John McCain, the Irrational Right, and the Politics of Immigration Control

The irrational right is up in arms over the McCain campaign's hiring of Juan Hernandez as a Latino outreach coordinator (see, for example, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

The prompt for the latest round of McCain derangement is the news from a McCain townhall meeting today in Florida. Michelle Malkin reports that she was contacted by a Florida voter who challenged Senator McCain on Hernandez's open-borders advocacy:

Dear Michelle,

I attended the townhall meeting earlier today in Polk City and asked John McCain:

Your Hispanic Outreach Campaign Advisor, Juan Hernandez, has written a book referring to illegal immigrants as “New American Pioneers.” Hernandez has also stated that illegal immigrants who use social security numbers of American citizens really don’t steal, they have no choice but to make up a number. Are you aware of his statements? Do you agree with him? If not would you consider removing him from your staff?

John McCain answered that he supported Juan Hernandez because he holds the same views as he (McCain) on other issues. He says that he determines his positions and Hernandez agrees with him, not the other way around. He appeared to be unaware of the specific positions of Hernandez that I related.

I would say I got a non-answer. I did not get a video but all the media were present.

On national security, energy independence, veterans tratment and curtailing spending, McCain’s position and answers are strong. Why he does not consider millions of lawbreakers a security threat I do not understand…

Joan

McCain's response was audio-taped and transcripted, and made available by Bryan at Hot Air:

QUESTION: Senator McCain, I thank you so much for your service … as an Irish … my parents and grandparents both came here … I so much want to vote for you, I have one concern … straight talk … it is you have an outreach - Hispanic outreach person - on your staff, Juan Hernandez, and he has said that he understands why Social Security … because we don’t allow the immigrants to get their own, so it’s ok for him that we steal other Americans Social Security. He also has written a book called “The New American Pioneers” about comparing illegal immigrants not legal immigrants … I wonder if you agree with his policy? If so, explain it to me and if not why is he on your staff?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: He’s on my staff because he supports my policies and my proposals and my legislative proposal to secure the borders first. No one will receive social security benefits who is in this country illegally. I don’t know what his previous positions are or other positions are, he supports mine. I have nothing to do with his. He has volunteered to help me with outreach to our Hispanic citizenry as I outreach to every citizen in America. I’ve been very clear on my position on immigration; I’ve been very clear on my position on Social Security. Of course I am grateful that so many people came from Ireland to the United States of American and anybody else who come here legally and that’s the only system I will ever support. I have no idea but I will check in to the information you’ve given me. I promise you, I will secure our borders, I will not allow anyone to come here illegally, I will not allow anyone to receive Social Security or any other benefits because they have come here illegally and broken our laws.

I'm going to make a stab at a response to these developments. This is especially important, because while I'm obviously a huge McCain supporter, I don't support the Arizona Senator on every isssue, and this Hernandez controversy is a good chance to clarify my views.

I've cited a link to Hernandez above. From what I've seen from both the right-wing attacks on him and informational pages, Hernandez is indeed an anti-sovereignty, open-borders advocate who would work to further weaken of U.S. immigration law.

Why the McCain campaign is willing - even eager - to recruit an anti-American, multiculturalist Mexican nationalist is beyond me (I've yet to see a non-partisan analysis to that effect, but see this story for more information).

Whatever the reasoning, McCain's made a big mistake, at least in terms of courting the secure-borders conservative base.

Yet, maybe the candidate and his advisors think a Hernandez appointment will be valuable not only in broader Hispanic outreach efforts nationally, but as a signaling scheme to the large Latino voting bloc in Tuesday's Florida primary. If that's the calculation, the Hernandez gig - along with the endorsements of Mel Martinez and Charlie Crist - could be the most shrewdly calculating - even Machiavellian - political move this election season. Florida's demographic breakdown includes a one-in-five Latino constituency. Many of these voters will be drawn from the powerful Cuban-American GOP community. They're anti-Communist foreign policy hawks. They'll love McCain's outreach, and welcome his firm national security credentials.

If that's the reasoning, it's completely logical. Primary campaigns require candidates to appeal to narrow voting consituencies. Normally, that would mean candidates for the nomination would have to appeal to the hardcore, red meat party ideologues who get out to vote in record numbers in primary elections. After a candidate wins the nomination, he'll move back to the center to appeal to middle-of-the-road fence-sitters and moderate party backers. This is tried-and-true pre-convention politicking.

In McCain's case, perhaps he's seen how impotent the Michelle Malkin/Rush Limbaugh axis has been in slowing down his campaign juggernaut. Who really matters to the McCain election strategy? The hot-and sweaty echo chamber (authentic?) conservative border-bashers who can't reason through the logics of a legislative earned legalization program? Or the legal Hispanic-American rank-and-file voters who could put McCain over the top next Tuesday in the still wide-open Florida GOP primary?

Who knows?

Whatever the case, McCain's taken a gamble. He's betting he can win the nomination and then later appeal to law-and-order conservatives with his claims of authenticity on security-first immigration reform.

We can, of course, take his word for it. Look again at what he says about Dr. Hernandez above, in response to today's townhall query:

He’s on my staff because he supports my policies and my proposals and my legislative proposal to secure the borders first....

I’ve been very clear on my position on immigration....

I promise you, I will secure our borders, I will not allow anyone to come here illegally, I will not allow anyone to receive Social Security or any other benefits because they have come here illegally and broken our laws.

That's McCain's word. If there's anyone in Washington who voters can trust on credibility and honesty, it's John McCain.

Did he make the right decision?

If I were an advisor to the campaign I would have vetoed the Hernandez appointment. As readers are familiar, I'm a neoconservative who sees hegemonic power in the primacy of the nation-state in international affairs. I support international trade and global integration as facilitating a benign international realm conducive to the attainment of American grand strategic objectives. America has the world's most important history of openness in trade and legal migration. This history is a key element of the American political culture and our rightful claim to be a diverse nation, strong and undivided, e pluribus unum.

That said, it's time to slow the flow of new migrants to this country.

There's plenty of research to show the downward economic consequences from the unfettered flow of low-wage labor to the U.S. In the realm of language and culture, the U.S. today is facing the increased Latinization of the country, indeed we may be headed toward "Hispanic Nation" status. The "immigrant gang plague" is one of the most intractable and deadly law-and-order crises facing the country today. Not only that, more and more of our inner-city schools have been taken over by unreconstructed multiculturalists, who encourage students to renounce the Pledge of Alliegance to the flag and who renounce the nation's founding holidays and traditions.

Senator McCain knows - or he says he knows - that these developments constitute a national crisis. The collapse of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007 showed that.

What's the way forward?

Well, there won't be for immigration border hawks who not only despise McCain, but fear him like the bubonic plague.

The resolution will come when one side defeats the other.

If the high-pitched Malkinites and Rush-bots have their way, McCain's campaign will collapse faster than a sinking peso over the next two weeks. Even if the McCain team dumped Hernandez, it wouldn't be enough. The anti-McCain activists would find a new, dramatic casus belli with which to hoist McCain to his political death.

On the other hand, McCain's political calculations may prove brilliantly successful. He could claim victory in Tuesday's diverse Florida vote, with the help from the Hispanic bloc, and then move on to a Super Tuesday sweep of a majority of the states, perhaps winning enough convention delegates to secure the GOP nomination.

At that point, he might reach out - with outstretched hand, and olive branch - appealing to the conservative disaffecteds to return to the partisan fold.

"I need your help, he might intone, "there is work to be done." Michelle or Rush may never forgive him.

But millions of rank-and-file Republicans may hold their nose in distaste for McCain's alleged soft-borders apostasies, in exchange for this year's ultimate candidate pledge to fight an even more existential threat stalking American interests and power across the Middle East and beyond.

Independents Could Be Key on February 5

Independent voters could be the crucial demographic on Super Tuesday, the essential half-national round of primary voting to take place in less than two weeks.

The Associated Press has an analysis of the power of political independents, suggesting that they could hold the cards for more moderate candidates on the big day (via Memeorandum):

More than half the states holding presidential contests next month on Super Tuesday allow unaffiliated voters to participate, giving millions of independents a chance to shape what is usually an insider affair among Democratic and Republican loyalists.

Two of those states California and New Jersey together have nearly 6 million unaffiliated voters who will be allowed to cast ballots. Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts and Alabama are among other prized catches with millions of independents eligible for the Feb. 5 contests.

The open voting is widely considered to benefit Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain, who have fared well among independents in recent polls and primaries. It also is reflected in Obama's words, from his outreach to Republican voters to his recent credit to Ronald Reagan in the context of elections that represent shifts in political direction.

"Obama's trying to do two things at once. On the one hand, energize the liberal base, but also attract independents who are looking for a bipartisan problem-solver," said Jack Pitney, a former deputy research director for the Republican National Committee and a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "That's a very difficult balance, and (Hillary) Clinton is trying to highlight the contradiction there."

Pitney and others said turnout will probably be high among independents because of the wide-open contests in each party. But it's tricky to predict the impact, they said.

In winning South Carolina's primary Saturday, for example, Obama drew 42 percent of voters describing themselves as independents, compared with 26 percent for Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to exit polls.

But he had similar advantages among independents in New Hampshire and Nevada, and lost both states as Clinton won stronger support from core Democrats.

"It makes a difference at the margin," Pitney said. "I don't know of any cases where independents by themselves have decided a nomination, but in a very close contest, they might be able to tip it one way or another."

Fifteen of the 24 states holding contests on Super Tuesday have some form of flexible voting system. Some are wide open, allowing voters to cast ballots in either party regardless of political affiliation. Others have semi-open primaries, allowing unaffiliated voters to participate if they register with a party on the day of the primary.

Obama could get the biggest boost, analysts said, because independents appear to be leaning toward Democrats this year.

Six in 10 opted to participate in the Democratic contest in New Hampshire's open primary. In exit polls, they have expressed dissatisfaction with President Bush and the war in Iraq, as well as strong concerns about the economy.

Among Republicans, McCain has continued to attract independent voters as he did against George W. Bush in 2000, but they haven't turned out as strongly.

In winning South Carolina's GOP primary on Jan. 19, McCain took 42 percent of the unaffiliated vote to Mike Huckabee's 25 percent. But those voters made up only 18 percent of the electorate, compared with 30 percent in 2000.

Another potential pitfall for McCain is that in California which has more delegates than any other state independents will not be allowed to participate in the GOP primary because party leaders decided to close their contest, while Democrats are keeping theirs open.

Well, I'm wondering about this last point: California uses a "modified-closed" primary, in which decline-to-state voters may request a partisan ballot in advance or on election day:

If you are a voter who has declined to state an affiliation with a political party, you may be able to vote for a candidate of a specific party in the upcoming February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Election and/or June 3, 2008 Statewide Direct Primary. You may request, from your county elections official or at your polling place, the ballot of a political party if authorized by the party's rules and duly noticed by the Secretary of State. Click here to obtain county elections office contact information.

California non-partisans can't cross-over to the GOP side? This is mostly of academic interest to me, no matter the answer.

Tuesday's Florida results will determine - at least for the GOP - how important independent voters will be in the following round of Super Tuesday voting.

If McCain defeats Mitt Romney, he'll be able to put away the criticism that he can't attract Republican partisans. If not, he's either going to have to reinvent himself in seven days, or hope for a significant independent turnout in February.

Florida Primary is Preview of National Trends

The Kansas City Star offers one of those macro analyses readers at American Power can expect to see discussed from time to time.

The piece argues that Tuesday's primary contest in Florida offfers a preview of national campaign dynamics. Here's the introduction:

Military vets in the Panhandle. The most influential Hispanic bloc in the nation. Transplanted New Yorkers living near evangelical Christians. Midwestern retirees on the west coast. And a history of troubled elections.

The profile of Florida reads like a mini-map of the United States, a mosaic of races and ethnicities, ages and incomes. It's a glitzy gateway to Latin America and a next-door neighbor to Alabama. Its cities boast soaring skyscrapers while tiny nearby towns are dotted with shotgun shacks and unpaved roads.

This is the backdrop for the biggest 2008 presidential primary yet in the nation, on Jan. 29, a vote that will provide the first real test of how a candidate will play on the national stage.

"It's America in miniature," said Brad Coker of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, who's been polling in the state since 1984. "It's maybe a little more rightward tilt than the U.S., but it's probably the closest thing to a complete profile of the country than any other state that has voted up till now."

A high-growth state since the invention of air conditioning, Florida's appeal may at long last be cooling. Census figures show that the state - still the fourth-largest in population - slid in 2007 from the fourth fastest-growing state in the country to the 19th.

Its once-solid economy, fueled in large part by tourist dollars, is now among the most threatened in the nation. It's been hit hard by a struggling housing market: Brand-new condo units in towers along Miami's glitzy skyline have been sold at foreclosure auctions. State coffers have been drained by a slump in sales tax collections, which make up the bulk of tax dollars in a state long hostile to an income tax.

"There's worry about next year and the year after that; there's anxiety about what's going to happen," said House Speaker Marco Rubio, the first Cuban-American elected to the statewide post amid a flourish of pride in a community that's reshaped the state.

"Florida built its economy on taxing the next person to get here," Rubio said.

"That was great when there was a never-ending stream. Now we've got people working just as hard but not getting ahead."

The anxiety is especially acute in a state that appeared to escape most of the financial squeeze earlier this decade that left other states slashing budgets and laying off teachers and firefighters. This year, the presidential candidates will share the ballot with a proposal to cut property tax rates - a measure opposed by many cities and school departments.

The rest of the article discusses the current happenings in Florida politics. The Sunshine State's diverse, and not particularly ideological.

Kind of reminds me of, say, California.

How Fred Thompson Screwed Up

Holly Bailey offers an analysis of the collapse of Fred Thompson's presidential campaign:

Just six months ago, Fred Thompson was the man to beat in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, an articulate former senator turned actor whose campaign was so anxiously anticipated he was branded the second coming of Ronald Reagan before his first campaign speech. But last Tuesday, after finishing third in the South Carolina primary, Thompson ended his campaign—an astounding rise and fall given the early buzz and the chaos of the GOP field, which still lacks a clear front runner.

What happened? About a year ago, as rumors he might run were ramping up, Thompson's poll numbers rose, reaching the 20s in some surveys. Last May, he generated even more buzz by posting an online video challenging Michael Moore on Cuba and health-care policy. Impressed by the publicity the video generated, Thompson, his wife, Jeri, and a handful of aides drew up a game plan based less on retail campaigning than on a Web strategy. His operatives set a $5 million fund-raising goal for last June, built around the idea Thompson would get in the race officially in July.

In retrospect, that may have been the high-water mark of his campaign. Thompson gave a series of speeches that flopped, and raised about $2 million less than he'd hoped. The candidate remained balky, and by August he'd gone through three campaign managers—all before he was officially in the race. Soon, former Bob Dole adviser Bill Lacy was brought in to run a more traditional campaign, a move that prompted other staffers to leave, including Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department aide who was one of Thompson's closest staffers. "Had Fred gotten in the race in July as originally planned and campaigned his heart out, we'd be reading about others dropping out," Corallo tells NEWSWEEK. "But for reasons I still don't understand, he changed course, opting for the remnants of the Dole campaign." After that, Corallo says, Thompson's run "lost its energy and soul."

There's a couple of more paragraphs, but that pretty much sums it up.

I'd like to see a lengthier scholarly article on this, but an interesting hypothesis is that for all the blog-burst fanaticism of the right blogosphere for the Thompson presidential bid, old-fashioned rank-and-file primary voters still make the difference, and shoe-leather campaigning remains crucial to reaching them.

More on this as events evolve.

Cartoon Credit: Saber Point

Democrats Squandered Opportunities on Iraq

This morning's Los Angeles Times has an analysis of the Democratic congressional majority's failure to successfully challenge President Bush's war strategy in 2007:

What happened?

The answer lies partly in the slim Democratic majority and a determined Republican president.

But it was the new Democratic majority's inability to work across the aisle that ultimately ensured failure.

Like the Republicans they had replaced, senior Democrats chose confrontation over cooperation.

They squandered opportunities to work with Republicans unhappy with the president.

And, under pressure from their antiwar base, they tried to bully their rivals.

"Even now, I fail to understand how we think we can stop the war unless we bring in Republicans," said Hawaii Rep. Neil Abercrombie, one of the liberal Democrats who challenged his party's strategy.

Democrats -- and even many Republicans -- had expected a far different result.

When GOP senators sat down for a tense luncheon in the Capitol's wood-paneled Mansfield Room last January, their party was in turmoil.

President Bush's decision to send additional troops to Iraq, combined with the party's election losses, infuriated many lawmakers. As Vice President Dick Cheney sat silently, a heated debate erupted.

Virginia Sen. John W. Warner, a white-haired veteran of two wars, rose to express deep concern that the U.S. military was caught in a civil war in Iraq. On the other side, Arizona's John McCain and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham passionately warned that retreat would spell disaster.

Let's face it: Democratic legislative failure on Iraq is a classic tale of hubris and incompetence.

Congressional leaders badly misread the public's electoral demands of November 2006. Polls repeatedly indicated not so much calls for an immediate troop withdrawal, but hopes for improvements, leading to success and an orderly handover to a sovereign Iraq over time (check back over the data, for example, at Polling Report).

Further, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader have miserably failed the leadership test.

Pelosi - even before being sworn in - alienated powerful members of her caucus by resorted to old-fashioned machine politics on appointments, for example, when she sought and failed to elevate Pennsylvania's John Murtha over Steny Hoyer of Maryland for the Majority Leader post.

The House has veered increasing to the left on war policy, as well, apparently afraid of alienating the (purportedly) powerful antiwar forces of the left blogosphere.

In the Senate, Harry Reid couldn't figure out how to lead the chamber, and when things weren't going his way, he simply closed off debate under the leader's prerogative. A vicious, partisan enemy of the White House, Reid has been implacably opposed to American military success, even declaring the war lost in early 2007.

As ideological as the Democrats may be, they miserably failed to assess not just the resolve of their opposition colleagues on Capitol Hill, but of President Bush as well.

The administration has long been commited to standing firm on Iraq, and the institutional advantages enjoyed by the Republican minority in the Senate (the filibuster) meant that the White House could work with GOP members looking to avoid the albatross of a lost war heading into the 2008 general election.

As improvement on the ground in Iraq proceeded, the Democratic antiwar agenda appeared increasingly quixotic, and even antiwar groups have recently throw in the towel on a legislative end to the war in the near term.

It should be clear that the Democratic presidential candidates cannot run on a record of competence this year. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are current members of the Democratic Senate majority. Their party's failure is their own.

Obama, in his victory speech in South Carolina last night, called for an immediate end to the war. This is a shameless appeal to the unfiltered demands of the uncleansed leftist hordes who would snatch defeat from the jaws of military victory.

The Democrats, as the last 14 months have shown, have failed the test of leadership. The primary process will be coming to an end soon, and for the Republicans - in the Democratic Party failures of 2007 - have at least one readymade argument against their opponents, and in favor of four more years of national security stewardship in Washington.

Captain's Quarters Endorses Mitt Romney!

Captain Ed Morrissey has endorsed Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination:

Over a year ago and many times since, I wrote that I could give no endorsement, because I had honestly not made up my mind about which candidate to support. I also told the CapQ community that if I did make a decision, I would announce it as soon as I made it so that they knew where I stood. The deadline for that decision rapidly approaches, since Minnesota caucuses on February 5th, and I have decided to caucus for Mitt Romney.

This decision did not come easily. Some have complained about the choices available to the Republicans, but I have seen the field as a collection of highly accomplished, experienced candidates, almost all of whom I could support -- enthusiastically -- in a general election. That made the decision as hard as it was, and it forced me to analyze what I want to see in a nominee.

First, I want to have someone who supports conservative values. In this, we have no perfect candidates. Fred Thompson came closest, but he quit, and I'm not going to cast my vote for someone who has already dropped out. Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain all have some claim to a portion of the conservative mandate based on their accomplishments. Of the four, I trust Romney and Giuliani most to continue supporting conservative principles in the face of opposition -- and in fact I'd probably trust Giuliani a little more.

Second, and very importantly, the Republican should have demonstrated success in executive management in both private and public sectors. This eliminates everyone except Romney and Rudy. John McCain wants to make the case that his experience as squadron leader qualifies, and it does demonstrate leadership, but not executive experience. Both Rudy and Romney have led entire organizations in both the public and private sectors, with Romney getting the best in this area. They have had the buck stop at their desk. Both Rudy and Romney have transformed failing entities (New York City and the Salt Lake City Olympics). McCain led 400 men, but he answered to commanders above him at several levels while doing so, and I have yet to see an argument for transformation under McCain's leadership.

Why is this important? The Democrats have no one who can match that experience. Putting McCain or especially Fred Thompson against the Democratic nominee, whether that is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, effectively cedes the inexperience argument. It argues that Republicans consider resumes to be irrelevant, and that will have us fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

Third, we face a tough election if the economy turns south, even mildly. We saw this in 1992 and lost when Bill Clinton successfully convinced people that he had the best ideas for a turnaround. We have one candidate who has undeniable success in the global markets, who understands them and the players that run them. Romney gives us an advantage as the nominee that none of the others can match in this regard.

Over the last two weeks, my focus has come down to Rudy and Romney. Both would make good Presidents. Mitt, however, has shown that he will fight in every state, while Rudy played a bit of rope-a-dope -- and has apparently lost the gamble. Until the debate, I thought Rudy might have had the right idea, but Rudy still hasn't come out of the gate in any effective manner.

Romney is not a perfect candidate. We don't have any perfect candidates. In fact, I could still support Rudy, McCain, or Mike Huckabee without reservation in a general election against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. I think, though, that Romney has the most staying power, the better argument, and the best resume of the remaining Republican candidates. I will enthusiastically caucus for Mitt Romney on February 5th.

Oh, a few have complained about the choices available to the Republicans?

You don't say!!

That's putting it mildly, no? What's it going to be today, Captain, toast or English muffins? Tough choices ahead. Whew!!

But I kid. It's a good analysis, actually.

I think the Captain's correct on the "right conservative" question, although the point about executive experience isn't all that compelling. I'm mean, really, the greatest president in American history served one term as a back-bencher in Congress before being elected to the presidency. One of the reasons we've had so many governors win the White House is that being the executive of a state allows more time away from governing, considering how long and grueling the contemporary nomination process has become.

The Captain takes a pretty cheap shot at John McCain's military experience, by the way, in the process discounting over 25 years of service in Congress - and that's with an unparalleled focus on national security. That's not "ceding the inexperience" argument to Clinton or Obama, whatever that's supposed to mean. The truth is, McCain's experience in international affairs is exactly what Democrats fear most! Nobody's arguing resumes don't matter...hello?

Captain Ed also suggests that Romney's business experience best qualifies him for presidential leadership on the economy. Perhaps, although I doubt Ronald Reagan's acting days or pitchmaking gigs he did for GE honed is skills at international trade's double-entry bookkeeping in balance-of-payments accounting! Hey, where's David Stockman when you need him?

The Captain also assumes that Romney is best positioned to make the sale to the electorate. He's the perfect candidate? Say what? Come on...as I've reported here time and again, the public's looking for national experience and tested leadership, and public opinion's overwhelming supporting McCain in this regard.

(McCain's also clearly the leading candidate of either party on measures of electability.)

I respect Ed Morrissey tremendously. He's an outstanding political analyst (wrong only on occasion), and frankly I'm blown away by his blogging fecundity and intellectual scope.

But I can't help wondering if his selection of Romney reflects the path of least resistance.

I mean, he's among the top voices on the right side of the blogosphere, and he's apparently got some pretty big aspirations in radio broadcasting. So why rock the boat? The Rush-bots are unforgiving, you know...one wouldn't want to alienate those bedrock conservatives!

Romney's a respectable choice, no matter what happens. I've supported McCain since he threw his hat in the ring for '08. If he's unsuccessful, I'll be thrilled to back Romney if he emerges as the GOP standard-bearer.

In the meantime, I'm not going to get squishy appeasing any potential right wing enemies. This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. There's a movement to be won!

On to the McCain Revolution!

McCain's Right-Wing Enemies

I've posted a few times on the conservative backlash against GOP frontrunner John McCain (here, here, and here).

Internal ideological divisions are a natural part of the nomination process, but the nastiness this season has nevertheless been unsettling.

Here's Wordsmith's take on developments on the right, from Sparks on the Anvil:

One of the things that has been bugging me of late, is the toxicity on the right....

I am talking about this need amongst conservatives (especially in the blogosphere) to demonize Republicans like John McCain....

I think the anger being expressed by some, is not genuine anger, but vague resentment by those merely regurgitating the mood of the conservative 'sphere. Which leaves conservatives baffled and scratching their heads when someone they anoint as a "true conservative", like Duncan Hunter, turns around and endorses Mike Huckabee (much ridiculed as inept on foreign policy, and derided as a Democrat in sheepdog's clothing). Or how about Fred Thompson's friendship with John McCain, along with the rumors of a McCain endorsement, in the event that Fred endorse anyone at all? Would Ronald Reagan be "conservative enough" for the harsh crowd today, who populate the "angry-as-hell" fellowship of right-wingers (many claiming to be "Reaganites")? How does one rationalize away, the number of prominent military generals who have given their endorsement to McCain's candidacy (most recently, General Norman Schwarzkopf)? Are these all RINOs? Have they "sold us out"? We scratch our heads, not understanding, but I believe this is because we conservatives somewhat live in our own echo chamber, within the blogosphere. 67% support of Fred Thompson amongst bloggers gives us the impression that Fred's got "Joementum"; when in reality, it's McCain who's got the "Joementum" on his side.

The controversy's all over conservative talk radio. Stephen Hayes over at the Weekly Standard offer his take on things:

For two weeks, as the Republican presidential race moved south and he notched important victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, John McCain has been subject to a series of withering attacks from the stars of talk radio and other prominent conservatives.

Hayes rightly notes that McCain brings on a lot of this himself, by openly defying the GOP on some of the most hot-button issues of the day. But check Hayes' discussion of McCain's conservative critics, especially Rush Limbaugh's henchmen, starting with former Senator Rick Santorum:

Like so many McCain critics, Limbaugh turned to former Senator Rick Santorum--"whose conservative credentials are beyond question"--as an expert witness. "I don't hardly agree with him on hardly any issues," Santorum said.

Really? Santorum's lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 88. John McCain's is 82.3. One would suppose there might be some overlap. The difference between a real conservative and a phony one apparently lies in those six points.

Although many others have been as critical of McCain, perhaps no one has been as hypocritical. In 2006, when Santorum was running for reelection, he asked McCain to come to Pennsylvania to campaign on his behalf. When McCain obliged, Santorum put the video on his campaign website, listing it first among "key events" of the year. That's gratitude, Santorum-style.

Other conservative politicians--or former politicians--have taken their anti-McCain arguments to absurd lengths. Take Tom DeLay, for instance, whose K Street pandering led to numerous indictments and contributed greatly to the Republican losses in 2006. The former House majority leader said, without a trace of irony in his voice, that John McCain "has done more to hurt the Republican party than any elected official I know of."
Mark Levin, a longtime confidant of both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who now hosts his own increasingly popular talk show, took the anti-McCain argument a step further on his show last Wednesday. "At this point, anybody who supports John McCain and claims to be a conservative, let me be blunt: You're not a conservative."

Which came as a surprise to Jack Kemp, the ardent supply-sider who was the conservative alternative to George H.W. Bush in 1988. "That's just so preposterous," said Kemp. "I don't agree with McCain on several things. He's gotten right on the economy. He's right on foreign policy. And he's right on the war on terror."

And no doubt a surprise also to Phil Gramm (lifetime ACU rating of 95), whose presidential campaign was endorsed by National Review in 1996. And to Sam Brownback, a stalwart conservative and one of the most outspoken pro-life politicians in America today. And to Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, arguably the most conservative member of the Senate.

"John McCain and I have stood side by side on many issues," Coburn said in endorsing McCain last week. The most important, he added, are "fiscal responsibility" and the "sanctity of human life."

Most of the rank-and-file conservatives supporting McCain point to his leadership on Iraq and his leadership on defense issues. Richard Allen, national security adviser to Ronald Reagan, made this point in an email he sent January 3, the night of the Iowa caucuses, to a small group of longtime conservatives.

I was early on a Fred Thompson supporter, worked with him, thought he would have the capacity to grow to a major force. Won't go into the details, but I was impressed. For all sorts of reasons, I suspect, there has been no policy bloom there. Not an issue of fine character, because that he has--it has to do with policy.

Allen continued:

John McCain is our best and safest choice. Some cannot forgive past transgressions on campaign finance or other matters. But when you stop to reflect on the matter, with whom--among all those out there--are we really going to be more secure, and who has the understanding of BOTH foreign policy issues and national security issues we face? I've spent all my adult life, more than five decades, in these vineyards. They matter to me, as I know they do to all of you. I say it's McCain.

So what if Republican primary voters say it's McCain? Can there be a rapprochement with some of his conservative critics?

Levin, who has been as critical of McCain as anyone, has not ruled out supporting him. "If he does squeak through, I'll have to figure out what I'm going to do about it. We'll see. We'll see."

I doubt Levin will come around to McCain's banner any time soon. He's continued his McCain takedown this with a defense of Mitt Romney's intemperate musings on Iraq benchmarks, over at the National Review (via Memeorandum).

Josh Marshall from the Talking Points Memo provides an overview of the GOP battle as we head to Florida's GOP primary on Tuesday, via YouTube:

I'll have more analysis as events develop.

Hat tip: Metaxupolis

*********

UPDATE: Levin's calling McCain a liar in a post this morning over at National Review, with reference to the Arizona Senator's appearance on Meet the Press this morning:

The hard-driving Tim Russert blew it. He allowed McCain to slip away with his dishonest characterization of Romney's statement, i.e., Romney never said he favored a specific time for withdrawal. McCain read the first part of the quote but not the second part, where Romney would veto a congressional time table. By now, everyone who is carefully following this knows that McCain's allegation is flatly false. The quotes and video the McCain campaign have provided to reporters, and which have been posted on the Corner and elsewhere, do not support McCain's allegation. The liberal AP, New York Times, and writer for Time have all correctly (for once) said that McCain's charge is not supported by the supposed evidence. And yet, McCain and his campaign persist in trying to link Romney to Hillary Clinton with a demonstrably false charge.

I've read those passages closely myself, and frankly, the intpretation can go both ways. Like I said earlier, I'll bet Romney's pinching himself for making those benchmarks statements. McCain saw an opening, seized it, and has won the media cycle.

The McCain campaign may not have gottent that big of a boost out of the dust-up (or the effects remain to be seen), according the the findings from Zogby's Florida GOP running poll:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has drawn even with Arizona Sen. John McCain in the Republican presidential nomination fight in Florida, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby telephone tracking poll shows.

And there is drama in the wings as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has surpassed former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 14% to 13%. Giuliani, who has invested most of his time and campaign treasure into Tuesday’s Florida vote, is finding his support slipping away. In yesterday’s tracking poll, he was in third place.

Nine percent of likely voting Republicans in Florida remained undecided.

This release is the second in a series of three-day tracking polls leading up to Tuesday’s primary. The telephone poll included 814 likely voters and carries a margin of error of +/-3.4 percentage points.

McCain had a slim 32% to 29% lead over Romney among men, while Romney had a 30% to 28% lead among women. More men than women liked Giuliani, with the genders giving him 14% and 11% support respectively. Women, however, liked Huckabee a bit more, as 15% of them said they backed him. Just 13% of men supported Huckabee.

See more analysis at Memeorandum.

Hang Tight on Troop Numbers in Iraq

Kimberly Kagan warns against too rapid a redeployment of troops out of Iraq, at the Wall Street Journal:

The Iraq debate in 2007 focused on whether the new strategy and troop increase could stem violence in Iraq. It did. The Iraq debate in 2008 will probably focus on how much the United States can reduce force levels in Iraq this year in the wake of its success.

Many in these discussions give troop numbers and brigade counts almost casually, without ever explaining how they derive the figures. That's a problem. Any realistic evaluation suggests that returning to pre-surge levels by July 2008, as some are suggesting, carries considerable risk.

Ethno-sectarian attacks and deaths in Baghdad security districts decreased more than 90% from January to December 2007. Iraqi civilian casualties have dropped 75% from their peak, and the number of IED attacks has fallen to the lowest level since October 2004. One brigade of U.S. troops returned home in December without replacement. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates believes that Gen. David Petraeus will recommend continuing the drawdown to 15 brigades.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon, and Gen. Petraeus are now assessing whether to recommend in March a further reduction in troop levels later in 2008. Mr. Gates stated recently that he hopes conditions will permit the U.S. to reduce its combat forces in Iraq by a brigade a month from August to December 2008, leaving a footprint of 10 brigades at the end of the president's term -- the lowest American force level in the country since the 2003 invasion.

In contrast, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, who commands combat forces for Gen. Petraeus, has stated that he is uncomfortable committing to any further reductions below 15 brigades before commanders can assess the effect of the decrease to that force-size. Gen. Petraeus recently said that March 2008 might be too soon to make that determination. War critics have insisted on reductions to 100,000 troops or fewer.

Kagan dicusses the positioning of American brigade combat teams throughout Iraq, and notes how anti-insurgency operations among U.S. forces have given way to training combat-ready units of the Iraqi army. She then notes this:

"Based on all this and the further progress we believe we can achieve over the next few months, I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer, withdrawing one quarter of our combat brigades by that time without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve." Gen. Odierno confirmed in a November press conference that he had recommended that Gen. Petraeus reduce the force to 15 brigades by July, "because I believe that we will be able to continue to move forward with the progress."

Achieving the complement of 15 brigades by summer rests upon Gen. Odierno's judgment that he can withdraw not only the headquarters from Diyala, but also others from Anbar and parts of Baghdad this spring. His assumption is that security will continue to improve at about the rate our commanders think is feasible between now and July, and that the Iraqi Army will grow as predicted.

Kagan suggests this is a risky assumption. The decision to remove troops should be based on military calculations - and a number of provinces in Iraq are still unstable, she argues - and not domestic political pressures.

Is this all about numbers, then?

We're seeing tremendous security cooperation on the ground in Iraq, the finer points of which are not being reported to the American public with great regularity.

The fifteen brigade indice equals 75,000 troops. The Odierno number is a bit lower than the 80 to 100,000 Max Boot suggested in his recent, careful analysis of troop withdrawal scenarios.

Anything below this level - even with continued progress on the ground - would jeopardize the progress in transitioning to Iraqi military control, and place the remaining U.S. forces at greater risk.

Republicans Have it Hard

Gloria Borger says that these are tough times for Republicans:

It's hard to be a Republican these days. While Democrats are pleased with their crop of presidential candidates and energized by them, you're unsure and unenthusiastic. You're not eager to go to the polls and vote because you can't even decide which box to check. You used to feel inspired and at home with the ideals and ideas offered by your leaders; now you can't find one fellow who has it all. It's way past Ronald Reagan in the GOP, and about to be post-George W. Bush. So who's your daddy?

It's a question Republicans can't seem to answer. In the early primary and caucus states, GOP voters made only one thing clear: They're searching. Like the proverbial blind man and the elephant, they find presidential attributes in different places, yet they can't come upon the whole picture. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's I'm-fighting-for-the-little-guy economic populism and faith-based homilies can be appealing. John McCain's fierce independence and national security credentials are impressive. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's can-do CEO experience is part of a great résumé. Or maybe Rudy Giuliani is the tough boss America needs.

Way back when (last summer), the Republican establishment was looking at TV star and former Sen. Fred Thompson as the guy who might rescue the party from any messiness. Trouble was, while he looked like a president, he campaigned as if he were running for a part-time job. So the establishment went back on the hunt for Mr. October.

But there was no natural. If this were the Democratic Party, that would be just fine, because it's the way things have always worked. But these are Republicans, and they're not used to such brawling. Sure, it was messy in 1976 when Ronald Reagan unsuccessfully challenged incumbent President Gerald Ford, but that all got resolved nicely when Reagan ran and won four years later. And Republicans started having succession contests rather than long-lasting battles, because they were happy. The GOP establishment cheerfully—if not always successfully—nominated the next guy in line for his turn to become president. Only this year, two things are different: McCain is the only one who has been waiting (since he ran in 2000), and there is no unified GOP establishment to anoint him. And while he has a bunch of key supporters in early states, it probably won't guarantee him much of anything except some organization, a few nice press conferences, and a bunch of votes. Not victory.

Borger notes that things might be a little easier for the party if the GOP had a stronger record of accomplishment.

But her main items of record are an unpopular war and the Democratic takeover of the Congress in 2006. But as it stands now, we're winning in Iraq and the Democratic congressional majority suffers from lower approval ratings than President Bush.

If John McCain can win the Florida primary next Tuesday, the GOP can finally rally around a clear frontrunner and begin to make the case why Republicans deserve four more years.

McCain Pulling Out in Florida

The latest Zogby tracking poll on the Florida GOP primary has John McCain pulling back into the lead heading into Tuesday's primary:

Arizona Sen. John McCain holds a small 31% to 28% lead over rival Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, with others well back, the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby telephone tracking poll in Florida shows. The contest is the first in which former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has campaigned intently, but he lags in a distant third place with 15% support. Iowa Caucus winner Mike Huckabee is fourth with 10% support.

McCain leads Romney among men, 33% to 27%, with Giuliani at 18%. Among women, Romney holds a tiny 29% to 28% edge, with Giuliani and Huckabee tied at 12%. Ron Paul dominates among Florida Republicans under age 30, but McCain leads among those age 30-49. McCain and Romney are tied among those age 50-64, but Romney holds the edge among those age 65 and older.

McCain leads among moderate Republicans, is tied with Romney among mainline conservatives, while Romney leads among those who consider themselves “very conservative.” McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are bunched at the top among those who consider themselves Born Again, while Romney leads among those who are not. McCain leads among Catholics.

It's certainly close.

McCain may have gained a one day advantage today, however. Not only did he win today's media spin cycle by putting Romney on the defense on national security, Florida Governor Charlie Crist endorsed the Arizona Senator, throwing another top member of the Sunshine State's GOP political establishment onto the Straight Talk Express bandwagon.

Chris Cillizza dicusses the situation:

Even as the political class was digesting the news of Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) overwhelming victory in South Carolina's Democratic primary, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) scored the endorsement of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) - a major development in advance of the Sunshine State's Tuesday primary.

"I don't know anybody would do better than the man who stands next to me -- Senator John McCain," said Crist at a campaign rally in Pinellas County. "That's an endorsement."

McCain called it an "honor and privilege" to win the endorsement of the popular Crist.

In endorsing McCain, Crist follows in the footsteps of Sen. Mel Martinez, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Martinez formally endorsed McCain yesterday.

First elected in 2006, Crist continues to enjoy strong job approval ratings. A recent Strategic Vision survey showed 60 percent of voters approving of the job Crist has done with just 33 percent disapproving.

The twin endorsements come as independent polling shows Florida to be a two-way race between McCain and former governor Mitt Romney. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has cast Florida as the firewall of his late-starting campaign, runs a distant third.

Regular Fix readers know we tend to be skeptical of the impact of a single endorsement in a presidential contest. And, we stick by that skepticism. But, Crist's endorsement of McCain will likely make the front page of every newspaper in the state tomorrow -- a nice bump of free press for the Arizona Senator just forty eight hours before Floridians vote. (Kudos to the McCain team who timed Crist's endorsement just as all the cable networks were analyzing the Obama victory - ensuring that any person even remotely interested in politics who had tuned in would catch the news.)

In a race as tight as polls suggest Florida will be, every little bit helps. And, while Romney will almost certainly pooh-pooh the importance of this endorsement, make no mistake: he would have loved to be standing next to Crist at that podium tonight.

Don't forget that McCain still holds a substantial lead nationally in public opinion polling. A win Tuesday will finally cement McCain's tentative frontrunner position once and for all.

Barack Obama Wins South Carolina Primary

Barack Obama handily defeated Hillary Clinton in South Carolina's Democratic primary this evening. The Washington Post has the story:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama won the South Carolina primary in a landslide Saturday, attracting a biracial coalition and giving his candidacy a much-needed boost as the Democratic presidential race moves toward a 22-state showdown on Feb. 5.

Obama trounced New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the first southern primary of the 2008 campaign, with former North Carolina senator John Edwards finishing third. After a bitter and racially charged campaign in which former president Bill Clinton became the center of controversy, Obama won with overwhelming support from African Americans, but also attracted roughly a quarter of the white vote, according to exit polling.

Obama's big victory margin means the battle for the Democratic nomination continues without a clear front-runner. Obama and Clinton have now split the first four contests of the campaign and the candidates face the possibility of an extended conflict that aides in both campaigns said Saturday could stretch into March or even April.

Clinton currently leads in a number of the biggest states with contests on Feb. 5, including California and New York, and her campaign has predicted that she will emerge from the competition that day with a lead in convention delegates. Obama has set his sights on winning more states than Clinton on Feb. 5 and in preventing her from jumping into a big lead in the battle for delegates.

Clinton's campaign had anticipated a loss in South Carolina and sought throughout the week to play down the significance of the vote here. But the size of Obama's victory margin was far larger than her advisers or any pre-primary poll had anticipated, as Obama demonstrated an ability to energize his supporters on a day when turnout appeared likely to break the previous record for a Democratic primary.

Clinton left the state shortly after the polls closed and issued a written statement in which she congratulated Obama. But she signaled the fierce battle ahead by saying, "We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the twenty-two states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5th."

"He won fair and square," Bill Clinton told supporters in Missouri Saturday night.

Edwards, who won South Carolina four years ago, appeared to capitalize on the bickering between the Clinton and Obama, winning nearly half of the white voters who made up their minds in the final three days. But after three consecutive third-place finishes, he now must decide whether continuing his candidacy will result in him becoming a potential powerbroker or a spoiler.

Read the rest.

Obama captured the state's black vote decisively. But the Illinois Senator also secured significant white support, as did Senator Edwards.

I just finished watching Obama's victory speech. For all the talk about Obama as a new Democrat, with a vision for a rejuvenated 21st-century politics, his speech offered a tremendously class-driven, populist appeal, likely to divide the country more than unite it. He called for the immediate end to the war in Iraq - coded antiwar language for an immediate troop withdrawal, precisely when military and political developments are at their best since March 2003.

His supporters, I must say, seemed to rock the decibel-meter more so than any victory speech I've seen this year. Maybe I just have the volume set a bit high. It sure seemed that the energy was just pumping out of the auditorium.

Obama gained what he needed most going forward: momentum. He'll see a surge in contributions next week, and a priceless rush of earned media, as his visage's further splashed acrossed newspapers, magazines, and TV news shows around the country following this Palmetto State breakthrough.

Hillary Clinton still leads decisively in national public opinion, of course. Her post-New Hampshire comeback faced a hiccup with this first Southern primary. February 5 is will probably be the most important "Super Tuesday" in the history of American presidential primaries.

Romney Supported Quitting Iraq!

The GOP contest in Florida is getting hot, with the latest flare-up over Mitt Romney's evident and controversial backing last year of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq (via YouTube):

Here's more on the story, from CNN:

A fired up Mitt Romney demanded John McCain apologize Saturday for recently saying the former Massachusetts governor had once supported a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq – part of the latest back and forth between the two Republican candidates leading up to the crucial Florida primary.

"I don't know why he's being dishonest," Romney told reporters in Lutz, Florida. "But that's dishonest. To say that I have a specific date is simply wrong and is dishonest and he should apologize. That is not the case, I’ve never said that."

Campaigning earlier in Fort Myers on Saturday, McCain said, "In the conflict that we’re in, I’m the only one that said we have to abandon the Rumsfeld strategy and Rumsfeld and adopt a new strategy. Gov Romney wanted to set a date for withdrawal, similar to what the democrats are seeking which would have led to the victory by al Qaeda in my view.”

McCain has suggested for days that Romney once supported a timetable for withdrawal, though he only recently began naming the Massachusetts Republican by name.

The Arizona senator later rebuked Romney's calls for an apology, at an event in Sun City.

"I think the apology is owed to the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform that we will not let them down in hard times and good," he said. "That is who the apology is owed to."

In his press conference with reporters, Romney also suggested McCain was trying to shift voters' focus away from the economy — an issue that would seem to favor the former business executive.

"I know he's trying desperately to change the topic from the economy and trying to get back to Iraq. But to say something that’s not accurate is simply wrong and he knows better," Romney said.

On Friday, McCain's campaign circulated the transcript of an interview from April, in which Romney seemed to support a private timetable.

Hot Air's got a post up on this, which includes a retaliatory smear against McCain, suggesting the Arizona Senator favored timetables as well (although the news article cited highlights McCain's "sense of the Senate" resolution from January 2007, which considered benchmarks as a contingency to the strategy shift of increased troop numbers under General David Petraeus). More McCain demonization?

See also my previous post, "Battleground Florida: GOP Race is Dead Heat."

Don't forget the campaign coverage at Memeorandum and Michelle Malkin.

**********

UPDATE: Jonathan Martin at The Politico says that McCain - after enduring talk of the economy for days - successful put Romney on the defensive with a shift of focus to Iraq:

The easiest way for John McCain to get the campaign back on the national security turf he wants to fight it on?

Hammer Romney on the topic.

That's what he did today....

Romney was probably right about the first part of what he said -- and it appears that McCain succeded in doing so.

After days of letting Romney essentially define the debate and drive his economy message, the McCain folks won a news cycle the old-fashioned way: They had their candidate make news.

For an evenhanded analysis of the dust-up, see "McCain's Conversation Changer: A Misleading Low Blow, at Time:

McCain wants the Florida primary to be an election about national security, his best issue. But until Saturday, the contest was humming along as an election more about the economy, Mitt Romney's best issue. So McCain went on the attack Saturday, lashing out at Romney by accusing him of having once wanted to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

''Now, one of my opponents wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster,'' McCain said about Romney, at a stop in Fort Myers. Then McCain added, "If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher."

When told of the comments, Romney got visibly testy. ''That's dishonest, to say that I have a specific date. That's simply wrong,'' Romney said at a stop outside Tampa. "To say something that's not accurate is simply wrong, and he knows better."

Romney demanded an apology from McCain, which seemed to simply delight McCain, since he used it to escalate the war of words even higher. "I think the apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform," McCain said. Then his campaign started sending out a blizzard of emails, including comments from former CIA director James Woolsey knocking Romney's support for the war.

After reviewing what Romney actually said, here's the final take on McCain:

McCain says that he thinks this amounts to Romney supporting a drop-dead deadline for withdrawing troops. But that's not what happened. A more fair reading of the exchange shows that Romney was instead talking about private benchmarks that would allow Bush and Maliki to measure success or failure. In fact, Romney says flat out that he would veto any bill from Congress that contained such a timetable for withdrawal.

But even if Romney had explicitly supported withdrawal, what exactly does McCain mean by demanding that Romney apologize to American troops? Is McCain suggesting than any American who opposed the surge was somehow not supporting American troops? Is he saying that it is unpatriotic to debate American policy in Iraq? It sure sounds like it. And it is an unbecoming posture for McCain, who has been boasting in recent days about the "respectful debate" he would have with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Barack Obama should he win the nomination.

Well, I would add that if it can be shown, by parsing Romney's words, that he indeed supported pulling the troops, then he'd be more closely aligned to the Democrats and foreign policy. He really would need to apologize in that case.

In fairness, though, I think Romney's views on foreign policy are among the best of any of the candidates this year, of either party.

Whatever you might think, McCain won this round.

Battleground Florida: GOP Race is Dead Heat

Here's this GOP election update, just in from Florida, from Jennifer Rubin at Commentary:

The latest Florida poll has McCain with a narrow lead and, in a sure sign the race is close, my in-box is fillling up with nastygrams from the Romney camp focusing on McCain’s un-Republican leanings. The most telling part of today’s poll is Rudy’s number: 15 perecent. As that number decreases (a function of the bandwagon effect and perhaps Mel Martinez’ endorsement of McCain) expect McCain’s to rise.

It is worth exploring how critical Florida is and for whom it is a “must win.” Despite pledges he would continue on, it is hard to see how Rudy, whose numbers are already dropping in February 5 states, would remain viable after a Florida loss. For Romney, a loss here would leave Michigan as his only win in a contested state and deprive him of a needed boost going into February 5, where he must take on both McCain and Huckabee, who remains a threat in Red states. Things would look grim. But, just as he soldiered on after New Hampshire and Iowa, he would have no reason to give up. (Romney said just that today.) McCain, who now is building leads in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, could survive a close loss in Florida. However, the last thing he wants is to do is revive criticisms that he cannot win in a closed primary and set up a coast-to-coast battle with an opponent who has seemingly unlimited funds. So, on balance, Rudy is the only one who must win, Romney needs it very badly and McCain would sure prefer not to lose.

That point about Romney, that he's only won one contested state is significant. His money's keeping in the game, not popular support. Indeed, as Ann Althouse notes, there's "a sense that Romney's hilariously uncool."

Here's some news from the trail, at the Caucus blog.

The McCain Revolution!

Peter Wallison's got an interesting article discussing the search for a new Ronald Reagan this primary season. Maybe our savior's right under out noses, in Senator John McCain.

From the American Spectator:

Apparently dissatisfied with their presidential choices, Republicans are asking, "Why don't we have another Ronald Reagan?" But if we think seriously about what made Ronald Reagan a great leader and a great president, we may find that there's a reasonable facsimile hiding in plain sight. John McCain, although he has failed to toe the line of conservative orthodoxy, has many of the characteristics that the American people admired in Ronald Reagan, including the key elements that made him a successful president. In fact, given his electability, McCain offers a rare chance for conservatives to recapture the essence of the Reagan revolution.

The similarities between Reagan and McCain begin with their extraordinary attachment to principle. Reagan never altered his views about Communism, the Soviet Union or the importance of shrinking the government, and it was this quality that made him a successful president. Washington is a city where everything is negotiable. In this world, a president with actual principles has a unique attribute -- credibility. When Reagan stayed the course on tax cuts, despite high interest rates and a weak economy in 1982, he was relying on his principles. When John McCain said, in supporting the surge in Iraq, he would "rather lose an election than lose a war," he is demonstrating the same attachment to principle that animated Ronald Reagan. And this firmness will give him the same credibility in Washington that Reagan enjoyed.

A second similarity is their view of the United States and its role in the world. Reagan, as we recall, described America as a shining city on a hill. What he meant by this was that the United States is an exceptional nation -- "the last best hope of earth," in Lincoln's words. This is the foundation of an aggressive foreign policy, respectful of other nations but ultimately doing what is necessary to defeat the enemies of peace and freedom. Thus, Reagan's foreign policy -- much to the chagrin of our European allies -- was the opposite of the accommodationist approach followed by his predecessors in dealing with the Soviet Union; as he summarized it: "We win; they lose." McCain sees the United States in the same way, having served in its armed forces, borne years of torture in its behalf, fought for a stronger military, and promised to follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell." He wants to defeat our next great enemy, Islamofascism, not live with it, just as Reagan refused to accept the Soviet Union as a permanent fixture on the international scene.

Wallison makes a good case, and his words here capture some of the most important elements of McCain's candidacy explaining my backing. He notes, for example, that Republican presidents after Reagan increased government spending - against McCain's opposition, as he led conservative demands in Congress for spending restraint!

But note this as well, regarding the conservative backlash to McCain:

The Reagan coalition is still out there, a majority of Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents -- who believe that the size of government and its role in the economy should be reduced. Through the aggressive use of the veto pen, McCain has promised restore this essential element of Reagan's vision. Why should disaffected conservatives believe this? Because John McCain is like Ronald Reagan in the most significant respect of all: he is an authentic person, not a confection designed by consultants. Reagan, as his diary shows (as if we needed further proof), wanted to be president for a purpose -- as a real person would -- not simply to hold the office. He had a consistent and firmly held set of views that he intended to pursue as president. McCain's straight talk is popular because it's the way real people talk to one another, not the coddling way today's politicians present themselves to us. So when John McCain said, after his victory in South Carolina, that he was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution and is running for president "not to be something, but to do something" he was making clear that on a range of issues -- from defending the nation to reducing the size of government -- he would bring a new vitality to the Reagan revolution.

I hope irate conservatives will finally get it at some point.

But we all need to remember this as well: We'll never have another Reagan. What we need is a candidate who's got the experience and values to lead the country at both home and abroad, amid our current circumstance. McCain's the one for the GOP in 2008.

Ideological Positions of the Candidates

Probably the biggest meme going around right now is that John McCain's just a bleeding-heart liberal, no better than Hillary Clinton.

Of course it's not true. Folks are entitled to their views, of course, but for many brain-addled, anti-McCain talk-radio Rush-bots, there's little of practical reason that might break through the prejudice.

But I'll make a stab anyway: Take a look at this chart, from Andrew Kohut, over at the New York Times. I just love this graphic!!!

I'm getting a kick out of it, mainly because this is Political Science 101. I draw this image on the chalkboard every semester when I cover political ideologies, particularly during classrooom discussions on the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Although it's quite common for people to chant, in exasperation, "there's not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties," in truth the American political parties offer dramatically different ideological orientations and policy programs. The U.S. does not have a tradition of multiparty democracy and true radicalism, as in European history. But our distinct culture of individualism and markets is often challenged quite vigrorously by left-wing preferences for expansive governmental intervention (i.e., the Great Society), and more recently by the upsurge of postmodern leftism following the cultural and rights revolutions in the 1960s.

But look at the graph: For all the fulminations against McCain and Huckabee and the alleged threat they pose to the GOP, it's interesting that the median voter clumps McCain, Huckabee, and Mitt Romney all together - nice and neat - on the right of the spectrum (hint: the right wing's conservative folks). Indeed, Huck's further to the right than is Mitt Romney, to whom many conservatives gravitated following the withdrawal of Fred ("Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act") Thompson.

We need to send some talk radio hosts back to school!

But what's even more important is that John McCain's position on the right of the scale rests closer the country's media voter, and hence the hypothesis from this spatial model is that while he's conservative, he's more likely to capture moderate-to-liberal voters in a general election matchup against the eventual Democratic nominee.

Here's what Kohut says about John McCain's ideological placement, and his general election electability:

In a national Pew survey conducted in January, voters were asked to judge the political ideology of President Bush and each of the leading Republican and Democratic candidates. While President Bush, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were placed on the far right end of the ideological scale, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani fell in the middle — where voters placed themselves. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were considered liberal — and placed about as far to the left of voters as President Bush was to the right.

The same poll found that independents like Senator McCain better than other candidates from both parties. Sixty-five percent of independent voters expressed a favorable opinion of the Arizona senator. Almost as many independents rated Senator Obama favorably (59 percent), but only 4 in 10 of independents gave Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Romney, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Huckabee a positive rating. And keep in mind that independents have been deciding the winner in recent presidential elections....

All other things being equal, Senator McCain appears to be the G.O.P. candidate best able to run a competitive race against the Democrats in the fall. But the challenge for any Republican will be to appeal to the conservative.

I mean no disrespect with this analysis, although I can hear some conservative whiners now? "Oh, Kohut's just a liberal," or "don't listen to those MSM lies."

Such responses (or others, likely to be less diplomatic) are emotional, and hence irrational.

I commented on this today in my earlier post, "Conservative Fears in Election '08":

A few previously respectable conservative commenters here have frankly become unhinged at the prospect of McCain securing the GOP nomination.

But I hope this post clarifies the point for those who are confused.

John McCain's compromised on some big issues of public policy, often reaching across the aisle to legislate with some of the most reviled big-spending Democrats in Congress. We can question that bipartisanship - and McCain can be criticized for excessive pragmatism - but this tendency alone doesn't make him a liberal.

The Democrats' Worst Nightmare

Recall my previous post, where I indicated that John McCain's far and away the most electable candidate in public opinion polling. The Democrats aren't thrilled, as this new McCain ad points out (from YouTube):

See also Peggy Noonan's new column on the conservative crackup, "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do" (via Memeorandum).