Conservative Political Suicide

As readers know, I've been chronicling the collapse in power of "movement" conservatives this GOP primary season.

In my previous post, for example, I laid out the case that John McCain's now forging a new center-right coalition for the 21st century. Such trends - should they hold - may indeed reflect a fundamental shift the voting firmament of the American Republican street.

Ross Douthat, on the other hand, argues that in fact we're witnessing the very failure of the right-wing talk radio commentariat itself:

The failure of conservative voters to fall in line behind Mr. [Rush] Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, among others, reflects a deeper problem for the movement’s leadership. With their inflexibility, grudge-holding and eagerness to evict heretics rather than seek converts, too many of conservatism’s leaders sound like the custodians of a dwindling religious denomination or a politically correct English department at a fading liberal-arts college.

Or like yesterday’s Democratic Party. The tribunes of the American right have fallen into the same bad habits that doomed their liberal rivals to years of political failure.

In spite of his record as a maverick, John McCain has become the presumptive nominee by running a classic Republican campaign, emphasizing strength abroad and limited government at home, with nods to his pro-life record. His opponents in the conservative movement, by contrast, have behaved like caricatures of liberals, emphasizing a host of small-bore litmus tests that matter more to Beltway insiders than to the right-winger on the street.

Republican primary voters who turned to Mr. Limbaugh for their marching orders were asked to believe that Mr. McCain’s consistently hawkish record — on Iraq, Iran, the size of the military and any other issue you care to name — mattered less to his standing as a conservative than his views on waterboarding. Or that his extensive record as a free-trader, a tax-cutter and an opponent of pork-barrel spending wasn’t sufficient to qualify him as an economic conservative, because he had opposed a particular set of upper-bracket tax cuts in 2001.

Similarly, religious conservatives who listened to James Dobson were asked to believe that Mr. McCain’s consistent pro-life voting record was less important than the impact his campaign-finance bill had on the National Right to Life Committee’s ability to purchase issue ads on television 60 days before an election. Or that his consistent support for conservative judicial nominees, and his pledge to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of John Roberts and Sam Alito, mattered less than his involvement in the “Gang of 14” compromise on judicial filibusters.

Mike Huckabee signed a no-new-taxes pledge and campaigned on a (borderline-crackpot) tax plan to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and institute a national sales tax. Yet he found himself caricatured as a “Christian socialist” because he had raised gas taxes and cigarette taxes while governor of Arkansas. Merely acknowledging that some corporate chief executives might be overpaid and some working-class voters might be struggling was enough to get him dismissed by George Will as a “radical” who had supposedly repudiated “free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America’s corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.”

The conservative critics of Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee weren’t wrong on every issue. But in their zeal to read both candidates out of the conservative movement, often on the flimsiest of pretexts, the movement’s leaders raised a standard of ideological purity that not even Ronald Reagan could have lived up to.

This sort of purism would have been folly in Mr. Reagan’s era, when conservatism was an insurgency with its greatest victories still ahead of it, and there were real liberal Republicans to slay along the way. It represents political suicide today.

Hmm...

Political suicide? I wonder how long until this point sinks in with the foot soldiers of the irrational right?

McCain Forging New GOP Coalition

One of the points I've raised here - a hypothesis, really - is that the GOP's hardline conservative base is demonstrating an increasing irrelevance to the future progress of the GOP. Indeed, "movement" conservatives now appear to be a minority in the Republican establishment of '08 .

McCain, the presumptive standard-bearer, is the key catalyst of such trends, with his maverick style and the most compelling political comeback of '08. But the changing underlying dynamics in this year's voting coalitions are the important measures by which to gauge group power within the Republican Party's ongoing evolution.

This week's U.S. News and World Report goes as far to suggest that McCain has indeed forged a new GOP coalition for 21st century politics:

McCain's victories last week, following other wins in South Carolina and Florida, came despite attacks from the likes of radio talker Rush Limbaugh and a raft of social conservatives, including influential evangelical leader James Dobson of Focus on the Family. They consider the senator a traitor to the conservative cause on issues including his support of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, his leading role in campaign finance reform, and his efforts on immigration reform that included a path toward citizenship for illegal aliens.

But by cobbling together support from the party's liberal, moderate, and somewhat conservative members, and in particular voters who said they value character and national security, McCain managed to put together a new GOP coalition, one largely without social conservatives who have long played starring roles in Republican elections. That coalition (with help from independent voters) not only allowed him to assert last week that he's ready to "wrap this thing up" but also raised questions about whether his success without the support of the far right represents a post-Reagan revolution or, at the least, a major realignment within a fractured and demoralized party.

McCain, never a warrior in the culture wars, though he opposes abortion, scoffed at the notion of revolution. "I have a very strong conservative record," he says, and he simply wants to bring Republicans back around to conservative principles, particularly on spending. "We basically alienated our Republican base that cares about fiscal discipline by the spending spree and the corruption over the last many years," he says. "We de-energized part of our Republican base." Some party stalwarts have suggested that a McCain presidency would look more like that of the first President Bush, with some moderates in decision-making positions but no leftward movement on issues including the war, abortion, and immigration.

Sure, this is just talk in the absence of hard data. Still, we're seeing more information coming out on McCain's winning coalition in this year.

The current Newsweek, which also features a McCain cover story, cites John Zogby arguing that McCain's ahead of the curve in political demographics:

According to surveys, McCain is competitive in head-to-head match-ups with Clinton and Obama, largely because he appeals to conservative Democrats and independents. Part of his pitch is that he can "reach out" (a phrase that Limbaugh, on his show last week, repeated disgustedly, imitating McCain's voice)....

McCain may, in fact, have a better sense of America's shifting political mood than his detractors. "More and more of us are independents," says pollster John Zogby. "More people are not wedded to a party, a candidate or an ideology." Michael Dimock of the Pew Research Center says poll numbers show a small shift away from the GOP. About 34 percent of registered voters identified themselves as independents in 2007, up from about 30 percent in 2006, he says. That's the highest it's been since 1999, and almost all the slippage has been on the Republican side. Many in the Republican Party base, meanwhile, seem to believe it's still the same country it was a political generation ago—their country, in other words. "Conservatives are on the eternal search for a new Reagan," columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in The Washington Post last Friday. "They refuse to accept that a movement leader who is also a gifted politician is a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon."

It would be foolish, of course, to argue that movement conservatives count for nothing in Republican Party calculations in '08 (if they sit out, they could indeed swing the election to the Democrats).

What does seem to be happening, though, is that the conservative movement's veto power on party nomination's has been revealed as more bluster than beef. Consequently, all the talk about backing Hillary Clinton over McCain is either a ratings grab by talk radio blowhards or true cognitive instabilities.

As I noted in an earlier post, Rush Limbaugh's power is "so 1990s," and for all the sound and fury of the talk radio fundamentalist right, McCain's moving toward his coronation in spite of the most virulent objections of the party base.

McCain's General Election Advantage

Remember when Kos lobbied Michigan Dems to cross over and vote Romney in January? The effort was futile in stopping the Straight Talk Express, but the episode helps to preview the abject fear of John McCain among the hard-left Democratic base.

As McCain's now the presumptive GOP nominee, look soon for some of the most vicious, radical anti-McCain smears to begin, especially after more and more reports emerge suggesting the Democrats enjoying no prospects of a slam dunk in November.

For an awesome primer on the Democrats' problem, check out John Fund at the Wall Street Journal, who nicely illustrates why McCain's the left's biggest nightmare this year (via Memeorandum):

The conventional wisdom is that Republicans start at a serious disadvantage in trying to hold the White House. A still-unpopular war and a softening economy certainly represent challenges. So far, most of the enthusiasm in the primaries has been on the Democratic side, with some 13 million voters casting Democratic ballots and fewer than 9 million picking a GOP one.

But despite these obstacles, John McCain will now begin to assemble his fall election team with surprisingly good poll results. The average of all the recent national polls summarized by RealClearPolitics.com show the Arizona senator leading Hillary Clinton by 47% to 45% and trailing Barack Obama by only 44% to 47%. Both results are within the statistical margin of error for national polls, so it's fair to say Mr. McCain starts out with an even chance of winning.

How could that be? The answer is that the same maverick streak and occasional departures from conservative orthodoxy that make conservatives queasy have the opposite effect on independents and even some Democrats. Mr. McCain's favorable numbers with independents exceed those of Barack Obama, who has emphasized his desire to work across party lines.

All of this plays out in the Electoral College map that is the key to victory in November. One candidate or the other must win at least 270 electoral votes. The assumption has been that Democrats have an advantage because they can supposedly win every state John Kerry took in 2004 plus Ohio, which has fallen on hard economic times and seen its state Republican Party discredited. That would give the Democratic nominee at least 272 electoral votes.

But Mr. McCain's rise to the GOP nomination throws that calculation out the window. He is the only potential GOP candidate who is clearly positioned to keep the basic red-blue template of how each state voted in 2004 intact and then be able to move into blue territory.

Let's assume that Ohio goes to either Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton. It's at least as likely that Mr. McCain could carry New Hampshire. The Granite State went only narrowly to Mr. Kerry, a senator from a neighboring state, and Mr. McCain has unique advantages there. New Hampshire elections are determined by how that state's fiercely independent voters go, and Mr. McCain has won over many of them in both the 2000 and 2008 GOP primaries. He spent 47 days in New Hampshire before this year's primary and is well-known in the state. If Mr. McCain lost Ohio but carried New Hampshire and all the other states Mr. Bush took in 2004, he would win, 270-268.

It's true that Democrats will make a play for states other than Ohio that Mr. Bush won. Iowa is a perennially competitive state that could go either way this fall. Arkansas polls show that Hillary Clinton might well be able to carry the state where she served as First Lady for over a decade.

But Mr. McCain's roots in the Rocky Mountain West complicate Democratic efforts to take states in that region. His fierce individualism and support for property rights play well in Nevada and Colorado, which were close in 2004. New Mexico, next door to Mr. McCain's Arizona, gave Mr. Bush a very narrow 49.6% to 49% victory in 2004. But Mr. McCain's nuanced position on immigration marks him as the GOP candidate who is most likely to hold the Hispanic voters who are the key to carrying New Mexico.

Mr. McCain also puts several Midwest battleground states in play. Should he pick Minnesota's Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his vice presidential choice, he might have a leg up on carrying both Minnesota and Wisconsin, which went narrowly for Mr. Kerry in 2004.

"The media markets in western Wisconsin get Minneapolis television and are oriented to their news--Pawlenty would be a plus there," says Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican. "McCain's independent stands would play well in that region--which is exactly where GOP presidential candidates have done poorly enough so that they lost statewide by 12,000 votes or so in both 2004 and 2000."

Mr. McCain can be competitive in other blue states. Michigan went Democratic in 2004 by only 3.4% of the total vote, and Oregon by just over 4%. The latest Field Poll in California puts Mr. McCain and Hillary Clinton in a statistical tie. If Democrats have to spend valuable time and resources holding down California, it will make it more difficult for them to take states they lost in 2000 and 2004.

Mr. McCain could even make a foray into the Northeast, where his support from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party's 2000 vice presidential candidate, could put Connecticut in contention. Ditto New Jersey, which Mr. Bush lost by only 53% to 46% in 2004.

Then there is Pennsylvania, which John Kerry carried by only 2.5% points in 2004. Michael Smerconish, the most popular talk-show host in Philadelphia, believes Mr. McCain has a real chance to carry the state. While Mr. Smerconish is a conservative who didn't support Mr. McCain, he thinks "the conservative blasting of McCain is good publicity around here." His independence and maverick status are exactly the qualities that could help him carry the tightly contested Philadelphia suburbs that voted to re-elect GOP senator Arlen Specter, a moderate, in 2004 but rejected conservative Rick Santorum in 2006.

I love this analysis!

I've noted many times that a runaway victory for the Dems this year is a fantasy.

Campaigns are always hard fought, and early polls end up being just snapshots in time.

I often cite the 1988 election as an example of what can happen, when we saw Michael Dukakis and the Dems resting on a nice double-digit lead heading into the fall campaign. The October Surprise that year was the decidedly evil mugshot of Willie Horton, an image that raised legitimate fears of the Democratic Party's revolving-door justice system in Massachusetts under Dukakis. G.H.W. Bush went on to beat the former Massachusetts Governor handily, taking 53.4 percent of the popular vote - and that's not mentioning the GOP's near Electoral College landslide, 426 to 112!!

Fund mentions the 1988 precedent, and throws in a little 2000 election data for good measure:

When you hear that the demise of the Republicans is a foregone conclusion, remember that when the campaign is joined this fall and voters will have to make real choices about the direction of the country, the result is likely to be close. Recall that pundits were ready to crown Michael Dukakis the winner of the 1988 election after he opened up a 17-point edge over George H.W. Bush. In 2000, they declared the race over around Labor Day after Al Gore opened up a clear lead over George W. Bush.

I identified the 1988 G.H.W. Bush/Dukakis comparison here.

Given this analysis, Republican partisans of all stripes - including those of the recently notorious irrrational right, see here and here - have all the more reason to unify and rally behind the McCain ascendency.

Time's a wasting!!

We've got a campaign to be won, and the stakes are too high for folks to stay home (a point the radical netroots hordes haven't forgotten).

McCain Estrangement Syndrome?

Have you heard the one about "McCain Estrangement Syndrome?"

Andrew McCarthy makes the case over at National Review:

Are John McCain’s supporters trying to drive conservatives away from their candidate?

Senator McCain is the inevitable Republican presidential nominee. He is headed, though, for a defeat of McGovernite dimensions if he can’t sway conservatives to get behind his candidacy. For their part, conservatives don’t want McCain, but even less do they want to spend the next four-to-eight years saying “President Obama,” let alone reliving history with another President Clinton.

In short, there are the makings here for a modus vivendi, however grudging. Yet, McCain’s admirers appear to think belittling the senator’s good-faith opponents is the way to go. Theirs is a case of the pot calling the kettle “deranged” — and it will prove duly futile.

Put yourselves in my shoes for a moment. I have not supported Sen. McCain. I admire his perseverance and love of country. Still, I don’t think he is a committed conservative, and his penchant for demonizing all opposition is, to me, extremely off-putting. Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, there’s nothing delusional about that.

In fact, as between the two of us, it’s McCain’s supporters who are deluding themselves. I take them at their word, for example, that a hallmark of the senator’s politics is his tenacity on matters of principle. Consequently, I am skeptical of his assurances that he would appoint conservative judges who will apply rather than create law. Why? Because he has a recent, determined history of beseeching federal courts to disregard the First Amendment in furtherance of a dubious campaign-finance scheme in which he believes passionately. Conservative judges would (and have) rejected this scheme, just as they would (and have) rejected another signature McCain position: the extension of Geneva Convention protections for jihadists.

Now, the appointment of conservative judges is a crucial issue — one McCain posits as central to why we should prefer him to Obama and Clinton. Thus supporters breezily wave off such concerns, maintaining that McCain both promises there will be no issue-based litmus tests for judicial nominees and has conservatives of impeccable legal credentials advising him.

But for me to conclude McCain would surely appoint conservative judges, I also have to believe campaign-finance and the Geneva Convention weren’t all that big a deal to him after all — a possibility that runs counter to everything McCain’s fans tell us about his fidelity to principle. He’s fought tirelessly for years, in the teeth of blistering criticism, to establish campaign-finance regulations, and I’m now supposed to believe he’ll just shrug his shoulders and meekly name judges who’ll torpedo the whole enterprise — all in the name of upholding a judicial philosophy I’m not even sure he grasps? How exactly is it deranged to have my doubts?

Read the whole thing. McCarthy's piece is a rearranged litany of indictments against McCain.

We've heard it before.

But who does this help? Certainly not Mike Huckebee, who was the target of the irrational right around the time of his big win in the Iowa caucuses. Remember, Huck's the governor who wanted illegal aliens to attend college. Aghast, an open-borders recidivist!!

So what's McCarthy doing? He's turning the psychological tables.

Obviously, the arguments elucidating McCain Derangement Syndrome have been compelling, so the Malkin-tents and the Rush-bots need to fight fire with fire.

Sure, the GOP needs the base to win, but the anti-McCain forces seem to be the last ones to recognize it. So, what's it going to be for the Rush-bots: purity or victory.

That's what's at stake here. McCain's already conceded his faults and reached out to the party ideologues, with his speech last week at CPAC. Unfortunately, MDS is so chronic, many attending the convention can never look past the alleged McCain apostasies for the good of the party.

Is that smart, or clear-headed? Here's more from McCarthy:

There remains a rational case to continue rejecting McCain. We are, after all, electing a government, not just a president. I strongly suspect the conservative movement and Republicans in Congress would perform better if set against a Democrat president than in an uneasy alliance with McCain. Thus it’s not a simple matter of determining whether McCain is superior to Obama or Clinton; the question is whether he is so much better that we should tolerate the heavy cost of a movement and a party less disposed to fight a President McCain on the several flawed policy preferences he shares with Democrats.

That’s far from a no-brainer. But for me, the question must be resolved in McCain’s favor because of the war. Our troops in harm’s way deserve the best commander-in-chief we have it in our power to give them; the American people deserve the most vigilant protection against a rabid enemy we have it in our power to give them. For these purposes, McCain is measurably superior to Obama and Clinton. That doesn’t mean my reservations are any less real; they are just comparatively (and barely) less important.

So, that it? It's a no brainer that conservatives have a rational, principled position to take in continued oppostion of McCain? But in the next breath they have the easy out in backing the Arizona Senator because of the war.

Aha!! There it is, the Holy Grail!!

Base conservatives can continue to rail away at McCain's apostasies, while simultaneously they can concede that things must be resolved in favor of the war!

This is not estrangement, but further derangement. There's no such thing as the perfect Republican presidential candidate.

Reagan certainly wasn't.

Reagan amnestied 3 million illegals in 1986. Boy, that sure did improve the immigration situation, right? Conservatives don't talk so much about that. It's all McCain...

How about Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee? Kennedy's now the key swing vote on the Supreme Court, who for all intents and purposes is the larger threat to conservative judicial supremacy than a future McCain nominee.

No, the anti-McCainiacs aren't talking about all of this. They'll dig the knives deeper into McCain, in hopes of proving to the fanatical talk radio base that they've still got it - that they're not increasingly marginalized and irrelevent.

Consider this: The conservative base is, well, so "1990s."

That's right. Rush Limbaugh can claim true brilliance in helping the GOP come to congressional power in 1994, but now conservative talk radio and shock pundits like Ann Couter are increasingly seen as a conspiratorial fringe.

As Nicholas Confessore noted this weekend:

They [movement conservatives] still see themselves as indispensable kingmakers without whom no Republican can win the nomination, let alone the White House. As a result, Mr. McCain has emerged as a genuine threat. Should he win the nomination over their opposition after all, the kingmakers would be dethroned.

“What goes around comes around,” said Morris P. Fiorina, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution and a professor of political science at Stanford University. “It’s a self-appointed establishment to a great extent, and I think all along they overestimated their own importance.”

Hmm...

Self-appointed, eh?

Whatever it is, pride, hubris, or delusion, the continued battle by the irrational right against John McCain damages the efforts of conservatives of all stripes to rally behind the GOP's presumptive nominee.

But maybe there's hope here, as McCarthy perhaps reveals the seeds of clarity in his argument. Perchance, with this prompt, anti-McCainiacs can start pumping up the benefits of a McCain presidency, while realizing that his conservative bona fides are just a strong as many of his great Republican predecessors.

Wait, don't get too excited about that prospect! See Michelle Malkin for more conservative battening down of the hatches.

Mike Huckabee Should Step Aside

Mike Huckabee's strong showing in the weekend's GOP electoral contests have raised the pressures for the McCain campaign to show it can hold down the conservative fort.

But what does Huckabee want?

He can't win the nomination mathematically. So by taking the primaries to the limit, does he strengthen his case to be a leader of the American conservative movement, or does he illustrate his party-pooper credentials, delaying the moment when the GOP can coalesce around its standard-bearer and ramp-up efforts for the November battle against the Democrats?

Time has a interesting analysis of Huckabee's predicament:

As the polls now stand, Huckabee is a dramatic underdog heading into the February 12 primaries in Virginia and Maryland, with McCain outpolling him by a margin of two to one. But the Huckabee campaign says it has its eye fixed firmly on the March 4 primary in Texas, where Huckabee could benefit from his southern appeal, and lingering conservative skepticism on McCain's positions on campaign finance reform and immigration. Whatever happens, Huckabee's strategists maintain without fail that the candidate will not be swayed by pressure from fellow Republicans to bow out before one candidate reaches 1,191 delegates. On Friday, Huckabee received a call from Texas Gov. Rick Perry, asking him to leave the race, according to someone familiar with the call. Huckabee told his fellow governor no. "We don't care. We're not about the party. We never have been," said Ed Rollins, Huckabee's national chairman, backstage at the Maryland rally. "To a certain extent this is about the people. They get their choice."

In an appearance on NBC's Meet The Press Sunday, Huckabee rejected as "nonsense" the notion that his continued battle against McCain could weaken the Republican party or drain resources from the general election effort. "If our party can't have a thoughtful discussion and some meaningful debate and dialogue about the issues important to us as a party, then we are really not prepared to lead," he said. He has also been quick to reject any notion that could perhaps be endangering his own, long-term political viability at the forefront of the conservative movement, drawing explicit comparisons between his candidacy and Ronald Reagan's in 1976 against the incumbent Gerald Ford. "[The establishment] had all begged him to get out of the race in '76 and not take it to the convention, but he had convictions, and he stood by those convictions," Huckabee told reporters this past weekend. "And now when you talk to Republicans, the Reagan name is the gold standard," he said.

All of which means that the "people", as Rollins describes them, get a few more weeks to hear from a enthusiastic candidate who seems to always see victory, even in the face of defeat. At a press conference Saturday morning, one reporter blurted out what has become for Huckabee a comfortable truth. "Governor, basically you have nothing to lose by staying in," she called from the back of the scrum. Huckabee paused. "Ah," he said, before smiling. "No. I don't guess I do."

Yes, and the longer he remains in the race the less he has to win.

I admire Huckabee's spunk. But if anything, the GOP campaign of '08 has demonstrated the power of circumstances on electoral fortunes. Had Rudy Giuliani not pulled out of New Hampshire, John McCain's victory romp there might have never happened.

Had Fred Thompson not played coy with conservatives excited about his entry into the race last year, perhaps he'd be the one dancing in the moonlight of more media time.

Nope, instead we have the good-hearted pastor from Arkansas hanging on for dear life.

But he's no Ronald Reagan. As Charles Krauthammer said last week, conservatives are eternally waiting for the next Reagan, even though the Gipper was a once-in-a-lifetime political hero.

Huckabee's not in the same league, with all due respect, and he needs to think about Governor Perry's call to step aside. He could really work some miracles then, in rallying his backers to support McCain in his campaign against the Democratic retreatists in the fall.

Holding Pattern: Challenges for a Nominee-in-Waiting

The weekend's GOP caucauses and primaries did little to damage John McCain's ultimate nomination as the GOP standard-bearer, although Mike Huckabee's electoral support highlights the challenges to the nominee-in-waiting.

The New York Times has an analysis:

Just as Senator John McCain appeared poised to become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, he was reminded over the weekend that many Republican voters still have not climbed aboard his bandwagon.

Mr. McCain, who won enough delegates in the coast-to-coast nominating contests on Tuesday to place him mathematically beyond the reach of his Republican rivals, suffered embarrassing losses in the Louisiana primary and the Kansas caucuses on Saturday to former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.

Mr. Huckabee, who brags that in college “I didn’t major in math, I majored in miracles,” also wrestled Mr. McCain to a virtual draw on Saturday in the Washington State caucuses. Party officials declared Mr. McCain the winner by several hundred votes.

The Huckabee campaign announced Sunday on its Web site that it would challenge the results of the Washington caucuses. At issue are 1,500 votes that the Huckabee campaign says were not counted.

Results of the weekend contests do not affect Mr. McCain’s solid lead, or change the likelihood of his winning the nomination. But they underlined the thinness of support for him among religious and social conservatives, who make up the bulk of Mr. Huckabee’s voters, and the problem that has dogged Mr. McCain’s presidential aspirations since 2000: how to overcome the distrust he elicits from that core constituency in his party while maintaining credibility as the unorthodox Republican whom moderates, independents and many Democrats like so much.

Before the elections on Saturday, Mr. McCain seemed ready to begin casting the net wide for those independent voters.

“We have to energize our base and yet continue to reach out because we know that the formula for success in most campaigns, as you know, is your base, independents and Reagan Democrats,” he told reporters on a flight from Wichita, Kan., to Seattle.

I don't think Huckabee's lingering campaign fundamentally changes the McCain calculus on reaching out to conservatives.

The conservative split of '08 is the biggest political story of the season. Huckabee's continued campaign serves to highlight McCain's weaknesses with the base of the party, but the risks are on both sides. While the former Arkansas Governor has so far played nice in his battle with the Republican frontrunner, campaigns have way of getting nasty.

Huckabee's in his rights to challenge the election results in Washington, for example, but ratcheting up the competition too firmly may only alienate him from McCain. While the Arizona Senator's obviously reconciled with his maverick relationship to the base, he'll only tolerate an upstart for so long. If Huckabee truly has aspirations for a top position in a McCain administration - and in presidential politics beyond '08 - he needs to face the challenge of his mathematical reality as well.

It's time concede the nomination to McCain.

McCain is Already Gone!

I've been blogging John McCain like a wild-eyed maverick for the last month or so.

With the Arizona Senator's decisive showing in the Super Tuesday primaries last night, now might be a good time to take a breather. I'm taking my wife and sons to Las Vegas for a long weekend.

We've planned a visit to Mandalay Bay's "Shark Reef" aquarium, as well as a magic show at the Tropicana.

So in lieu of a big, beefy post analyzing the election results, let me just share some of my more irreverent musings of recent weeks.

My family gave me books and music for Christmas. One of the CDs I received was the "Eagles - Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975."

I've been playing it during my morning drive just about every day, and some of the songs have reminded me of the current happenings in the GOP race.

While McCain fell short of clinching the Republican nomination last night, he did notch enough wins for unimpeachable frontrunner status. For all intents and purposes, the Arizona Senator's "Already Gone" (via YouTube):

Well, I heard some people talkin’ just the other day
And they said you were gonna put me on a shelf
But let me tell you I got some news for you
And you’ll soon find out it’s true
And then you’ll have to eat your lunch all by yourself
’cause I’m already gone
And I’m feelin’ strong
I will sing this vict’ry song, woo, hoo,hoo,woo,hoo,hoo

Folks sure did want to put McCain on a shelf last summer, when his campaign was broke and sinking in the polls. Now, though, he's raging back, steamrolling his way to the nomination, and Rush Limbaugh's going to have to eat his lunch all by himself.

Mitt Romney proved dramatically that the irrational right bet on the wrong horse this season. Romney won his home state, and five other small states, and in his concession speech - despite his fading importance - he vowed to stay in the race.

His Eagles song: "Take it to the Limit" (on YouTube):

So put me on a highway
And show me a sign
And take it to the limit one more time

Take it to the limit
Take it to the limit
Take it to the limit one more time

(Mike Huckabee was going to be paired with Mitt Romney for taking the primaries to the limit, but his unexpected strength in the Bible Belt last night's given him a "Peaceful Easy Feeling" regarding his future influence on the GOP).

I thought about Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson as well. Their song: "One of These Nights" (on YouTube):

One of these dreams
One of these lost and lonely dreams
We’re gonna find one
One that really screams...

One of these nights
In between the dark and the light
Coming right behind you
Swear I’m gonna find you
Get ’ya baby one of these nights
One of these nights

And Ron Paul? Because of his utter hypocrisy on the congressional pork barrel, his song's "You Can't Hide Your Lyin' Eyes" (on YouTube).

Glenn Frey sings, "On the other side of town a boys is waiting...," but for Paul we sing "On the other side of town earmarks awaiting..."

You can't hide your lyin' eyes
And your smile is a thin disguise
I thought by now you'd realize
There ain't no way to hide you lyin' eyes

I'll be back Sunday afternoon. Regular posting should resume shortly thereafter.

As is my usual practice, I'll visit and comment at the blog of all those who comment here (excepting anti-McCainiacs, of course).

Have a great weekend!!

Unbridled Fury: The Left-Wing Plot to Elect McCain?

Noemie Emery offers a powerful analysis of the far-right's derangement surrounding the McCain surge of primary '08. There must be a left-wing plot behind the Arizona Senator's rise:

THERE IS A LEFT-WING conspiracy at loose in the world, dedicated to undoing conservative governance, only the people who see it aren't sure what it is. John McCain is in it, of course, in fact he is the cause of it, as making him president is the ultimate goal. He is blamed for running, (and perhaps, for breathing), but beyond him the face of the threat is less clear. In fact, the faces are those of other conservative stalwarts, who were their heroes and brethren until--until, say, just after the Florida primary, when McCain emerged as a serious threat. These include Mike Huckabee, the once well-thought of former Arkansas governor (and hero of the social conservative part of the movement), who unaccountably refuses to withdraw from the race on their orders; Tom Coburn and Sam Brownback, perhaps the most conservative members of the United States Senate; Jack Kemp, the supply-side Reagan enthusiast; Phil Gramm, the most conservative Republican to run in the 1996 contest; and Ted Olson, the hero of the Federalist Society, who argued and won the case of Bush vs. Gore. (They may also include the late President Reagan's widow, who, according to the Drudge Report, hearts John McCain.)

Mysteriously, these past heroes of the Heritage Foundation, CPAC gatherings, movement conservatives, and, of course, talk radio, have become the prime targets of--movement conservatives and talk radio, who in their boundless and unbridled fury seem now to have sensed in them aspects of deception and wussiness they never detected before. They are discovered in retrospect to have committed grave sins of co-and-omission that were not before evident. They are on the payroll of Moveon.org, if not of George Soros. They will never be trusted again.

Actually, they have not done a thing beyond endorsing a four-term Republican senator with a lifetime 82 percent ACU rating, but this isn't the point. The point is that the ideological right is filled with a vast, free-floating fury that can't find a target upon which to dump all this ire. At least, not one that either makes logical sense, or provides a psychologically satisfying object on which to unload all this feeling. Is it McCain himself, who refused to stay dead when they thought he was done with? Is it Mike Huckabee, who stopped Romney in Iowa, and so, as they think, drains votes from their hero? Is it Rudy Giuliani, who refused to stay in and drain votes from McCain, but had the bad taste to drop out after Florida? Is it Mitt himself, who is a bit of stiff, and whose frontrunner strategy bombed early on in the contest? Is it Fred!, who refused to catch fire? Is it George Allen, who had the bad sense in 2006 to utter the damned word 'macaca,' and thus lose his once safe seat in the Senate, with which he would have been the front-runner? Is it Jeb Bush, who didn't a) endorse Mitt, or b) change his name to Jeb Jones, in which case HE would have been the front runner and stopped John McCain?

All this emotion, and no easy target, unless it's a 'what,' not a 'who.' Is it the calendar, that depraved little rascal, that gave McCain the gift early on of his favorite state of New Hampshire, and then tossed him Florida before the glow of his win in South Carolina wore off? (But this is the year of no-mentum.) Is it the press, which loves liberals, setting up their favorite apostate Republican, to push their agenda? (But polls show--and Democrats say--that he would be the strongest candidate against the real liberals--Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton--when the big race comes up in the fall.) This doesn't make sense, so it must be . . . the voters, the Republican voters, the ones on their side, they ones they court and appeal to, the ones of whom they spoke so glowingly in 2002 and 2004, some of whom were voting in the glory years of l980-l988. But blaming the voters is really too painful to mention, so it must the 'establishment' that betrayed them, the 'country club Republicans' as opposed to the genuine voice of the people, the people who always detested the great Ronald Reagan, and backed Gerald Ford--William Scranton--Nelson Rockefeller!--back in the day. And who are these nefarious 'establishment' figures who are fooling the voters by backing this sinister liberal?

Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, Phil Gramm, Ted Olson, Jack Kemp, and perhaps Richard Land, the evangelical stalwart, who turned thumbs down earlier upon Giuliani.

And so it goes on.

And so Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Ted Olson, Richard Land, and perhaps Nancy Reagan are now the worst foes of the modern conservative movement. With enemies such as these, who needs friends?

Crazy!

Awesome discussion - one of the best on McCain Derangement that I've seen.

What's particularly interesting about all of this is the vengeful stubbornness surrounding events. Many outstanding bloggers I've read over the last couple of years seem to be pulling temper tantrums, or frankly they're afraid that if they appear just a teeny-weeny bit pragmatic, their conservative circle of blog buddies will abandon them.

Who wants to lose their readership? Captain Ed's doesn't, in my opinion.

Brian over at Liberty Pundit doesn't mince words on his MDS:

I’ll never vote for John McCain, not in a million years. If that means a President Hillary or President Obama, so be it. If the country is going to move left no matter who we elect and serious damage be done, I’d much rather it be at the hands of the Democrats than someone who claims to belong to the same party as I do. When they fail (and they will), it’ll be that much easier for real conservatives to take back the Party and get us moving in the right direction again.

I noted yesterday there's a conservative counter-movement afoot, to slap some sense in those habituating the vast far-right wing anti-McCain movement.

It's hard to say where things are headed - for example, whether or not we'll see a party reconciliation - but I think it's safe to say that we're witnessing the emergence of an unreconstructed conservative minority in election '08.

Hopefully these rebels will find and slay their true conspirators and plotters, which will allow them to return some day to the GOP fold.

The Decline of the Polarizing Left?

There's been some recent commentary suggesting one of the biggest losers in primary season '08 is the angry left.

With top hard-left candidates John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich already out of the race, have the radical netroots Democratic Party activists sunk to irrelevancy?

Dan Gerstein made an interesting observation on this over the weekend, at the Wall Street Journal. He argues that while the Clinton-Obama South Carolina results appeared to resolve tensions over race and politics, the underlying significance of Obama's victory was to relegate the Daily Kos angry hordes to the sidelines of the party:

This conflict is not about ideology but about style. The truth is, over the past several years Democrats have bridged or buried most of the major issue splits that hobbled the party in the past, as evidenced by the absence of big policy debates in this campaign. That's left us to stew, particularly in the wake of John Kerry's embittering loss in 2004, over how we fight the other side. There is a clear generational split.

The Kossacks and their activist allies -- who skew toward the Boomers -- believe that Republicans are venal bordering on evil, and that the way Democrats will win elections and hold power is to one-up Karl Rove's divisive, bare-knuckled tactics. Their opponents within the party -- who skew younger and freer of culture war wounds -- believe that the way to win is offer voters a break from this poisonous tribal warfare and a compelling, inclusive vision for where we want to take the country.

The country got an initial taste of this tactical tussle in 2006 when the Lieberman-Lamont Senate campaign in Connecticut went national -- and an initial test of the relative merits in the general-election portion of that race (in which I was Joe Lieberman's communications director).

With a discredited Republican candidate in the race, the choice came down to two Democrats who actually agreed on most issues outside of Iraq, but differed on the kind of change we need in Washington. Mr. Lieberman called for a new politics of unity and purpose; Mr. Lamont mostly called for Messrs. Bush's and Lieberman's heads.

The hope candidate soundly beat the Kos candidate -- Kos actually taped a commercial for Lamont -- by 10 points. More importantly, Mr. Lieberman won independents (the biggest voting bloc in the state) by 19 points, which is all the more remarkable because they opposed the war by a margin of 65%-29%.

This year's Democratic nominating battle is a far better barometer of the respective generational approaches within the party. That's because it is happening within the context of a true intra-party competition, there is no real disagreement on Iraq or any other core issue, and there is no incumbent. Not least of all, the two young attractive change candidates (Edwards and Obama) running against the establishment candidate (Hillary Clinton) have been offering opposite conceptions of change.

Mr. Edwards, after running as the sunny son of a mill worker in 2004, returned last year as the angry spear carrier of the hard-line left, running on a dark, conspiratorial form of populism and swapping in corporations for Republicans as the villain in his us-versus-them construct. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has not just been selling possibilities and opportunities, but reconciliation and unity -- and, god forbid, promising to work with Republicans to meet the country's challenges. (Not surprisingly, throughout 2007, Mr. Edwards was the runaway favorite in the regular Kos reader straw poll -- besting Mr. Obama by 21 points as late as Jan. 2, 2008.)

Now that Mr. Edwards has formally dropped out of the race, we can say it's official -- hope and unity crushed resentment and division.

That's an especially perceptive analysis of Democratic Party dynamics this year.

Note, though, that The Caucus also weighed in on the declining significance of the polarizing left in '08:

During the last five years, no movement has had as great an impact on progressive politics as the liberal blogosphere. Built from grassroots anger over Democratic leadership support for the Iraq war in 2002, liberal bloggers have chastised party leaders who backed President Bush, causing many prominent Democrats to reverse — and even recant — their positions on the war. Just as impressively, the blog voices on the left have played a critical role in pushing less visible issues — like electronic voting machines, bankruptcy legislation and telephone companies’ liability in wiretapping programs — into the mainstream....

But notwithstanding this stunning success, this week’s withdrawal by John Edwards, coming a week after the departure of Dennis Kucinich, means that both of the preferred presidential candidates of the liberal blogosphere are now out of the race. Instead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the two candidates who have drawn some of the sharpest criticism on progressive blogs, are the only ones who will make it to Super Tuesday....

The blogosphere has had impressive electoral success in Senate and House races, especially in 2006. But at the presidential level, while the blogosphere has been effective in changing the political debate and the party’s direction, it has been less successful in helping its preferred candidates to victory. Why?

The article offer three explanations, of which this one's most compelling:

The blogosphere advances confrontational politics, and winning presidential campaigns are exercises in uniting the country. One way in which the blogosphere has had the greatest impact on Democratic leaders has been to encourage — demand — that they take stronger stands against President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress. Blog-backed winners in Senate races — like Jim Webb and Jon Tester — are classic examples of the feisty, stand-up/stand-tough candidates that the blogosphere applauds. But for many reasons, that sort of approach isn’t as effective in presidential campaigns, where leading candidates in both parties seek victory by emphasizing their ability to “bring the country together,” “to be a uniter,” to be “a president for all Americans.” As a result, the blogopsheric voice that has been so successful in calling the party to action, has not yet found the right pitch for advocating a particular candidate in a Presidential campaign.

Read the whole thing.

I've long noted how intensely the hard-left netroots suffers from hubris and megalomania (especially Markos Moulitsas)

I think it's premature to count them out of left-wing politics, however.

Antiwar and GOP-bashing online hordes will continue to bully Democratic Party centrists in Congress and around the country in electoral contests.

The netroots movement - with its victory in backing Ned Lamont over Joseph Lieberman in 2006 - is a case study in the politics of fear striking at the heart of every Democratic incumbent worried about a challenge from the left in their state's primary.

In Congress, although antiwar hardliners have conceded defeat in the current battles with the Bush administration over Iraq, look for the polarizing left to be back with a vengeance come November, especially in the case of a victory for the Democratic ticket.

The online masses have a proven ability to raise massive amounts of money, and this influence is likely to grow in the years ahead.

What needs to happen?

Regular folks need to come right out and say they're disgusted with the demonization politics practiced by the most vengeful practitioners of radical left wing politics. Joseph Lieberman ultimately handed the netroots a defeat, and in 2007 state races the GOP did fairly well (Bobby Jindal in Louisiana is an especially striking example, given the outrage over Hurricane Katrina and alleged Bush adminisration neglect national infrastructure), so goodness can prevail over the nihilist politics of dread.

So, as good as these essays are, conservatives need to be prepared for some of most intense left-wing attack politics the political system's ever seen.

Bob Dole Takes Down Rush Limbaugh on McCain Attacks

CNN reports that former Senator Bob Dole, the 1996 GOP standard-bearer, has rebuked Rush Limbaugh in a letter defending John McCain. The right-wing talk radio host has led conservative attacks on McCain's alleged liberalism and hyper-bipartisanship (via Memeorandum):

Former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole on Monday wrote conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh defending John McCain as a "mainstream conservative" who had supported the party on critical votes during Dole's time as the Senate Republican leader.

The letter, obtained by CNN from a Republican source close to Dole, includes a voting comparison that suggests McCain's voting record compares favorably to that of the longtime conservative icon Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina.

Dole in the letter said he remains neutral in the GOP contest and spoke kindly of all three remaining leading GOP candidates. But the letter comes at a time Limbaugh is trying to rally grassroots conservative support against McCain.

Here's a key quote from Dole's letter:

I was the Republican Leader from January 1985 until I left the Senate voluntarily in June 1996. I worked closely with Senator McCain when he came to the Senate in 1987 until I departed. I cannot recall a single instance when he did not support the Party on critical votes.

Dole goes on to urge Limbaugh to get with the program:

Whoever wins the Republican nomination will need your enthusiastic support. Two terms for the Clintons are enough.

That "whoever" is more than likely McCain, the way things are shaking out around the country.

While I'm talking about Bob Dole, let me relay the concerns of one of my commenters, JSF, who asks:

My only worry with Mccain is that their will be a replay of the 1996 election.

Can you address it?

Thanks and Good luck for your guy tommorow!

I gave a quick response in the comments to my earlier post, "Neoconservatives for McCain":

JSF: Long story short: Bill Clinton!!

Actually, no incumbent on the ballot makes this a whole different ballgame. The Dole-is-McCain comparison is emotional and apolitical.

Don't believe it for a second.

To elaborate the point: Bill Clinton in 1996 prevailed over the GOP Congress on fiscal policy, where he was able to portray the Republican majority as threatening Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment.

The Comeback Kid had successfully shifted the media spin to GOP recalcitrance and hubris.

Not only that, changes in the campaign finance system - the major party nominees will likely forgo public financing - will make this year's election much more competitive than 1996.

Dole was broke after the 1996 GOP primary battle, and was unable to run television advertising until after the convention, which left him vulnerable to Clinton, who had started advertising as early as summer 1995, and had been able to use DNC soft-money media buys throughout the summer of the general election year.

In addition, Dole appeared old and frail on the campaign trail - falling down at one campaign event - and frequently absent-minded.

McCain, on the other hand, is as vigorous as any candidate in the 2008 race (despite the fact that if he wins in November he'll be the oldest candidate elected to a first term in the Oval Office).

The Dole-McCain comparison will likely be heard with increasing frequency in the weeks ahead, as disgruntled base conservatives continue to resist the Arizona Senator, stabbing him in the back for his compromises and so-called bipartisan apostasy.

In any case, Dole's a good man and a true patriot. Very few Americans are in a better position to comment on John McCain's qualifications for the presidency.

Super Tuesday May Be Truly Super!

Today's Wall Street Journal provides an excellent overview of tomorrow's Super Tuesday elections around the country:

On the eve of tomorrow's near-national contest for each party's presidential nominee, Democrat Hillary Clinton has lost much of her longtime polling lead over Barack Obama both nationally and in grand prize California, while Republican John McCain has surged ahead for a potentially decisive edge.

Tomorrow's votes could crown Sen. McCain, the Arizona senator, his party's presumptive nominee. The Democrats' battle more likely will grind on, since their party rules award convention delegates proportionate to candidates' votes in each state rather than giving them all to the winner.

Sen. Obama, of Illinois, and Sen. Clinton, of New York, could battle to a draw. But many Democratic activists say Sen. Obama stands to gain momentum, given his advantage in states voting after tomorrow, his campaign's financial strength and his ability to withstand the Clinton machine. That could matter to the party's "super delegates" -- uncommitted Democratic party leaders in each state who aren't up for grabs in the nomination contests but who could ultimately help determine the winner.

Sen. McCain now has a 2-to-1 lead nationally over chief rival Mitt Romney, according to new polls from Gallup, the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post-ABC News. On the Democratic side, they show Sen. Obama has shaved Sen. Clinton's once-formidable national advantage to single digits.

Such polls are hardly predictive, as shown last month when no major surveys foresaw Sen. Clinton's victory in New Hampshire's primary. Then, as now, state and national polls show a large number of undecided voters in both parties, making predictions dicey.

Last month, when the candidates were campaigning in one state at a time, national polls were meaningless for anticipating what voters in New Hampshire or Iowa thought. But with nearly half the states voting tomorrow, national polls can provide a snapshot of the electorate.

The number, size and coast-to-coast range of states voting on "Super Tuesday" makes tomorrow unprecedented in the history of the presidential-nominating process. Primaries or caucuses will be held in 24 states, compared with 10 states on the biggest voting day in 2004. Both parties have votes in 19 states, while Democrats caucus in three more and Republicans in two. Just over half of Democrats' 3,253 pledged delegates are at stake, and 41% of Republicans' 2,380 total.

The battlefield is bigger than it has been for the November general election in recent decades. The general-election campaigns have come down to a dozen or so competitive battleground states, since the rest tend to favor one party or the other. In tomorrow's intra-party contests, every state counts as the major candidates seek more delegates. With just days to campaign, and the cost of advertising, the candidates' stamina and campaign budgets are being tested.

"There's never been anything like it," says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who hasn't committed to either candidate. "And there's the sheer economics of it, of how campaigns approach their deployment."

The pileup is a consequence of other states' frustration with the influence of the geographically balanced foursome -- Iowa and New Hampshire, and, more recently, South Carolina and Nevada -- whose early-voting status is blessed by party rules. The others over the past year rushed to reschedule their primaries and caucuses on Feb. 5, the earliest date that both parties allow. But the crush blunted the influence sought by the states, which hoped to get candidates to pay attention to their particular issues in return for votes.

California is the exception. Its huge delegate total -- 370 for Democrats, or about 18% of the number of delegates needed to win the nomination, and 173 for Republicans, or just under 15% -- makes the Golden State truly golden in the nominating race for the first time in three decades.

The Field Poll, a prominent California poll, yesterday had Sen. Clinton, who formerly had a huge lead, in a 36%-to-34% statistical dead heat with Sen. Obama. Sen. McCain has an eight-point edge over his next closest competitor, Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. Significantly, the poll has Sen. McCain statistically tied with Sen. Clinton in a hypothetical matchup, suggesting Democrats' lock on the state and its 55 electoral votes -- critical to their hopes for the White House -- could be picked. Sen. Obama bests Sen. McCain in a hypothetical face-off by seven percentage points.

Since tomorrow's state contests are party affairs, the candidates are stumping in places their party nominees rarely do for general elections. For example, Sen. McCain ended yesterday in heavily Democratic Massachusetts -- showing strength in former Gov. Romney's home state -- while Sen. Obama Saturday drew an estimated 13,000 to a rally in overwhelmingly Republican Idaho.

In a year in which Democrats have enthusiasm on their side against a Republican Party demoralized by an unpopular president and the war in Iraq, the Obama campaign argues that his appeal to new voters among the young, minorities and independents could put states in play for Democrats that rarely are, including Southern states such as Georgia and Alabama where black voters are a significant share of the electorate. The Clinton campaign counters that she is drawing new female voters.

The vastness of the playing field has spawned new tactics. Sen. Clinton tonight hosts a national "town hall" discussion to be broadcast on the Internet and cable TV. Sen. Obama, exploiting his huge financial edge, has spent $11 million on 17 Super Tuesday states and six more states voting in coming weeks, including $250,000 for last night's Super Bowl, according to the campaign. The Republicans are too financially strapped to run many national ads, even the resurgent Sen. McCain; Mr. Romney is digging deeper into his personal wealth.

Sens. Clinton and Obama remain from what began as a nine-person Democratic race. Four of the original 10 Republicans survive, but Sen. McCain's chief rival is Mr. Romney. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has been siphoning conservatives' votes from Mr. Romney. Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the antiwar libertarian, has a small following, though Republicans say he could win tomorrow's caucuses in Alaska.

The article also notes that things are more settled on the Republican side. Some GOP insiders doubt Romney can stem the McCain campaign's momentum.

See more election analysis at Gallup, Memeorandum, and Real Clear Politics.

McCain Courts a Wary GOP

Now the GOP frontrunner, John McCain's working hard to come in from the outside edges of the Republican Party. The New York Times has the story:

He says he is not enough of a masochist to listen to Rush Limbaugh. He jokes at a Republican dinner about a looming foreign policy crisis: “I have a four-hour speech on the North Korean nuclear buildup that I know you’ve been waiting for.” And he still treats the media as his No. 1 constituency, plying them with nonstop talk and stories, like one about a date from his Navy days who cleaned her nails with a switchblade.

But now the money is rolling in, more than $7 million in January alone. The candidate jets around the country on a White House-like charter with security, baggage handlers and flowing food and drink. He is reveling in big-time Republican endorsements that may soon include, he hopes, support from the National Rifle Association.

Senator John McCain, Republican renegade, is making a head-spinning transition, seeking to win over the Republican establishment and harness all that comes with it. After winning the New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida primaries, a candidate whose campaign once consisted of a handful of unpaid aides suddenly has a shot on Tuesday at becoming the de facto leader of a party he has often defied and exasperated.

But in enveloping himself in the Republican cloak, Mr. McCain, his aides acknowledge, risks the outsider status that appeals to the independents and Democrats he might need to win in November.

Mr. McCain learned that the hard way: The maverick who ran against George W. Bush in 2000 headed into the 2008 race with all the expensive accouterments of the front-runner, only to lose some of his political identity when he embraced evangelicals and the Republican orthodoxy of tax cuts, not to mention an unpopular war. By last summer Mr. McCain’s campaign had all but collapsed and he was flying into New Hampshire alone to meet with small clutches of voters.

Now his goal is to stand with a foot on each side of the divide. He wants to maintain his role as an independent-minded candidate who offers endless access to reporters and “straight talk” to voters in intimate settings. But at the same time, he must mend the deep rifts within his own party, convince wary conservatives that he can be counted on when it comes to issues like judicial appointments and tax cuts, and run a national campaign aimed not just at the White House but at helping his party in Congress.

This is the big question, then: If McCain locks up the nomination with a sweep tomorrow, can the Arizona Senator win over the party's deep conservative foot soldiers (see here and here, for example)?

I've written extensively about this, for example, in my entry "What Conservative Crackup?"

See also some other posts on the fracturing GOP coalition, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Photo Credit: New York Times

********

UPDATE: Elaine from Elaine's Place passed along this piece from the Washington Post, "GOP Senators Reassess Views About McCain":

John McCain once testified under oath that a Senate colleague inappropriately used tobacco corporation donations to sway votes on legislation. He cursed out another colleague in front of 20 senators and staff members, questioning the senator's grip on immigration legislation. And, on the Senate floor, McCain (R-Ariz.) accused another colleague of "egregious behavior" for helping a defense contractor in a move he said resembled "corporate scandals."

And those were just the Republicans.

In a chamber once known for cordiality if not outright gentility, McCain has battled his fellow senators for more than two decades in a fashion that has been forceful and sometimes personal. Now, with the conservative maverick on the brink of securing his party's presidential nomination, McCain's Republican colleagues are grappling with the idea of him at the top of their ticket.

"There would be a lot of people who would have to recalibrate their attitudes toward John," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), a supporter of Mitt Romney's who has clashed with McCain.

Many Senate Republicans, even those who have jousted with McCain in the past, say their reassessment is underway. Sensing the increasing likelihood that he will be the nominee, GOP senators who have publicly fought with him are emphasizing his war-hero background and playing down past confrontations.

"I forgive him for whatever disagreements he has had with me. We can disagree on things, but I have great admiration for him," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee who has often argued with McCain over government spending.

But others have outright rejected the idea of a McCain nomination and presidency, warning that his tirades suggest a temperament unfit for the Oval Office.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

A former colleague says McCain's abrasive nature would, at minimum, make his relations with Republicans on Capitol Hill uneasy if he were to become president. McCain could find himself the victim of Republicans who will not go the extra mile for him on legislative issues because of past grievances.

"John was very rough in the sandbox," said former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who is outspoken in his opposition to McCain's candidacy. "Everybody has a McCain story. If you work in the Senate for a while, you have a McCain story. . . . He hasn't built up a lot of goodwill."

Santorum was a fierce advocate for the GOP's social conservative wing -- a group particularly hostile to McCain because of his apostasy on immigration and same-sex marriage -- while Cochran is considered one of the more genteel senators. Both men back Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, for president.

To McCain's allies, his fiery personality is part of the "Straight Talk" lore, and a positive quality in a passionate fighter who will tell you to your face how much he dislikes an idea.

"When he's arguing about something he believes in, he's arguing about it," said Mark Salter, a top aide to McCain. "It's an admirable trait, the capacity to be outraged."

Voters have also expressed admiration for McCain's tough side, giving him higher marks on tough and tested leadership traits than any other candidate in the race.

The GOP's Anti-Romney Movement

While the far-right blogosphere continues to hope and pray that Mitt Romney can stop frontrunner John McCain's momentum in tomorrow's Super Tuesday primaries, there's actually a bit of an "I hate Romney" movement brewing in the Republican establishment.

Ana Marie Cox has the story:

Last summer, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani took time out of a GOP debate to defend John McCain: "I happen to be a very big admirer of Senator McCain and I can tell you quite honestly that if I weren't running for President I would be here supporting him." Pundits speculated that the praise was simply a kind word for the man whose campaign had recently exploded, plagued by debt and defections. Privately, McCain advisers wondered if Giuliani was playing nice in order to secure McCain's endorsement after he dropped out of the race.

But this week it was Giuliani who dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain, praising him as an "American hero."

The endorsement was a reflection of the authentic respect McCain and Giuliani have for each other. But that's not all the two candidates share. The endorsement deal was solidifed when both campaigns stayed at the Deerfield Hilton in Florida, following the Republican debate in Boca Raton on January 24. The two campaigns' staff mingled easily over drinks. Acknowledging that his candidate was not likely to survive a defeat in Florida, a Giuliani aide approached one of the McCain senior staffers. Come Wednesday, he said, "Just tell us what want us to do — we've got to stop him."

"Him," of course, is Mitt Romney, the candidate who seems to be uniting his Republican rivals almost as much as Hillary Clinton. "The degree to which campaigns' personal dislike for Mitt Romney has played a part in this campaign cannot be underestimated," says an adviser to one of those rival campaigns. While sharp words have been exchanged between practically every Republican candidate at one point or another on the campaign trail, the aversion to Romney seems to go beyond mere policy disagreements. It's also a suspicion of what they see is his hypocrisy and essential phoniness — what one former staffer for Fred Thompson called Romney's "wholesale reinvention."

The Romney campaign doesn't pretend the sour attitude toward its candidate doesn't exist. But chief counselor Ben Ginsberg insists— echoing one of the campaign's main themes — the attitude stems largely from the fact that Romney is "the outsider candidate. He's not from Washington and he's going to change Washington. He's not part of their club."

At times, this apparent rancor among the other candidates toward Romney has seemed like a schoolyard pact — for example, in the many snarky comments aimed at Romney during the Republican debate on Jan. 5, just before the New Hampshire primary. The campaigns have denied there's any political collusion going on; they insist all of them simply feel the same way about Romney.

Meanwhile, signaling the final stages of desperation among the Rush-bot anti-McCain alliance on the far-right, Mark Levin - Limbaugh's NRO hatchet man - is now questioning McCain's electability in the general election.

In attacking McCain, the bulk of NRO's contributors have pushed Romney as the conservative alternative.

Even Ted Kennedy would have a laugh at that:

Perhaps the conservative base will show some muscle in tomorrow's primaries, although things aren't looking all that good for the former Massachusetts Governor.

Neoconservatives for McCain

I've been leading the neoconservative charge for John McCain over here for the last few weeks. With the exception of Victor David Hanson, and some over at the Weekly Standard, few genuine neocons have jumped into the arena to defend the Arizona Senator from the far-right wing's intemperate attacks.

But over at this morning's New York Times, Willam Kristol - arch-neoconservative and scourge of the antiwar left - has laid down a warning to the Malkin-tents and Rush-bots on the ideological margins: get on board the Straight Talk Express or risk irrelevancy:

This is an important moment for the conservative movement. Not because conservatives have some sort of obligation to fall in behind John McCain. They don’t. Those conservatives who can’t abide McCain are free to rally around Mitt Romney. And if McCain does prevail for the nomination, conservatives are free to sit out the election.

But I’d say this to them: When the primaries are over, if McCain has won the day, don’t sulk and don’t sit it out. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between a candidate who’s committed to winning in Iraq and a Democratic nominee who embraces defeat. Don’t tell us that it doesn’t matter if the next president voted to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, or opposed them. Don’t close your eyes to the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, or between resistance to big government and the embrace of it.

And don’t treat 2008 as a throwaway election. If a Democrat wins the presidency, he or she will almost certainly have a Democratic Congress to work with. That Congress will not impede a course of dishonorable retreat abroad. It won’t balk at liberal Supreme Court nominees at home. It won’t save the economy from tax hikes.

If, by contrast, McCain wins the presidency — and all the polls suggest he’d be the best G.O.P. bet to do so — he’ll be able to shape a strong American foreign policy, nominate sound justices and fight for parts of the conservative domestic agenda.

One might add a special reason that conservatives — and the nation — owe John McCain at least a respectful hearing. Only a year ago, we were headed toward defeat in Iraq. Without McCain’s public advocacy and private lobbying, President Bush might not have reversed strategy and announced the surge of troops in January 2007. Without McCain’s vigorous leadership, support for the surge in Congress would not have been sustained in the first few months of 2007. So: No McCain, no surge. No surge, failure in Iraq, a terrible setback for America — and, as it happens, no chance for a G.O.P. victory in 2008.

Some conservatives can close their eyes to all this. They can choose to stand aside from history while having a temper tantrum. But they should consider that the American people might then choose not to invite them back into a position of responsibility for quite a while to come.

Others speaking up this morning include Dr. Sanity and Neo-neocon.

But see also Wordsmith's awesome post on McCain and defense of free speech

Here's a few other entries in the rising pro-McCain chorus (neocon and near-neocon, the lot of 'em): The Anchoress, Sister Toldjah, and My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

I'll have updates, as more conservatives of all stripes get on board the Straight Talk.

But, check my earlier entry, "What Conservative Crackup?"

Don't forget the required reading on McCain Derangement Syndrome, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Hat tip: Memeorandum.