The War Over John McCain

As I noted the other day, I should now be considered a McCain supporter, though I'm also an ex-Giuliani and -Thompson supporter. As such, back-to-back editorials by Hugh Hewitt and Bob Novak piqued my interest, and in the first case sort of got my blood boiling. Hewitt is an unabashed Romney partisan, and the author of the interesting insider book A Mormon in the White House, so his assault on McCain is to be expected. But it's all a rehash of old stuff, and if McCain's crawling back into contention, wouldn't that suggest that bygones are becoming bygones?

It's the criticisms of McCain where I'm not "just" another Republican - sure I differ from the Senator on issues like McCain-Feingold and an enhanced interrogation - but I've never understood the lingering bitterness over the Gang of 14 deal. Partly this stems from the fact that some of the nominees are too conservative for my taste, but partly it's grounded in what I believe is an honest assessment of politics. Changing the rules as Frist threatened to do with the "nuclear option" wouldn't have just changed them to our benefit - they would also have benefited Democrats if they take the White House in less than eleven months. I'm willing to accept fewer nominated judges at present if that means fewer Democratic-nominated judges shoved down our throat. The counter argument is of course that allowing these seats to go unfilled gives Democrats more opportunities to do just that, to which I don't have a great reply. Accusing him of grandstanding is also baseless - he's one of the best-loved Republican Senators and had more of his peers been willing to meet him half-way on any number of things, "grandstanding" would have become "supporting." There's more to be said about this but, unfortunately, I don't feel like discussing it at this moment.

I'm more in agreement with the Prince of Darkness. He too understands that McCain isn't likely to win any superlatives at the GOP prom, but doesn't resort to Hewitt's bitter assaults while recognizing what Hewitt refuses to: that McCain is better poised to win a general election than Romney. If Romney can't open up a real lead in either Iowa or New Hampshire in spite of his massive infusions of cash, while Huckabee and McCain are both making surprising runs, doesn't that suggest that Mitt isn't the strong candidate in the general election?

Discombobulated thoughts, I apologize.

Daily Kos Stupidity

I'm a regular reader at DailyKos, though I never know whether I'll get my fair share of chuckles or an urge to up-chuck. I recently had a reaction that was somewhere between the two as I read a diary entitled "A Gift You Can Give Yourself: A Democratic Cabinet."

First off, talk about counting your chickens before you hatch, even as a motivational tool. That was a chuckle.

Some of the diarist's nominations then provoked an up-chuck. Russ Feingold for AG? Jim Webb for SecDef? Joe Biden for Secretary of State is somewhere between the two; I imagine we'd soon find our ambassador to New Delhi expelled after a crack about Indian being a country of more than a billion potential 7-11 managers.

And then I hit the writer's suggestion for Secretary of the Treasury, and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, but I knew that I had to quote it in full:

Denise Nappier (CT)

Why always someone from Wall Street? Denise Nappier has been Connecticut's State Treasurer since 1998 and has more experience than most of Wall Street (and would maybe be a little more independent from Wall Street, just saying).

Why always someone from Wall Street? Because when the economy's behaving like a sick puppy, you need a Wall Streeter to convince Wall Street that the sky isn't falling. Because the job of the Treasury Secretary is basically to be a liaison to Wall Street and an outsider isn't going to do a good job of it. Mine is a poor explanation, but it's one of those that if you don't get it, there's no helping you. While we're at it, I'm sure my town manager would be a great pick for Fed Chairman when Bernanke steps down.

But you know what's also remarkable? Not a single Republican in the lot - not even a Dick Lugar or Chuck Hagel ("R"). Hell even a Republican would find one or two Dems for his cabinet - Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller obviously jump to mind first, but it'd be difficult to get a non-Democratic HUD Secretary through Congress, to name one example. Which of course will be a whole new can of worms; if a Republican wins the White House, Democrats will ensure that he's got no Cabinet to govern with.

Bhutto Assassinated

I woke up this morning to the tragic news that Benazzir Bhutto had been assassinated, apparently shot at close range by Islamists as she campaigned in Rawalpindi, and less than two weeks before the elections scheduled for January 8th. I haven't heard yet, but the fact that an assassin succeeded in getting so close brings to mind the death of Indira Gandhi, when her own security detail turned on her; this isn't to equate a democrat like Bhutto to a disastrous president such as Gandhi, but merely to note the similarities at their death. [According to Powerline, there was a parallel attack on Nawaz Sharif, though it seems less determined and was obviously unsuccesfull.]

Musharraf has already disclaimed any knowledge or responsibility in the matter; the necessity of such a disclaimer is in itself a disquieting thing.

Michelle Malkin and Law Hawk both have lengthy, multi-update posts worth perusing with a bevy of links to follow. More of the same here, here, here, here, and here courtesy of Instapundit.

The last of those links (NRO's Corner) includes reactions from many of the presidential candidates who are rapidly turning this into a football. Even Huckabee has a statement out, though I imagine his morning briefing consisted of locating Pakistan on a map. CQ responds to Bill Richardson's hare-brained notion of forcing Musharraf out of power - the Captain lays out the several obvious layers of idiocy here. And though Thompson made a nice statement to the media, his team screwed up royally, sending out an email entitled "Great News This Morning;" while they probably didn't know about the death of Bhutto before hitting send, it's still a stupid mistake that they'll have to play a bit of D on today. Finally, Podhoretz notes that this morning's bloodshed will require primary voters to pay attention to international events and snap out of the domestic daydream that they've been in for the last several weeks and months (likely a product of our progress in Iraq, which Democrats dare not mention).

VDH, too, writes on Pakistan, a piece that might serve as an epitaph to the deceased, looking for a silver lining in her death. In closing, I think it's best to cite Bhutto herself: "I didn't choose this life, it chose me." Rest in peace.

A Noteworthy Event

I should mention that, two days after the fact, I've realized my previous post was also my 500th post. Thanks to my handful of readers - feel free to share the love!

Dispatch from the Huckabus

Yes, Mike Huckabee calls his vehicle the Huckabus. And the Weekly Standard's Terry Eastland is aboard, discussing Huckabee's increasingly strident populism in an insightful article that's well worth reading.

Though neither would ever admit it, I see a lot in common (at least politically) between John Edwards and Huckabee. Both are smooth-talking Southerners, though while Huckabee was trying to convert the masses, Edwards was focused merely on a jury; both have to some degree repudiated the Bush administration's foreign policy, and espoused one of their own that is fundamentally naive. Both are playing to their party's core constituencies, though Huckabee is doing so with far more success than his Democratic counterpart. And most notably, both are espousing populist politics in increasingly aggressive tones. Both the parallels here are interesting - Edwards' conversion to Marxist rhetoric has been a matter of desperation; this wasn't so obviously his schtick in 2004. Huckabee, however, has embraced this air of "grievance" as he's risen in the polls - for him its opportunism. As Eastland points out, he's positioning himself against Romney both socially and economically, and doing both succesfully. Eastland goes so far as to suggest that the Huckabee campaign is attempting to realign the Republican Party (perhaps much the same way that Tancredo's one-trick pony campaign did with immigration).

To me, this effort is another reason to hate Huckabee. For years now, Republicans have largely had Democrats on the defensive economically - sure they still advocated stupid policies, but they were at least in favor of tax cuts; they'd conceded much of the economic middle ground to the GOP. A realignment such as Huckabee apparently envisions would do exactly the opposite - if populism became the order of the day, Republicans would be at a serious disadvantage to Democrats, whose constituencies are more universally in support of this. In contrast, a Republican nominee spouting populist trash would have to wage an intra-party civil war
to do so. Bottom-line: Huckabee's populism isn't just stupid (and bad economic policy), it's damaging long-term; as always, fear the law of unintended consequences.

UPDATE: Politico's Jonathan Martin has an interesting piece this morning situating Huckabee as the latest in a long line of Republican incumbents, including Robertson, Buchanan, and McCain. I don't know if I agree with all of it, especially the McCain part, however the second page is worth reading for the fervent religiosity that pervades Huckabee campaign stops, "polling data come alive," in Martin's words.

UPDATE 2: An interesting evangelical critique of Huckabee, thus meriting a religion tag on this post.

My Shifting Allegiances

I've been nobody's stalwart this political season, indeed I've followed a rather peripatetic route to my present position. I supported Giuliani early on, thinking that he had the best hope of becoming president. I switched my support to Thompson in the long run-up to his announcement, in hopes that he might be able to rally the conservative troops and peel enough independents away from Hillary or Obama to win. When, after finally announcing, Thompson proved a poor campaigner (one might almost say DOA), I returned to Giuliani. It's not that I don't like Fred, I think he's spot-on on many of the issues. My return to Giuliani was motivated by the belief that he might still be the best bet, which he was at the time. Finally, I think I've settled on John McCain. I supported McCain in 2000 (though I was all of 14 at the time), and am proud to support him again.

Why John McCain? First and foremost, his experience. He is the only candidate in either party with any substantive military service; he not only served, he suffered and sacrificed for this country. He's ornery and independent-minded, principled may be a better way to put it, on a whole range of issues. I don't agree with him on campaign finance, I wish he was a bit more conservative on immigration (though he's a border-stater with all that means), his comparing water-boarding (which does no permanent damage) to what the Vietnamese did to him (which has left him unable to raise his arms above his shoulders) irks me. But he understands the threat we're facing, he has a lifetime of public service, and he's a fundamentally good man. Here's to hoping he gets the nomination.

Hindus Pull an Islam

If the title doesn't make sense, the story itself does - Hindus protest use of gods on underwear. The government of India's Orissa state have asked the US government to somehow punish a US company for producing, well, underwear adorned with the likenesses of Hindu gods. Why? Because they claim it hurts "the religious sentiments of people." Never mind the fact that the US government can't do a damned thing about this (and thankfully so), what in god's(') name(s) is Orissa's government thinking here? Apparently, the website also "offended India" by portraying Nehru and the Indian flag on underwear. Next up? Italy suing because of those David boxers...

Oh and because I'm edgy like this, here's the offending undies (with Indian flag, can't find the deities).

Chris Cillizza's Stuck in History

I generally agree with, and always enjoy reading, Chris Cillizza's commentary at The Fix, but today I have to take issue. His long presidential Friday Line is generally uncharitable to Republicans, starting with the reasons the top five can't get the nomination, before conceding that Mitt Romney's best-situated to do so.

My biggest issue with the whole piece though, is his assessment of John McCain:

4. John McCain: The Arizona senator has had a good week. He won the endorsements of both the Boston Globe and the Des Moines Register and had a high-profile endorsement event in New Hampshire with Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.). McCain's campaign believes that his best chance to win New Hampshire is to follow his 2000 blueprint -- convince independents in large numbers to back his candidacy. Maybe. But won't that lead to a repeat of 2000 in South Carolina when Republicans refused to get behind McCain? (Previous ranking: 4)

What's my issue with that? The down-playing of the DMR and Manchester U-L endorsements (I'm still not certain of the value of Lieberman's contribution). But what really strikes me as myopic is his comment about McCain's performance in 2000 in New Hampshire and South Carolina. First off, it's not 2000. Then, his performance in New Hampshire may have hurt him in the Palmetto State but there was only candidate who could take advantage; if he's damaged in South Carolina, it's a tossup who will benefit. Further, given the nature of his insurgent candidacy in 2000, a single loss had the potential to be fatal - in 2008, that hardly seems to be the case. Further, between the two primaries, voters go to the polls in Michigan, where it's currently a two-man battle between McCain and Romney.

I also have to question his rankings. Romney at #1, I can see - he's the most viable candidate not named Huckabee in Iowa, and has leads in both New Hampshire and Michigan. He's also the best-funded. #3 Huckabee is leading in two states, Iowa and South Carolina. #2 Giuliani leads in Florida, which doesn't vote until the end of January - in the meantime, he could lose as many as four significant contests. And he's the #2? Really Chris, I know he's still got a lot of conventional wisdom behind him, but you can't "listlessness and sense of indecision within Giuliani's world," point out that he's not polling well in any of the four early states, and then still rank him #2. As much as I hate to say it, I think Huckabee's #2 in this horse race, and it's a tossup between Giuliani and McCain in third - where, to me, Giuliani's fundraising gives him the edge.

Interesting News from New Hampshire

The old news is that last Sunday, the Manchester Union-Leader endorsed John McCain. This Sunday, the Concord Monitor anti-endorsed (aka slammed) Mitt Romney. According to NYT's Adam Nagourney, the paper probably doesn't have much sway with Republican voters - but he makes no mention of independents, who can vote in either party's primary in New Hampshire. Still, it's an interesting hit piece; the media finally shows its true colors?