his smarmy behavior during and post war as long as he stayed off the national scene. But when he ran for national office, then it was trotted out.

The dems would LOVE for McCain to get the nomination, because there is plenty of material with which to “Swiftboat” him.

The bitterness I heard from veterans towards McCain when he ran in the 2000 primary actually outstripped the bitterness I heard from the veterans towards Kerry in the 2004 compaign.

Despite the poll numbers, Romney may actually be more winnable than McCain merely because there’s less available dirt on him.

DKL,

In the end, McCain’s much-vaunted support among Democrats and independents isn’t actually worth a hill of beans.

Correct. Let me tell you why:

McCain’s Stroll Through the Baghdad Market

I don’t think McCain and Republicans in general realize that the large majority of Americans want this war ended with, NOW. Not in five years. Not in ten years. They want out of Iraq.

I wonder if an endorsement from Jeb Bush would have been a help or hindrance. The Bush name might be mud in many corners of the U.S., but “Jeb Bush”–Floridians would have kept proper context, no?

DKL,

The anti-war Democrats want to cut and run.

And you are using a Republican straw man.

Actually you are, DKL. The Democratic leadership is a sniveling band of cowards who do not want to leave Iraq because they are too afraid of losing politically. But regular Democrats out there see a failed policy and wonder why we keep throwing valuable resources at it when the opportunity cost is extravagantly high. Cutting and running is something a Reagan would do (Beirut) or a McCain would vote on (Somalia).

Democrats are not cowards, and Americans know it. It is why most Americans identify themselves more to the left now than ever before. If Democrats’ talking points happens to be reality, then so be it.

I’m sorry DKL, but you are on the wrong end of history and reality on Iraq. My apologies for you.

Ah those Central American projects to prop up corrupt right-wing dictators. Sounds like republican foreign policy alright.

It’s funny, DKL, to hear you critique me for using the appeal to “history” and see you do it in the very next sentence. It seems the critiquer is not immune.

And just what is wrong with using Democratic talking points? You use Republican talking points and straw men.

If you wish, DKL, to debate politics aside from talking points, it would do you well for you to drop them too. ;)

Oh wait! Your title is wrong… the hint should say Mitt Romney.

Of course, not a conclusion you would get from a systematically biasedly chosen ONE STATEMENT from each candidate hehehehehehehe. Clever but not intelligent.

Manuel, if you have any specifics to offer to buttress your attack on Romney or to place McCain’s statement in context, I welcome it. But McCain and his cronies (Huckabee and Lindsay Graham, for example) have been repeating this to every news outlet they can find — you’re assertion that it’s just one statement is simply a lie.

Dan, you say “a Republican perspective of the world is never wrong,” instead of “the Republican perspective of the world is never wrong.” I take that to mean, “at least one Republican perspective of the world is never wrong,” and I’m sure that you’re referring to mine. So I’m glad to see you’re finally talking some sense. BTW, I have a more liberal view on gays than you do. Does that make me a moderate?

By the way, I gotta say, couple Ms. Kirkpatrick’s essay and Alan Moore’s “Watchmen” and it really shows just how pained conservatives were in the late 1970s. You guys must have been traumatized!

Really, even suggesting McCain enjoyed working for the North Vietnamese is a scummy thing to say.

That’s okay. Deity will justify anything and everything, if your objective is to get Romney elected. Right?

DKL,

I haven’t as yet read Ms. Kirkpatrick’s essay (except the first few paragraphs, of which I quoted on Council of Fifty). If you want, I’ll read it carefully and make a more careful analysis of her thesis.

A comic book being what it is, still adds to the discussion because 1) it was highly influential, and 2) really set the tone of the era.

In any case, we’re off topic now.

DKL,

My post on Council of Fifty was in no way a critique of her work. I was merely making a point related solely to our political sniping these days. It is a shameful time when the president of the United States says things as dumb as this president has. I was merely making a point. So don’t look at that post as a critique of Ms. Kirkpatrick’s works.

George Will’s latest on McCain:

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Clintons should bask in the glow of John McCain’s Clintonian gloss on this fact: Ten months ago Romney said that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki should discuss, privately, “a series of timetables and milestones.” That unremarkable thought was twisted by McCain, whose distortions are notably clumsy, as when Romney said, accurately, that he alone among the candidates has had extensive experience in private-sector business. That truth was subjected to McCain’s sophistry, and he charged that Romney had said “you haven’t had a real job” if you had a military career. If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice.

That last line is a brilliant allusion to Phyllis Schlafly’s landmark book, A Choice Not an Echo, artfully characterizing in a single phrase how McCain will subvert the Republican conservative legacy.