Wednesday, August 06, 2008
|
|
For McCain, Barack Obama is the New Mitt Romney?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:24 AM
|
As usual, Maureen Dowd's column this morning -- titled "McCain's Green-Eyed Monster" -- is over-stated and overly-dramatic. She often seeks to psychoanalyze her subjects, but the end result is usually turning them into simplistic two-dimensional caricatures.
Today's column is no exception. Dowd's central premise -- that McCain's recent ads were approved because McCain is "green with envy" over Obama -- is, of course, absurd (according to Dowd, the old McCain of 2000 would never have stooped to this level. The only explanation for why he would do so now is that he is soooo envious!).
But, as usual, there are also brilliant insights to glean from her observations; you just have to get past the drama. In this case, Dowd is probably correct that Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson are jealous of the "new guy." That certainly is consistent with what we know about them, and it has been confirmed by their highly-publicized recent statements about Obama.
In the case, of McCain, she finally hits the nail on the head when she writes,
"For McCain, being cool meant being a rogue, not a policy wonk; but Obama manages to be a cool College Bowl type, which must irk McCain, who liked to play up his bad-boy cool." If you're trying to create a caricature of McCain, a Marlon Brandoesqu, black-leather-jacket-wearing fly-boy who looks down his nose with derision at the book-wormy nerd is a more accurate description (as opposed to a man who is green with envy).
Interestingly, this is the same phenomenon that, as I've written about many times in the past, caused McCain -- and the other GOP presidential candidates -- to resent Mitt Romney during the GOP primaries. McCain had been running for president for a decade, but then this really sharp, preppy, polished guy showed up with all this money, PowerPoint presentations, and a perfect family, and started rocking the boat. McCain and Rudy were the cool kids in the back of the class throwing spitballs; Romney was the kid in the front of the class with his hand up to answer every question ... you get the common analogy ...
It's not so much that McCain is envious of Obama -- as much as it is that he currently views Obama as a "goody-goody" poseur who hasn't paid his dues.
So yes, I think it's fair to say this is personal. But saying McCain envies Obama is the wrong way of looking at it. He doesn't envy Obama, he looks down his nose at him.
|
|
Riffini continues:
=======
'...The only thing Bush offered fiscal conservatives was tax cuts. The rest was Catholic social thought.
Say what you will about him, but Bush has never gone squishy on a single social issue in eight years. But has gone wobbly on fiscal issues, leading to a revolt in the conservative establishment.
As Bush knew, and as we are re-learning with the rise of John McCain and the intransigence of Mike Huckabee’s base, fiscal conservatism is where the opinion leaders are, and social conservatism is where the votes are.
Mitt Romney is trying to unify the party as a business guy from Belmont who is culturally as far removed from Suwannee County, Florida as you can get.
He’s going about it very clinically: vote for me because I’m not McCain. But I’m not sure that message holds much sway with an audience that takes its cues from Christian radio not News/Talk and certainly not National Review.
And notice his message: it’s all about the economy, and nothing about Life and only a little bit about marriage. Christian voters have noticed.
Romney is pinning his hopes on brining in the social “leg of the stool.” But though they’re not wild about McCain, I’d venture that a plurality of these voters would rank Romney third.
Don’t mistake this post as siding with the Huckabee/SoCon analysis of the party. I’m simply analyzing it from a 30,000 foot perspective. And as one of those FiscalCons who’s now with Romney, what I’m seeing here is not effective coalition politics.
Specifically, it seems to me that the conservative establishment’s decision to go nuclear first on Huckabee (who never had a shot but speaks for voters we need in November) before McCain (who always had a shot but speaks mostly for himself) will rank as a pretty serious strategic blunder.'
http://www.patrickruffini.com/2008/02/02/intransigent-huck- voters/ |
|
Ruffini continues:
=====
'...That’s not surprising if you look at the returns. McCain won most pro-Huckabee counties, but not because Huckabee split the vote, but because McCain held his own (usually with between 30-40% of the vote) and Romney did poorly in these areas.
If you look at county returns, you’ll see that McCain is the Coca-Cola of GOP candidates, always performing at a consistent 30-40%, except in Miami-Dade (where he was higher thanks to Cubans) and any county that is both suburban and very conservative (which Romney’s cornered the market on — a good omen for Orange County).
McCain does well in swing counties and liberal-leaning metro areas, but surprisingly, he doesn’t tank in rural, Evangelical areas. But Romney does.
McCain seems to have a slightly greater affinity with Huckabee’s base than Romney does.
There is a message in these returns to conservatives busy soldering together the coalition below decks: do not assume that just because they’re all pro-life, that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham speak for the social conservatives Romney needs next Tuesday. They don’t. Being pro-life and pro-marriage is not enough.
To understand what Huckabee voters want, you need to actually appreciate what Mike Huckabee brings to the table, which is an emphasis on faith, undiluted.
Many conservatives, particularly those around here, do not.
While many of us agree on the social issues, the conservative establishment resented how he injected his religion into the campaign. Never have I seen conservatives so readily repeat the Barry Lynn/ACLU line on the “wall” between church and state.
It’s instructive to study how George W. Bush united the conservative coalition eight years ago. He did so not as a Mitt Romney Republican but as a Mike Huckabee Republican.'
[more next post]... |
|
Akennas writes: 'We would have Mitt Romney as our presidential candidate right now, and he would already be cleaning the Obamassiah's clock, if Huck had not spoiled it for Mitt and given us John McCain.'
ME: That is one theory. But, there are others which are at least as interesting and plausible --maybe more.
Like Ruffini's:
=====
'The Romney campaign’s February 5th math is simple: move all the voters from the Huckabee pile onto theirs and claim a majority of conservatives. Unfortunately, it’s just not that simple.
In the South — still more delegate-rich per capita than NY, CA, NJ, IL, etc. — the “conservative” vote, defined as Romney + Huckabee, is splitting down the middle. Most polls down South look like McCain 30, Huckabee 25, Romney 25.
We’ve seen how this played out in South Carolina, except there it was establishment conservatives refusing to take the advice that they play ball with Huckabee to strengthen their hand in Florida.
We also saw it in rural northern Florida, where in many cases it was a three man race (and often a two man race between McCain and Huck).
The problem with this analysis is that I’ve seen no evidence that Huckabee voters would go to Romney.
On a county level, the Romney and Huckabee votes are negatively correlated, with Romney representing the conservative side of the Chamber of Commerce/Rotary Club vote and not really showing outsized strength with Evangelicals.
Moreover, the Florida exit poll asked about second choices. Though the poll as reported doesn’t specifically break down the result by first choice vote, I’ve thrown the question into Excel to get some estimates [...].
The poll outright defied the conventional wisdom of Giuliani voters breaking cleanly for McCain or Huckabee voters for Romney.
Giuliani voters actually split their second choice between McCain and Romney about 40-40.
But Huckabee voters went for McCain as their second choice about 44 to 33%...
[more next post]... |
|
|
And Maine, where Romney handily won, but because of weird rules, the delegates remained unpledged. Romney won the state, but the 20 delegates were given to Mccain. |
|
In the popular vote he won 4,567,000 to Huck's 4,145,000, and the actual delegate count is not entirely accurate, (like Wyoming where Romney handily won, but half the delegates were taken away because they held their primary too early), and the fact that Huck stayed in a full six weeks longer than Romney, but couldn't rack up any more support.
The truth is that if Huck dropped out when Romney did, Romney would be the nominee. But Romney dropping out didn't help Huck at all - in fact it stuck a fork in him, only he was having too much fun to admit his campaign was over.
I kind of wish it had gone to convention, too. But there's no way Huck could have won there either. He was soundly rejected by voters. He barely won the southern vote (Huck 31% to Romney 30%) and was in single digits everywhere else. Huck does not have and never will have broad appeal in the party.
|
|
May I direct your attention to the primary results? McCain, 1575 delegates; Huckabee 278 delegates; Romney 271 delegates.
278 > 271
Huckabee came in second.
If you want to know why, just re-read Pro's post from Aug 9, at 3:18 pm.
Stop whining about Huckabee giving the voters in state primaries after Super Tuesday a choice. Romney didn't have to become "Mitter the Quitter"; he could have stuck it out "for the good of the Party", working for a brokered convention that would possibly have gotten us someone more conservative than McCain. |
|
|
Maureen O'Dowd's a dumb broad and should also get me a beer. |
|
gunlock bill writes: 'Romney on the other, had the ability to reach non-Evangelical conservatives, because he didn't use identity politics.'
ME: I would say that is a non sequitor.
It bears repeating, always, that in relative terms Romney had a massive national campaign structure of paid staff, and (by the time he had exited) had spent more than McCain, Huckabee, Hunter, Brownback, Keyes, Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson, combined.
Or, you can pull out McCain and insert Giuliani and Fred Thompson with Huckabee, Hunter, Brownback, Keyes, Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson, and its about the same comparison.
IOW, Romney probably spent nearly a third of *ALL* Republican Presidential primary expenditures.
Romney, 107 million, or so, vs. the rest mentioned, plus Ron Paul & Tancredo, combines to up around 240 million, or so, and that puts Romney at about 44-45% of what the rest of the Republicans spent.
Also, McCain is JUST NOW at the end of July 2008 getting up around Romney's numbers -- nearly six months after Romney's exit!
Add in The National Review published its endorsement nearly a month out of Iowa, and steadily the conservative establishment's chattering classes began to follow suit in a crescendo, until the din of their bleating shill was nearly hysterical, and with that you have quite a valuable mass of free media for Romney.
Romney had every advantage money and free media exposure could give a candidate.
He had overwhelming structural advantages similar to that of Governor Bush in 1999-2000 --though Romney had very few Govs. in his corner, and Bush had them all during his run.
Maybe if Romney had been able to line up his fellow Governors in advance, like Bush, it might've made the difference in a few states --like say, Florida.
But, then again, the Governors knew what kind of politician he was. |
|
"It is apparent that if Romney had not been in the race Mac would have still won the nomination. After all Huck failed to surge even after Romney did drop out.
However, it is also apparent that if Huckabee had not been in the race, Romney would have won the nomination."
it is apparent only to those who see imagined anti-mormonism under every rock, even when there is none |
|
"Profanity is the sign of a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully."
Cim, At least try to be creative with your insults. Something above a 4th grade vocabulary, not involving body parts. |
|
intense dislike of people with money ,education ,and no doubt good breeding naw most of them are all right i just think mitt is a fake .
i think you are just another smug elitest and i believe the log is not in my eye ,i'm afraid it is stuck deeply in your posterior and from your some arrogant manner i'm quite sure you like it there |
|
I did not say anything about Romney. You started in on the name-calling, anti-Mormon attacks on your own.
I called you a lib because, despite your protestations, you seem to harbor an intense dislike for people with money, education and ambition. This is a clear indication of your liberal tendencies. A true conservative would not demonstrate such animus towards these resources, accomplishments and attitudes. I think you need to reevaluate your values and attitudes if you want to continue calling yourself a conservative.
My feelings are not hurt in the least by your attempts to draw me into a pissing contest. I am surprised at your over-the-top response to my gentle jibes.
Remove the log in your own eye before you worry about the speck in mine.
Me thinks thou dost protest to much! |
|
how much does mitt pay you all to post these pathetic attacks , can you say mcain pawlenty
mcaian pallin mcain huckabee mcain cantor
mcain ridge cuz it won't be mcain romney |
|
|
i reserve the right to respond inkind vand was attacked by mr b . inoticed your attacks on huckabees charactere have grown shriller as romneys chance for vp fades |
|
|
Your committment to stop slamming Mormons didn't last but 2 hours or so. I accepted your apology, and now you are at it again. So sad. |
|
|
Romney came in 2nd. Just because Huck stayed in longer doesn't mean he was 2nd. LOL |
|
|
so mike huckabee manged to destroy mitts campaign simply by by pointing out that mitts a mormon? what do you thinks the dems would have done? if he could not handle mike huckabee with the money he spent ,he does not deserve any position at all . mike ran on the fair tax ,smaller goverment ,and conservitive social issues ,romney ran a lot of negative ads against mcain and everyone else and lost , romney had to hide from his record and distort everyone elses . he's a fake ,a sleaze and an empty suit his record ,not his beliefs got his butt kicked . the sooner he's gone the sooner we can get back to real issues |
|
|
did i hurt your wittle feelings ,only God knows the condition of ones heart ,i leave self righteous proclaimations about their goodness to idiots such as yourself .i'm assuming you're a mittriod and probably lds .by your standards of judging who and who is not a christian joseph smith would fall short, after all did he not take other mens wives from them? you're church records state this. 2 of his plethora of wives were only 14 years old. he also swindled money out of some people in illinois that he had borrowed it from .this also is matter of record . people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks . |
|
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1140
The mistake Huck made was his use of identity politics. He identified himself as the Christian(Evangelical)/Social conservative values candidate. And he couldn't reach beyond this group. In fact he often SCARED/alienated voters outside of this group.
But the Christian/Social conservatives value voters had another choice, Mitt Romney, and many took that choice.
Romney on the other, had the ability to reach non-Evangelical conservatives, because he didn't use identity politics.
Rudy mistakenly thought that he could totally ignore the social conservative value voters. He mistakenly believed the LSM mime that that group no longer had clout. They were wrong and so was Rudy.
But with the Christian/Social conservative vote split, Mac was able to slip through the gap and take the nomination with a plurality of votes.
It is apparent that if Romney had not been in the race Mac would have still won the nomination. After all Huck failed to surge even after Romney did drop out.
However, it is also apparent that if Huckabee had not been in the race, Romney would have won the nomination.
So thanks Huck for giving us Mac, and marginalizing the Christian/Social conservative voting block. |
|
Ok cim, you've definitely proven one thing by your rude comments...
...You are not a Christian. |
|
writes: "Mitt Romney utterly defines the word COMPETENT."
I have trouble accepting this statement as true, since Romney outspent the other candidates by tens of millions of dollars, and had the support of the big name conservative media, and still came in third, after a guy nobody wanted (McCain), and a guy everybody was saying was a snake-oil salesman, pro-life liberal (Huckabee). |
|
K.G. writes: 'Mitt is obviously the goody-two-shoes who plays by the rules and gets the job done. But Mitt is no whiner. He took his hits in the primary like a man and has continued to keep his eye on the ball.'
ME: Well, yes, and there is virtue in that. But, there comes a point where many (most) normal people want to see more than willingness to take a beating; they wanna see some sign of political virility.
like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHve9iQymqE
Team McCain has unrelentingly sought to remind voters that John McCain has the manly grit (and has it mythic proportions over all others in the field this cycle on both sides).
It is that factor, in part, which I believe gave McCain the nomination, and part of what is keeping him close in this general race --despite his many faults.
This is why many people preferred Dubya the gunslinger over Algore and John F. Kerry the brainy patricians.
In the case of Algore, America was reminded of the soft morally weak Clinton --the big doughy undisciplined lecher -- whom Gore had to defend, and distance himself from --all that the same time. (Proof that being VP is often an albatross.)
Ed Koch said in 1984, 'I disagree with Bush on every domestic issue', but he also said, he was supporting Bush because 'the Democrats didn't have the stomach to fight this war.'
In 1988 Voters didn't see much manliness to respect in Michael Dukakis in his response to Bernie Shaw's famous question. And, some folks may be wondering what's in the water up there in Mass.? |
|
I see too many posts about whether someone thinks Barack is more likeable than Mitt, McCain more likeable than Barack, etc., etc., etc.
Know what? This is fool talk. We don't elect a president becomes he seems like the person we want to be buddies with. We elect a president because we think the person is competent enough to handle what is likely the most difficult job in the world.
Likeability has it's place, but we can't make that the sole factor in deciding our vote. For me personally, I think Mitt Romney is the least likeable of the three...maybe not a super fun guy to go to the movies with. But, AND THIS IS A BIG BUT, Mitt Romney utterly defines the word COMPETENT. And when I'm choosing someone who'll have their finger on the button, so to speak, and a lot of control over the money in my bank account, I'm going to choose COMPETENCE every time.
And that, my friends, is why I like Mitt Romney. McCain's got some gravitas as well. Barack Obama? Who's he? |
|
My you are so easily provoked.
It's like teasing monkeys at the zoo.
Oh, and by the way...you're still a lib. |
|
|
and you sir are an idiot! romneys still a fake |
|
|
and you sir are an idiot! |
|
|
you got that right!!!!!!! |
|
|
To place Romney and Obama in a similar category is doing Romney a major injustice, or elevating Obama far above the miniscule level of respect and accomplishment he deserves. Your choice. |
|
"whatever ,iguess pro life,pro 2nd ammendment .pro fair or flat tax and pro much smaller goverment is liberal. ok i guess so in the classic sense of the word . romney is still a phoney"
And you are still a lib. |
|
|
you got that right!!!!!!! |
|
|
I think at least Mitt and B.O. are the same, both liberal and both will say anything to get elected. Both will attack and say it's defense. Both are slime. |
|
Mitt is obviously the goody-two-shoes who plays by the rules and gets the job done. But Mitt is no whiner. He took his hits in the primary like a man and has continued to keep his eye on the ball.
Mack has Short-Man's Syndrome; he gets petulant, pissy and "small." Cracks stupid jokes in an attempt to be charming.
Mitt is a Tall Man; mature, dedicated, magnanimous, bemused and above the fray.
Mack got in trouble in class because he was short and not too smart. It was the only way to bring attention to himself--not thru accomplishment but by being a scrappy "maverick."
Barack's only claim to fame is being too-cool-for-school.
Mack deserves our respect for what he did for America during Viet Nam. Mitt deserves our respect for his unwavering dedication to getting a job done.
Barack has done nothing to earn my respect. |
|
BHO is a child. Never accomplished anything and never came up with an original idea. Mitt is an extremely sucessful manager and businessman.
How about this, The communist BHO debates either Mccain or romney in a townhall setting where the questions are given by the audience.
|
|
|
whatever ,iguess pro life,pro 2nd ammendment .pro fair or flat tax and pro much smaller goverment is liberal. ok i guess so in the classic sense of the word . romney is still a phoney |
|
|
tar the Demonic cronies obama. they are same as mofia stealing the american hard earn saving. |
|
K.G. writes: 'To Compare Barack and Mitt Is Wacked Mitt has a life-long history of accomplishment.'
ME: The comparison is not that great because there are so many differences that it is hard to see the similarities.
Still, it seems there are a few. The most obvious is that Romney and Obama are the kind of people that people like McCain hold in contempt.
They are softer, prettier, prissy men, who in school would never got sent to the principal's office, whereas John McCain had a permanent seat down there with his name on it.
McCain would sit in the back of the class cuttin' up with his rude buddies, and Barack would sit with the girls charming them all class period --and in the hall, and Mitt would sit in the very front row (as Matt said) raising his hand on every question --even staying after class to ask the teacher more questions.
McCain would've had contempt for both kids, and may have punched both of them on occasion. Barack would've sought sympathy from the girls --and Mitt would've tattled. |
|
|
I've seen your other posts. You are a lib. |
|
|
I hope Mac's stragegy to give him enough rope works. It's a pretty weak campaign so far, although Mac has been heating up a bit. |
|
McCain needs to fine tune the ads, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. You destroy Obama by careful attacks that reveal who Barack really is.
|
|
Every time Romney's name is mentioned. Ha, ha.
Of course the comparison is ridiculous. Mac knew from day one as did all the other candidates that Romney was the one with the background, the money, the education, the success, and the leadership to be the most formidable candidate. Everyone was targeting him.
Obama has no such record of accomplishment. He is either an empty suit or the emperor with no clothes, both fit. |
|
Apparently, Romney doesn't know Jack.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/08/dont_ask_mitt_h.php |
|
|
i'm wounded unto death,i think romney is a smarmey elitest and i'm a lib? moi? if so me and several other millions of people that voted against that 2 faced phoney are libs as well. i can live with that |
|
|
i'm wounded unto death,i think romney is a smarmey elitest and i'm a lib? moi? if so me and several other millions of people that voted against that 2 faced phoney are libs as well. i can live with that |
|
Mitt has a life-long history of accomplishment. Some here may not like it--and some may lie about it. Mitt tried to make the health INSURANCE program work since people were getting health care no matter what; however, they were not insured.
This was an attempt to remedy a fiscal situation. From what I hear, if RomneyCare has problems is because people who should be paying for their own insurance are cheating to get their insurance paid.
The point is Mitt has years of accomplishment to which to point. Barack has little or none. Barack is a phony; Mitt is for real. |
|
|
|
Mitt Romeny is exactly like Barrack Obama 100% fake and full of himself.
Every single question on experiance you ask of Obama you could ask and get a similar answer from Romney.
Romney has never governed as a conservative though now he claims to be one. On the business side a lot of companies scale sown their staff that make decent wages and replace them with temp workers. Mostly illegal aliens is that something to be proud of?
Barry is not post racial, Romney is not post liberal he created government healthcare in Massachusetts hat is not conservative. He fought hard for pro-gay marraige, pro-choice and only had a decent economy because the entire country was in the midst of a boom even though his state was at the bottom of those rankings.
Matt, is there something wrong with Barrack's family or did you not see Mrs. Romney's nose in the air before her handlers trained her not to do so? |
|
|
Senator McCain is probably wondering how this inexperienced, non vetted, socialist got into the Presidential race. Senator McCain is not jealous or envious by any means - he was a POW for 5+ years - he is battle hardened, has two generations of Navy Admirals behind him, has more experience in his earlobe than Obama will attain in the next 25 years, McCain can handle Washington hands down, he can handle world leaders, he can handle Congress, he can handle the economy and he can handle this presidential campaign. All the MSM does not have to worry their pretty heads - John McCain is the perfect candidate for the POTUS. |
|
|
You are just a smarmy, elitist lib. |
|
|
Romney is a friend of mine. And you sir are NO Mitt Romney. |
|
TV show like the view where they try to find hidden phyallic symbols in everday objects and events.
It would be like The View. |
|
|
|
..."he currently views Obama as a "goody-goody" poseur who hasn't paid his dues"
Much the same was said of JFK in 1960, when America was ready for a generational change in leadership. We'll know in November whether that's true this year.
Huge difference between Obama and Romney: Romney spent millions of his own money and didn't connect with people. Obama connects and the small-donor cash flows in.
In 1856 the candidate who paid his dues, Buchanan, won, to disastrous results. In 1860 the upstart outsider, Lincoln, won over that year's dues payers (Seward and Douglas). Now he's on all your pennies. |
|
|
|
|
to connect with smarmy , elitest prigs ,thats obama and romney in a nutshell |
|
The bigger motif of the column is that Obama is the mature grown-up and McCain is the child throwing temper-tantrums because nobody is paying attention to him.
I give more details on my blog:
http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2008/08/cry-baby-mccain.html |
|
"It's not so much that McCain is envious of Obama as much as it is that he currently views him as a "goody-goody" poseur who hasn't paid his dues."
the same could be said for the way Bill Clinton feels about Obama. And in my estimation he is correct and I don't blame him for still harboring ill feelings toward Obama's campaign. He unfairly called the leader of the Democratic party, the man who, by the way, "saved" the Democratic party, a racist. Obama is like the snotty nosed kid who has no respect for his elders. And he would have treated any of his opponents this way if he had to, Edwards, Biden, Dodd. They all have paid their dues and so like any of us who might one day lose out on a promotion to the new kid on the block, they would be angry too. It's human nature. And I'll say it again...if the Clinton's are so irrelevant then why do the media care so much about what they think? Why do they insist on having him approve of Obama? What are they so worried about? |
|
|
|