McCain Gains as Immigration Issue Cools Down

John McCain's controversial relationship to the national immigration debate has been Topic A around here the last couple of days (here and here).

Thus, this morning's Wall Street Journal article, "McCain Gains as Furor Over Immigration Cools," caught my eye. The piece notes that as tensions over immigration have settled down, McCain's prospects have improved:

Six months ago, when Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign was left for dead at the side of the road to the White House, he seemed to have perished because he was in the wrong place on two important issues: Iraq and immigration.

Today, as Republican voters go to the polls in Florida to determine whether Sen. McCain has become the clear favorite to win the Republican nomination, it is worth considering how things have turned around. On Iraq, the about-face is easy to explain: Things got better on the ground there, and Sen. McCain's support for the war and a new strategy for fighting it now looks more like wisdom than stubbornness.

But what about immigration? There, the answer is more subtle. In fact, immigration is a case study in how changing circumstances can alter the way a hot issue plays in a campaign. Sen. McCain was in trouble because his support for immigration reform, including a guest-worker program and a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants, appeared out of step with a Republican base that had turned hostile to the immigration overhaul.

Now a combination of factors -- the disappearance of the issue from Washington's legislative agenda; Sen. McCain's own quiet shift in posture; the rise of other concerns -- have helped damp the fires of anger on immigration. Today's vote will show how those forces have worked in Hispanic-heavy Florida, and Sen. McCain's foes may yet choose to turn up the heat on the immigration debate as they try to overtake him. But for now it appears that immigration, while a burning question for some Republicans, isn't the top issue for most of them.

Well, it might not be a top issue for middle-of-the-road GOPers, but don't tell that to Michelle Malkin or Rush Limbaugh.

See also the Florida campaign roundup over at The Caucus, plus Memeorandum.

John McCain and the Irrational Right

In yesterday's post, John McCain, the Irrational Right, and the Politics of Immigration Control, I provided a critical analysis of the McCain campaign's controversial hiring of Dr. Juan Hernandez as Latino Outreach Coordinator.

The entry generated some emotional remarks and exchanges in the comment thread.

But readers should remember, first and foremost, I disagree with the Hernandez appointment: "McCain's made a big mistake, at least in terms of courting the secure-borders conservative base." I think it's a gamble to rile the party's base, even if the campaign's adopted a strategic perspective of appealing to particular demographic constituencies in the primaries.

That said, none of the commenters has presented sufficient evidence to discount my hypothesis. Indeed, a couple of folks have remarked that the thread itself is evidence of an irrational, even hysterical right-wing echo chamber - and geez, I'm trying to raise the quality of debate!!

In any case, I'm responding here to some of the points raised, particularly the concerns over (1) the notion of "the irrational right" among the conservative base, (2) the candidates' records on immigration and other areas of public policy, and (3) issues of credibility and honesty.

Let me remind folks right off the bat that I'm a neoconservative Republican, and my ultimate goal this year is GOP retention of the White House. I'm just deeply disappointed with the decline in the quality of debate among conservatives, and I've expressed my thoughts to that effect on at least two occasions (here and here).

Some regular commenters have hammered me personally because of my McCain posts, for example, attacking me as a "Democrat" or "calling me out" with virtual threats for reporting critically on the GOP race.

Truth be told, I'm having a great time!

Since December, when John McCain began his comeback to the current frontrunner's position, I've been consistently accurate in my analysis, and I've also posted continuously on polling trends throughout.

I have refused to attack any of the candidates, focusing primarily on developments on the McCain trail. As a bonus, my productivity has resulted in a record number of over 130 post this month so far, and I've been frequently linked in national media and by some top conservative bloggers on the web. I must be doing something right, and thanks to all my readers and commenters!

Now, first let me address this issue of the "irrational right." I'm using the term irrational precisely, that is, as the absence of reason or careful analysis. I have most certainly not called anyone a "bigot," although that term came up in the comments yesterday.

No, many conservative have become blinded by their IDEOLOGICAL PREJUDICES, which has prevented them from thinking clearly. On talk radio, and among popular conservative bloggers, John McCain's been relentlessly demonized. These atttacks are juvenile and shamelessly undignified. I think we are better than that as a movement, and I'm not the only one.

Check the recent discussion of the conservatives' descent over at Opinionnation, "Conservatives Acting Like Left-Wing Lunatics":

John McCain is a true American hero; a great American. Yet, because his stance on certain issue differ from those of many conservatives, the man is ostracized and childishly attacked. -Almost no different than what the far-left did to senator Lieberman for his opinions in favor of the war in Iraq. It sickens me to be associated with a group of people sharing such a hateful group-think against a prominent republican like senator McCain.

And just like leftist internet blogs, when I visit major conservative websites like Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, or LGF, the comment section is inundated with vile slanders against the character of John McCain. Worse yet, the blogsite owners, as with the case of Daily Kos or Crooks and Liars, are instigating the hatred. All of this simply because the man doesn’t toe every single conservative line. And in that regard, these types of conservatives are no different than far-left liberals.

If you disagree with John McCain on certain issues… fine! Disagree. There’s no problem there. But if conservatives want to act like Left-Wing lunatics… then I’m going to point it out. -But the MDS (McCain Derangement Syndrome) has to stop. The man is a patriot who deserves respect; not a bunch of fuckin’ insults from whiny conservatives!!!

Opinionnation makes a critical point: We on the right have consistently identified and denounced left-wing irrationalism and moonbattery among the wildly radical "nutroots."

I think conservatives are better, frankly, on the issues, and in matters of class.

But others on the right are also speaking out at the descent of the right into irrationality:

This evening when I was watching Brett Baier’s excellent interview with President Bush I suddenly understood what is going on between the lemming conservatives lead by their narcissistic demagogues in talk radio, punditry, and in the blogsphere and John McCain....

No matter how hard our demagogue conservatives have tried to destroy George W. Bush he is still the same Texas Cowboy....

But – the vitriol, the treachery, and the abject cruelty that conservatives, those who claim to be part of his own party have exhibited is disgustingly immoral at best....

They have become increasingly shrill and increasingly cruel in their attacks upon anyone who dares to oppose them....

Somehow reason must be brought into play here. Somehow these individuals must be made to see that their actions are endangering not only a GOP victory in the fall, but the very course our nation is following. If their actions were not so treacherous and so dangerous, they would be almost humorous. Alone, they are nothing but a handful of annoying fleas on the tushie of the Great Elephant. Together, they are an uncompromising swarm of vermin that must be controlled or we will all suffer what could be catastrophic consequences.

The most perfect, beautiful irony here is these narcissistic demagogue talk show hosts are leading us down a path of defeat that will eventually lead to their own demise....

An agenda of hate and vitriol ultimately leads to destruction....

Michelle Malkin has taken vile, vitriolic, cruel, mendacious, prevaricating, hate and slander to a new low. She has evolved into a far right attack maven whose leash is held by her intellectual betters. Unfortunately they are the very worst example of what humanity has to offer, re-acquainting us with scenarios that all moral people everywhere swore would “Never Again” be allowed to happen. Once crossed, she does not stop until the object of her ire is utterly and completely vanquished.

Hugh Hewitt, a once acceptable conservative thinker and writer has turned into a two-bit, manipulative canard spewing hack. Before this election season is over his credibility will be compromised, hopefully forever.

Laura Ingraham, sporting an excellent FOX News make-over is a shrill, unbending, advocate of an extreme version of conservative values that allows no room for human frailty or vulnerability.

Ann Coulter is not worth mentioning aside from that fact that the conservative establishment has so fawned over her completely unacceptable and malicious remarks that now everyone in her little world thinks that it is acceptable to ape her atrocious behavior.

Sean Hannity is all over the place with his conservative ideology. The only center he has is the fact that he really doesn’t consider himself Republican.

Mark Levin is rapacious, petty, and completely lacking logic as he completely defames John McCain while building up the false resume of Mitt Romney.

I think that is the real problem. The conservatives we are dealing with, those who follow Rush Limbaugh and lack the courage to speak out against his increasingly irrational hatred of John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Once against hard-line immigration, Limbaugh has done an about face, and has adopted Michelle Malkin’s increasingly cruel and vindictive methods. Anyone who disagrees with NumbersUSA and FAIR must be destroyed to the point of abject annihilation. Only those who have pure conservative ideology must be allowed to survive.

I have also called to account (here and here) the "Malkinites" and the "Rush-bots" for their unprincipled, intemperate attacks. I've suggested that those who now hold themselves as purists of the movement are indeed working for the death of the GOP. (I hope I'm wrong, but so far this election season I've been accurate in my analysis. Check back here in November for an update in case of a GOP collapse.)

The irrational right's backlash against McCain seeks more than winning the nomination for a favorite candidate: We're see nothing less than an attempt at the complete and utter destruction of the Arizona Senator (see Malkin's new, foaming attack on the GOP frontrunner).

Now, I must say that Mike, from Mike's America, made a decent stab at analysis in the comments. I appreciate the feedback, although I take exception (as noted) to the idea that the notion of the "irrational right" is tantamount to calling McCain critics bigots. This I have not done, so it's an unfair attack.

Besides that, with all due respect, Mike makes an emotional case that illegal alien families with anchor babies are making out better than most legal Americans. Who knows if they are - all Mike's offered are anecdotes? Besides, such questions are better focused not on John McCain but the federal government and the state legislatures, who determine the rules for WIC recipient payouts.

Mike also, unfortunately, resorts to the common - but lazy - tactic of calling the Bush immigration reform "amnesty." If there was ever a term designed to incite the irrational right's talk radio audiences, this is it. But it's not analysis, frankly.

The bill contained three main elements: a workable visa program for immigrant laborers, increased border and workplace enforcement, and a large-scale earned legalization program for illegal aliens already in the U.S.

Immigration experts consider a feasible combination of these measures a prerequisite for reform, although last year's debate showed that border enforcement must come first politically. Tamar Jacoby, one of the country's top immigration experts, in residence at the neoconservative Manhattan Institute, discussed the imperative of legalization in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs:

The third leg of the comprehensive vision - legalizing the illegal immigrants already here - is the most controversial, and without it, reform legislation would undoubtedly pass much more easily. But this, too, is an essential ingredient. It makes no sense to build a new immigration policy on an illegal foundation; neither new quotas nor new enforcement will stick as long as there are 12 million illegal immigrants living and working in the country.

Some opponents of reform insist that the government deport these unauthorized residents. Others maintain that more strenuous law enforcement would persuade them to leave voluntarily, by making it difficult or impossible for them to work, secure loans, attend school, or obtain driver's licenses. In fact, neither of these approaches is likely to succeed. Many of these people have lived in the United States for years, if not decades. Many own homes and businesses and have given birth to children who, because they were born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. A drive to deport them would cost billions and strike much of the public as unacceptably draconian. As for an attrition strategy, it would only drive immigrants further underground, deeper into the arms of smugglers and document forgers.

The only practical solution is to give these unauthorized workers and their families a way to earn their way onto the right side of the law. This should be done not just for their sake but also because it is the only way to restore the integrity of the immigration code, bring the underground economy onto the tax rolls, and eliminate the potential security threat posed by millions of illegal immigrants whose real names no one knows and who have never undergone security checks.

Michael Medved also offered a powerful takedown of the amnesty slur in a recent column.

Jacoby and Medved, of course, will be attacked hysterically as immigration sellouts by the Rush-bots. But, as I've said, emotional appeals on the neighborhood dislocation from unchecked immigration do not disconfirm the facts of the 2007 reform bill's earned legalization particulars.

Finally, one of the main charges raised in the comments is that McCain's a liar and can't be trusted. Yet, unsurprisingly, no one's provided hard evidence or substantiation on that point.

I consider McCain a man of virtue. He'll play political hardball, sure, but his record in Congress is one of principled stands on the issues - indeed, his "maverick" reputation's one of the main charges against him as not being a true conservative.

Not only that, McCain opponents suffer from a serious double-standard. Take supporters of Mitt Romney, for example. At least one Romney backer here as called me to account for McCain's alleged lies, with no evidence, of course. But what about Romney? Is he beyond reproach?

In an interview on Meet the Press, December 16, 2007, Romney argued in favor of the Bush administration's immigration reform bill:

...my view is that those 12 million who've come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here...

Read the whole passage.

Clearly Romney indicates support for some measure of legalization. Thus, it's drastically hypocritical to pillory John McCain for working to amend the nation's failed immigration system while backing an illegal alien-enabling governor who supported the very same program!

But what about honesty? Is Romney more truthful a candidate than John McCain?

A McCain ad currently running in Florida media markets shows Romney not only flip-flopping on his record, but patently denying he's ever switched position on the issues. Isn't that lying? Where's the outrage among the Romney backers? Talk about the unprincipled (irrational) right?

Not only that, a look at Romney's tenure of Governor of Massachusetts reveals a record of - honestly - sheer hypocrisy. This is a man who employed illegal immigration landscapers for over a decade. Let's stress that: OVER A DECADE.

One can argue that he hired the firm, not the workers, right? But this is a ten-year pattern of lawbreaking by a man who claims to have the experience and integrity to run the executive branch of the United States!

American business leaders see Romney as pushing a fundamentally dishonest record on taxes during his Massachusetts administration:

Mitt Romney's Harvard MBA and gold-plated resume convinced many business leaders he would follow in the tradition of corporate-friendly Republicans when he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002.

Within three years, some had a vastly different opinion, after Romney's efforts raised the tax bill on businesses by $300 million as part of a multifaceted plan to eliminate a state budget deficit estimated from $2.5 billion to $3 billion.

Romney, who is now running for president declaring he never raised taxes as governor, says he merely closed "loopholes" in the tax code. Business leaders see things differently.

"These certainly were tax increases and a new source of revenue for the commonwealth," said Brian Gilmore, executive vice president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the state's largest business lobbying group.

"His indicating that he balanced a budget without raising taxes is misleading at best," Gilmore added. "We respectfully disagree."

In the GOP primary race in Florida, a major state business association has graded the candidates on business friendliness, assigning Romney a grade of "D-":

The Republican Primary Endorsement of the South Florida Newsletter for Business Growth goes to Sen. John McCain. It is his program that best serves South Florida businesses and American businesses in general....

John McCain A+

Based on his 25 year consistent record of fighting wasteful spending, the fact that his economic program is innovative and hits on all major economic issues facing America and the fact that he is uniquely able to achieve passage of his program through Congress. The other candidates may have some good ideas, but if they have no realistic way of seeing them enacted their programs become of little value....

Mitt Romney D-

If Gov. Romney were to have championed a conservative economic course, we would have examined the merits of the program and graded it accordingly. Likewise, if Romney had championed a liberal economic course, we would have examined the merits of the program and graded it accordingly.

Instead the Gov. has been all over the place. The same man who just last year proposed criminalization of refusal to carry health insurance in his own state has now campaigned as a nouveau economic conservative. Of course, that was until he went to Michigan, where he again switched back to an economically liberal position, one that involved bailouts that seem unlikely to be sustainable.

His economic “positions” seem to change from state to state and from one debate to the next. This kind of grandstanding is simply not worthy of comment and certainly cannot be analyzed.

It also must be noted that the economic experience he touts does not work in his favor. Romney has a record of merging companies, something that may benefit a particular corporation, but that generally involves laying off workers. In any case, it has nothing to do with promotion of general economic growth.

It is not my goal to take down any candidate.

But the information is available to make an accurate and fair comparison between the current GOP frontrunners. As the Boston Herald pointed out a few weeks back...

John McCain has over 25 years of conservative experience in Congress; Romney served four years as governor of one of the country's most liberal states.

McCain's a war hero. He volunteered for combat duty. He was held prisoner of war in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” for 6 years. He refused to cave on his principles for early release; Romney saved the Olympics.

McCain received a 90 percent rating from the Americans for Tax Reform in 2005, and and 80 percent rating in 2006; Romney raised the state's gas tax and got a C grade from the libertarian Cato Institute.

Read the whole thing.

In closing, I want to remind readers that I deeply admire Mitt Romney - and I'll back him eagerly and forcefully should he win the primary.

In the interest of maintaining a unified party, that's the least I should do. More importantly, I will not demonize any candidate - we have no enemies on the right (excepting Ron Paul, of course, who's not genuinely Republican).

I would expect - out of fairness and principle - McCain opponents to do the same.

Battlefield Florida: McCain Pulls Back Out Front

Florida's Republican primary race is hotter than every, with John McCain and Mitt Romney trading barbs over the weekend, and continuing today.

The McCain campaign is running a new ad hammering Romney on his apparent flip-flopping and dishonesty, via YouTube:

Meanwhile, McCain holds a lead in new Florida public opinion data heading into tomorrow's election.

A new Quinnipiac University Poll finds John McCain leading Mitt Romney 32 percent to 31 percent, results with the survey's statistical margin of error:

Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are running neck and neck among Florida likely Republican voters, with 32 percent for McCain and 31 percent for Romney, as former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani gets 14 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee gets 13 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today....

"Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney are tight as a tick, although McCain's supporters appear slightly more committed. With 24 hours to go, the race is up in the air. Whichever candidate finishes strongest will win Florida and all 57 of its reduced delegate count," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"The major unknown in the final hours before primary day, which could make the critical difference in determining the winner, is how much weight the endorsements by Gov. Charlie Crist and Sen. Mel Martinez of Sen. McCain carry with Florida Republicans.

Zogby reports that the big weekend endorsements for McCain from top members of Florida's GOP establishment have pushed up the Arizona Senator's numbers in the Sunshine State:

In what’s become a two-man game for the Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain now holds a slim lead over rival Mitt Romney while all others lag well behind in the Florida primary race, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby telephone tracking poll shows.

Boosted by a strong endorsement from Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, McCain has 33% support, compared to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who wins 30% backing. The two leaders have been locked in a tight contest ahead of Tuesday’s election. This three-day tracking poll, which surveyed 818 likely Republican voters, carries a margin for error of +/- 3.4% and was conducted Jan. 25-27....

Voters who identify themselves as conservative, a group that represents more than half the sample, have also reversed themselves. After giving Romney the edge, McCain now has the support of 34% to Romney’s 33%. In yesterday’s tracking poll, Romney led among those voters with 34% of their support to McCain’s 28%. Moderate voters consistently prefer McCain, giving him 44% of their support in the most recent poll, compared to Romney’s 15%. Among “very conservative” voters, Romney fares far better, winning 48% support to McCain’s 13%.

Also, a new Rasmussen survey shows McCain pulling back up even with Romney, creating a dead heat between the two candidates:

For most of the past week, John McCain was slightly behind Mitt Romney in Florida’s Republican Presidential Primary. Then, on Saturday, the Arizona Senator switched the subject of the campaign to his comfort zone--national security issues. Saturday night, the Arizona Senator got another bit of good news—an endorsement by popular Florida Governor Charlie Crist.

Polling on Sunday showed that McCain picked up four percentage points from the day before. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani lost two points each and Mike Huckabee also slipped a point. As a result, it’s all tied heading into the final full day of campaigning before Florida’s Republican Presidential Primary.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows McCain and Romney tied at 31%, Giuliani is a distant third at 16% and Huckabee is in fourth place at 11%. The number of persuadable voters is also dwindling. Only 2% are undecided and just 6% say there’s a good chance they could change their mind.

Finally, a Suffolk University poll has McCain leading Romney by 3 percentage points:

With the Florida Republican Primary just one day away, John McCain (30 percent) is the slight Florida front-runner. Mitt Romney (27 percent) trails but is within the poll’s statistical margin of error, according to a new survey of likely Republican voters by the Political Research Center at Boston’s Suffolk University.

Rudy Giuliani (13 percent), the front-runner for most of 2007, is now in third place ahead of Mike Huckabee (11 percent). Lagging behind were Ron Paul (4 percent) and Alan Keyes (1 percent), while 16 percent of likely voters were undecided or refused to respond. In addition to the high undecided number, more than a third said they were somewhat likely or very likely to change their mind before voting Tuesday.

The race is very fluid, and John McCain just keeps on going. He is fighting businessman Mitt Romney’s attempt to secure Florida as another electoral acquisition,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center. “The difference between winning and losing tomorrow may rest with McCain’s recent endorsements from two key statewide Republicans over the weekend: Senator Mel Martinez and Governor Charlie Crist.”

McCain appears to have a higher percentage of committed voters. Seventy-two percent of McCain voters said they were unlikely to change their mind before Tuesday compared with 68 percent for Romney, 66 percent for Huckabee, and 64 percent for Giuliani.

McCain's strength in the surveys - as well as the Senator's focus on national security over the weekend, and the focus on the former Massachusetts' Governor's flip-flopping - has put the Romney camp on the defensive. The Caucus has the details:

John McCain used his first appearance of the day to go after Mitt Romney for alleged “flip-flopping.”

At a shipyard in Jacksonville, Mr. McCain swatted aside Mr. Romney’s charge that he is a “liberal Democrat” by saying, “He is consistent. He has consistently taken both sides of every major issue. He has consistently

He cited as examples of flip-flopping Mr. Romney’s support, as governor of Massachusetts, for a regional greenhouse gas emissions control program, for a lenient policy toward illegal immigrants and for campaign finance revisions, all positions he has reversed as a presidential candidate.
“People, just look at his record as governor,” Mr. McCain said.”He has been entirely consistent. He has consistently taken two sides of every major issue, sometimes more than two. So congratulations.”

Mr. McCain also went after Mr. Romney for his work as head of Bain Capital, a leveraged-buyout firm. “As head of his ‘investment’ company he presided over the acquisition of companies that laid off thousands of workers.”
Barely pausing to catch his breath, he also answered Mr. Romney’s criticism of his sponsorship of global warming legislation, which Mr. Romney charged would cause steep increases in energy prices and drag down the American economy.
“If he thinks the American economy will suffer by us cleaning up the environment, reducing pollution, and embracing green technology, including nuclear power,” Mr. McCain said, “then we just have a profound difference of opinion.”

I'm giving McCain a slight edge in Florida.

The Arizona Senator's peaking at the right time, and as Rasmussen shows, his poll numbers are moving upward as Romney's are dropping. Not only that, I've seen clips of Romney this afternoon on cable news, and frankly, he looks like he's lost some of his natural confidence. The toll of the campaign?

So, we'll see how things turn out.

See Memeorandum for more news and analysis.

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.