presidential election – Page 37

McCain’s McGovern moment

This is from Truthdig, which links to a story from the New York Post:

Rush Limbaugh’s said it, and now Charles Hurt from Rupert Murdoch’s Big Apple tabloid, the New York Post, is joining in the chorus of conservatives who worry that Sen. John McCain would betray the GOP’s core right-wing base if he inches any closer to the White House.

The Post story — more of an analysis column — raises echoes of the 1972 election, when the Democratic establishment decided that it would be better to fracture the party than turn it over to McGovern and the antiwar crowd. That decision — at a time when the party already was losing steam and the conservative movement was beginning its ascendance, has proven to have a longterm impact as the right continued to grow in strength.

Now, the conservative establishment is in decline and its leaders — and media mouthpieces — are taking aim at McCain, an apostate conservative in their eyes (never mind that most of his positions are indistinguishable from those held by President George W. Bush).

Hurt quotes Limbaugh:

If the Republican Party expands “because we have a candidate who’s going out trying to attract liberals by being like them, then the party’s going to be around but you won’t recognize it,” thundered radio king Rush Limbaugh.

The Republican Party will “be over as it exists now,” he warns.

Hurt then makes the McGovern comparison more explicit (though he doesn’t acknowledge it):

Still, McCain has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Rodham Clinton over him.

This last-minute blitz against McCain by Limbaugh and others, however, comes far too late.

But if those conservatives sit out the general election, they will help Democrats make history by electing either the first black president or the first female president next November.

I doubt we will see a full-out assault on the presumptive Republican nominee, as we did in 1972 when the Democratic establishment pulled out the stops in an effort to nominate anybody buy McGovern, a campaign that sucked the wind from McGovern’s sails (he had faced a steep uphill climb against a sitting president with decent approval ratings already) — and fractured the party at a time when it already had become dangerously fragile.

What followed was the moderately paced erosion of the Democratic Party, both institutionally and philosophically. The Clinton presidency, in some ways, was a blip caused by the first George Bush’s disastrous handling of a recession, a blip that obscured the fact that the 1990s ended with Republican control of the House of Representatives, the election of George W. Bush and the further movement of our national government to the right.

The conditions on the right and in the Republican Party are similar, to some degree, to those faced in 1972 by the Democrats. Perhaps, Limbaugh is right (yes, I did just write that). Perhaps, McCain will lead the national GOP into the wilderness, after all, which would not be such a bad thing for the future of the country.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Home field advantage

All five of the remaining six candidates in this year’s presidential race who ran in their home-state primaries yesterday managed to win and win big.

But two of the Republican nominees — John McCain and Mitt Romney — failed to win as big as some might have expected.

Consider the numbers: Both Democrats managed to tally huge victories at home, with Barack Obama taking nearly two thirds of the vote in Illinois and Hillary Clinton winning 57 percent. In addition, Mike Huckabee took 60 percent in Arkansas. But Mitt Romney pulled in just 51 percent in Massachussets, with John McCain nabbing 40 percent, while McCain garnered an unimpressive 47 percent in Arizona (Romney finished with 34 percent).

In each case, the favorite-son/daughter candidate managed a double-digit win. But in considering McCain’s win in Arizona, I have to wonder why more isn’t being made of the fact that more people voted against McCain than actually voted for him.

This story, in the Arizona Republic on Saturday, speculates on whether a McCain nomination would carry coattails, potentially swinging down-ballot races to the GOP. The assumption is that McCain carries Arizona, which seems likely, though I think the Arizona primary results at least raise some doubts.

Those doubts are made clearer by this on exit polling from The Arizona Daily Star:

Still, exit polls in Arizona Tuesday night illustrated McCain still has work to do in shoring up support from conservatives. Though McCain won the state, Romney had strong support from Republicans who described themselves as conservative and those who believe illegal immigrants should be deported. Romney had 47 percent ofthe vote from those who describe themselves as conservatives, compared to McCain’s 36 percent, according to CNN.

What helped McCain was overwhelming support from Republicans who called themselves liberals, and he was also favored by moderates.

Whether this weakness among conservatives will hurt him in the general election remains an open question, as is whether his current strength among liberals and moderates will carry over when he has to face a more liberal Democrat.

The Los Angeles Times also alludes to the same questions, well down in a Page 1 analysis story:

The Republicans’ divide was ideological — and familiar. It was the same division between moderates, most of whom favor McCain, and conservatives, most of whom don’t, that marked the results in earlier primaries from New Hampshire to South Carolina.

Across the nation, McCain led among Republicans who identified themselves as moderates or liberals, but Romney led among the larger group who called themselves conservatives, according to exit poll results published by the Associated Press.

In California, McCain won only a third of the vote among conservatives, who made up most of the Republican electorate; Romney won a plurality of conservatives’ votes. That result was repeated in most other states; even in Arizona, where McCain won overall, he lost among conservatives.

That suggested that the Arizona senator has not yet won over substantial numbers of his party’s most loyal supporters, despite weeks of effort on his part to show that he is as conservative as his rivals.

“McCain wanted to use Super Tuesday to silence his critics and become the consensus nominee, but he fell a little short,” said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster. “McCain moved the ball forward, but he didn’t score a touchdown. It’s not a bad showing, but it’s not especially strong.”

How these questions play out as we move toward November will depend on the final lineup — not only the presidential candidates, but the vice presidential candidates — and could be influenced by any number of circumstances. McCain’s win in Arizona shows some cracks that could keep him from bringing his party togethe, which is the only hope he has come November.

Then again, I would never rule him out.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

No surprises — or not many

For the most part, the night has gone as originally expect — Democrats split, with Clinton taking New Jersey and Obama taking some of the midwestern states; Republicans backing McCain.

And then there’s Mike. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has won several Southern contests, with John McCain winning but not winning big across the board. This raises the question of whether the social conservatives are holding out on the Arizona senator and whether this portends problems for the fragmenting conservative coalition.

Another thing to watch, as the numbers continue to come in from Arizona, is how big McCain wins in his home state. Clinton, Obama, Romney and Huckabee all won big at home, and McCain’s lead is rather large in Arizona. But as I write this, he’s failed to cross the majority threshold, pulling in 49 percent of the vote there with 31 percent of the precincts reporting. That means that 51 percent of Arizona Republicans voted for someone other than their own sitting senator. Not sure if this means anything, but it does raise some interesting questions.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Thoughts on the final four– the candidates, not basketball

I know the Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul campaigns may take issue with me on this, but I thought I’d offer a short overview of my thinking on the four remaining candidates as I get ready, like the rest of New Jersey and 21 other states, to cast my primary ballot. This is not an endorsement, just me thinking aloud and offering the rationale behind the choice I am planning to make tomorrow.

First, I should mention, I am a registered Democrat, a fact that has occasionally been used against me in my position as a journalist and editorial writer. My registration, however, is not about party loyalty but about presidential preference. I am not so much a Democrat as I am a progressive, a liberal, a lefty — call it what you will. This has importance at the higher levels of government, but not at the local level. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats — though not for federal office. And my papers, the Post and Press, have endorsed Republicans for local and state office.

In fact, I’ve been just as likely to vote for a third-party candidate as to vote Democrat. For instance, I voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000 and for a third-party candidate for governor in 2001.

I first declared party affiliation in 1984 so that I could vote in the primary that year for Gary Hart and have maintained my affiliation so I could have some say on who the Democratic nominee would be (I backed Jerry Brown in 1992), especially as the Republican Party has become rightwing establishment.

So, what does that mean for tomorrow’s vote? Obviously, given what I’ve just written, I can’t vote in the Republican Primary. Even if I could, though, I wouldn’t because none of the candidates on the GOP side share my values. All continue to support the war, want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, think the market can fix the healthcare mess and so on. Of the candidates, John McCain is the least objectionable — he has supported comprehensive and humane immigration reform and opposes torture — but he remains a believer in this war and has flipped and flopped on all matter of issues (the Bush tax cut, his criticism of the evangelicals).
That leaves the two Democrats — Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — both of whom are flawed, but both of whom are better than any of the men the party has chosen in years. So how to choose?

The media has been focusing on Obama’s “post-partisanism,” the idea that he represents a new paradigm in politics. Obama talks of change and getting beyond the simple Democrat-Republican divide, but too often his rhetoric makes it seem as if he has no underlying principles, no philosophy beyond compromise. We have reached a point in our history when we must move beyond petty partisan fights, but there are principles on which we must stand — a challenge to militarism and opposition to the upward redistribution of wealth, support for constitutional rights, civil rights and human rights, for instance — and on which we can’t compromise. I think Obama does understand and believe this and would be a steadfast defender of progressive principles. But the language he uses raises other expectations, muddying the waters.

Clinton has been portraying herself as the fighter, but her history and the history of the eight years her husband spent in the White House make it clear that they are at the other pole of this debate — purveyors of a harsh partisanship formed during the crucible of her husband’s presidency and empty of real principles. The Clintons are master compromisers who have made careers out of triangulation and you just have to track the statements she has made since 2004 to understand what I’m talking about. Remember the Iraq vote, but also consider the comments she has made over the last few years on cultural issues like violence in video games and movies (she called for a federal probe into “Grand Theft Auto”), her connection to union-busting attorneys and public relations firms, her past support for telecom reform that has benefited the bigger companies and so on.

Obviously, I have been leaning toward Obama (I had planned to vote for John Edwards, until he dropped out last week). On most of the issues, Clinton and Obama are not all that far apart. On the economy, climate change, immigration, abortion, their positions are virtually identical. On health care, Clinton offers a better plan (Obama’s lacks mandated coverage for adults), while Obama has made a rhetorical move to Clinton’s right flank — a troubling move.

In the end, I’ll be voting for Obama for two reason: Iraq and Iran. While both Obama and Clinton promise to end the war, only one has been right on the war from the beginning — Obama. Clinton voted to authorize the war with Iraq and, no matter how much she tries to explain it away, I can only view it as either a lack of judgment or a vote of political calculation, neither of which speak well for a candidate who repeatedly says she is the one who will be ready on day one to be president and commander-in-chief.

Her rhetoric on Iran raises some concerns, as well. While she is committed to diplomacy (as is Obama), she has no intention of sitting down with Iranian leaders — which would appear to make diplomacy impossible. Obama is prepared to meet face to face, a willingness that could be likened to Nixon’s opening to China or Reagan’s face-to-face meetings with Gorbachev. Iran is the United States’ chief rival in the Middle East; it is irresponsible not to talk.

So, yes, I am planning to vote for Barack Obama in the primary tomorrow, with some reservations, but no trepidation.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

The false centrism of John McCain

The press likes to paint Sen. John McCain as a maverick, an independent, a moderate. But McCain, by his own admission, is really none of these things. He is a died-in-the-wool conservative who has taken some positions — campaign finance reform, the Bush tax cuts — that have angered the base, but he remains far to the right of the mainstream of American voters.

The question, as Joe Conason points out, is whether the press will do its job and raise these points. (EJ Dionne Jr. speculates on McCain signalling the fracturing of the conservative coalition, which would be good news for the country.)

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.