Casbah Udine

Presidenziali USA '08: nel campo repubblicano

Autore: Orma

Front runners: R. Giuliani e M. Romney

Relax, Republicans, It's a Fine Field

By Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, 26 ottobre 2007

Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?

Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent. What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the last quarter-century.

The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent. And to argue that in 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican
field: One of the great big-city mayors of the last century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security; and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials.

So why all the angst? If you'd like to share just a bit of my serenity, have a look at last Sunday's Republican debate in Orlando. It was a feisty affair, the candidates lustily bashing each other's ideological deficiencies -- Mike Huckabee called it a "demolition derby" -- and yet strangely enough, the entire field did well.

McCain won the night by acclamation with a brilliant attack on Hillary that not so subtly highlighted his own unique qualification for the presidency. Citing his record on controlling spending, he ridiculed Hillary's proposed $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum. He didn't make it to Woodstock, McCain explained. He was "tied up at the time."

How do you beat that? McCain's message is plain: Sure, I'm old, worn and broke. But we're at war. Who has more experience in, fewer illusions about, and greater understanding of war -- and an unyielding commitment to win the one we are fighting right now?

Giuliani was his usual energetic, tough-guy self. He fended off attacks on his social liberalism with a few good volleys of his own -- at Thompson, for example, for being a tort-loving accessory to the trial lawyers -- and by making the fair point that he delivers a conservatism of results. His message? I drove the varmints out of New York City -- with their pornography, their crime and their hookers (well, a fair number, at least). Turn me loose on the world.

Romney's debate performance was as steady and solid and stolid as ever, becoming particularly enthusiastic when talking about the things he's done -- build a business, rescue the Winter Olympics, govern the most liberal state in the Union. He got especially animated talking about his Massachusetts health care reform, achieved by working with an overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature. His message? I'm a doer, a problem solver, a uniter.

Yet when Romney simultaneously insists that he represents the purest of the pure -- "the Republican wing of the Republican Party" -- he presents the paradox of a technocrat running as an ideologue. Figuring that running as a sane Ross Perot doesn't quite enrapture the Republican primary electorate, he is trying also to be the authentic Reagan conservative, filling the ideological slot George Allen forfeited when he lost his Senate race last year. It's an odd fit that all of Romney's smoothness and intelligence has yet to convincingly achieve.

As for Thompson, he is a paradox, too. He's been around forever -- since Watergate -- and yet is mostly a blank slate. Can anybody remember anything of significance he achieved in his eight years in the Senate? Nonetheless, he helped himself in Orlando, showing that while he can be appealingly amiable and affable -- a Reaganesque quality that should not be underestimated when people decide who they want in their living rooms for the next four years -- he can be tough, as demonstrated by his opening salvo at Giuliani's social liberalism.

Yes, I know. I've left out Huckabee, whom some of my colleagues are aggressively trying to promote to the first tier. I refuse to go along. Huckabee is funny, well-spoken and gave a preacher's stemwinder that wowed the religious right gathering in Washington last Saturday. But whatever foreign policy he has is naive and unconvincing. In wartime, that is a disqualification for commander in chief.

So no more gnashing of teeth. Republicans have 4 1/2 good presidential candidates. All five would make fine Cabinet members: Romney at Treasury, Thompson at Justice, McCain at Defense, Giuliani at Homeland Security, Huckabee at Interior. All the team needs now is to pick a captain who can beat Hillary.

Il candidato coast-to-coast

Christian Rocca, Il Foglio, 17 Ottobre 2007

New York. Hillary Clinton è riuscita a ritagliarsi il ruolo di candidato “inevitabile” del Partito democratico, dimostrando di essere capace di guidare una formidabile macchina politica, e ora si appresta a stravincere le primarie del suo partito. Eppure, al momento, la più sensazionale performance politica di questo ciclo elettorale non è la sua, ma quella di Rudy Giuliani, l’ex sindaco di New York che guida il gruppo di candidati del Partito repubblicano, malgrado sui temi sociali (aborto, diritti gay, porto d’armi) le sue posizioni siano ai margini dell’ortodossia conservatrice. Il mondo politico e giornalistico da mesi aspetta il crollo della sua candidatura, convinto che mai e poi mai la base socialconservatrice e religiosa del partito accetterebbe di votare per Giuliani, ma più passano le settimane più l’ex sindaco appare sempre più al comando della gara. L’ultimo sondaggio Gallup, di ieri, lo dà al 32 per cento, in vantaggio di 14 punti su Fred Thompson. L’altro dato è che la campagna di Giuliani è quella con più soldi in banca tra i repubblicani (12 milioni di dollari, un terzo meno di quelli a disposizione di Hillary).

Le minacce della destra religiosa di presentare un candidato indipendente alle elezioni presidenziali, qualora Giuliani vincesse le primarie repubblicane, sembrano rientrate, anche perché i leader cristiano-conservatori cominciano a rendersi conto che la loro opposizione all’ex sindaco non è condivisa dalla base. La maggioranza dei repubblicani che frequenta almeno una volta la settimana la chiesa, infatti, in un recente sondaggio ha scelto in maggioranza Giuliani come proprio candidato, malgrado sia l’unico dei big di destra e di sinistra ad avere il coraggio di dire che non va regolarmente a messa. Il sondaggista repubblicano Frank Luntz spiega questo fenomeno con la reputazione di Giuliani di gran combattente contro il terrorismo: “E’ riuscito a trasformare la sicurezza nazionale in una questione sociale”.

(segue dalla prima pagina) Il capo della Jesus Machine, James Dobson, continua a dire che non voterà mai per l’abortista Giuliani, ma l’ex sindaco sabato andrà direttamente a casa di Dobson, alla Convention dei Values Voters di Washington, a spiegare ai militanti della destra religiosa perché la sua candidatura è l’unica in grado di battere Hillary Clinton. Un’esperienza che comunque sarà più difficile rispetto a quella trionfale di ieri mattina davanti al pubblico della Coalizione ebraica repubblicana, dove ha ribadito che da presidente non permetterà all’Iran degli ayatollah di dotarsi della bomba atomica: “I democratici vogliono negoziare con Teheran e ricordano che anche Reagan ha trattato con i sovietici. Certo, ma prima li ha definiti ‘impero del male’, poi ha puntato gli euromissili contro le loro città e solo a quel punto ha detto, ‘ok negoziamo’”.
Mitt Romney e Fred Thompson mettono in dubbio il pedigree conservatore di Giuliani, ma gli elettori repubblicani vedono il suo passato da numero tre del Dipartimento di Giustizia di Ronald Reagan, da procuratore antimafia e da sindaco che ha ripulito New York. Soprattutto ascoltano proposte di politica economica e di sicurezza di stampo reaganiano e vedono una squadra di consiglieri di politica estera di intellettuali neoconservatori, da Norman Podhoretz a David Frum, da Daniel Pipes a Michael Rubin, fino probabilmente al più interessante di tutti: Peter Berkowitz, saggista, professore di legge, analista della Hoover Institution, studioso di Leo Strauss e senior advisor della campagna sui temi della libertà e dei diritti umani.

La strategia è di imporsi come l’unico repubblicano in grado di competere in quegli stati a maggioranza democratica che i conservatori hanno abbandonato: New York, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania. “Sono l’unico candidato coast-to-coast”, dice Giuliani. Alle primarie gli altri repubblicani, in particolare Romney, concentrano gli sforzi su Iowa e New Hampshire, i primi stati a pronunciarsi già a metà gennaio, mentre Giuliani ha già aperto uffici in quasi tutto il paese. Il calendario è il suo più grande ostacolo, perché i primi quattro stati in cui si apriranno le urne – Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan e Carolina del sud – sono gli unici dove l’ex sindaco insegue Romney e Thompson.

The Two-Man Race. Only Rudy and Mitt have credible scenarios.

Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, 11/05/2007, Volume 013, Issue 08

Ron Paul has been a striking presence in the Republican presidential debates. One result is he's raised an unimaginable amount of money--$5.1 million in the third quarter--for an obscure congressman from Texas. Another is he's jumped to fourth place (7.4 percent) in a New Hampshire primary poll. Yet practically no one takes him seriously as a possible Republican presidential nominee. The reason is Paul has no credible scenario for winning the nomination, much less the presidency.

Scenarios matter. They offer a way to judge the presidential race. Strong candidates can outline a sequence of likely victories or impressive finishes in the caucuses and primaries that would lead to the nomination. Weak candidates can't. And, to be clear, a strategy and a scenario aren't the same. A scenario is a vision of a candidate's path to victory.

At this point, with the first voting just nine weeks away, only two candidates--Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney--have credible scenarios. In that sense, the Republican campaign has become a two-man race, Rudy vs. Mitt. John McCain and Fred Thompson may not like this. They have scenarios, too, but theirs aren't terribly credible.

This means just what you think it does. More likely than not, the Republican nominee will be Giuliani or Romney. I remember the old Ken Murray television show in the 1950s that would cut to Hollywood and Vine, where, it was said, "anything can happen and usually does." That's true of politics as well. Still, the best bet is Rudy or Mitt.

There are three things to keep in mind when evaluating the presidential race in 2008. First, national polls don't matter at all. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry polled at 13 percent or less nationally before the primaries, then locked up the Democratic nomination a few weeks later. State polls provide a better clue of what may happen. Second, the primaries are a dynamic process. Win in the early states and you have a far greater chance of capturing the later primaries--and the nomination. Third, money is more important than ever in 2008. If a long shot like McCain or Thompson or even Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa (January 3) or New Hampshire (January 8) or South Carolina (January 19), there won't be enough time for him to raise the funds needed to compete effectively in Florida on January 29 and the 20-plus primaries on February 5. Television ads are expensive, but necessary.

Romney has an early-primary strategy aimed at Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. He's poured money into those states, broadcast TV spots, and built organizations. Fox News polls show him leading in Iowa and New Hampshire and a close second in South Carolina.

If he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, he'll have history on his side. No presidential candidate in either party has failed to win the presidential nomination after finishing first in Iowa and New Hampshire--that is, since 1972 when Democrat Edmund Muskie managed the dubious feat of winning both but not the nomination. Romney also has the best shot to win the Michigan primary on January 15. He grew up in Michigan and his father George was governor. The other Republicans have all but ignored Michigan.

So the Romney scenario is obvious. He wins early and takes off like a rocket. His name identification soars. Just as significant, he'll have the money--his own, plus funds he's raised--to compete fully on February 5, Super Tuesday. I think this scenario is believable. Of course it's just a scenario, nothing more.

Contrary to reports, Giuliani is not ignoring the early states. Well, Iowa maybe. He's campaigning aggressively in New Hampshire and leads in the Fox poll in South Carolina. If he stayed out of every state until the Florida primary, that would be fatal. The early winner would gain all the media attention and swamp him.

But Giuliani's focus is on Florida and then on the big-state primaries on February 5 in California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey. He, too, has the funds to compete. His scenario--breaking out in Florida and blowing away the field on Super Tuesday--is credible in my view.

However, he could do well on Super Tuesday and still not lock up the nomination. The same is true for Romney. Should that happen, the Romney scenario sees conservatives drifting to him as the alternative to the more liberal Giuliani. Former congressman Vin Weber, a Romney adviser, says there's a ceiling on how many Republicans will back Giuliani, one that will keep him from winning the nomination. We'll see.

McCain's scenario depends on improving on his run in 2000 against George W. Bush. Then he skipped Iowa, won in New Hampshire, lost in South Carolina, and won in Michigan. But he couldn't compete in enough states to deny Bush the nomination. Now, McCain's best-case scenario has him winning in New Hampshire, where he's been gaining, and in South Carolina, where he has a solid organization, and taking off from there. It's conceivable, but he lacks the money he'd need on February 5.

Thompson's scenario involves doing well enough in Iowa and New Hampshire to be a viable candidate by the time South Carolina rolls around and winning there. What then? Beating Giuliani and Romney in Florida and winning at least the southern primaries (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee) on Super Tuesday, plus Oklahoma and a few other states. But his strategy of running as the only "consistent conservative" hasn't stirred enough support to produce a credible scenario leading to the nomination.

Pollster Frank Luntz, who has conducted focus groups at four Republican presidential debates this year, says voters liked the feistier McCain of 2000 more than the restrained McCain now. And he "lost the early debates" on one issue, immigration. As for Thompson, the focus groups of Republicans liked him "but they don't see the passion," Luntz says. "In the end, Republicans won't vote for a laid back candidate."

The bigger problem for McCain and Thompson, Republican consultant Jeffrey Bell says, is "they're not in control of their own destiny." To win primaries, they "need help" in the form of a serious blunder or collapse by Giuliani or Romney or a lesser rival. That could happen, but you can't base a winning scenario on it. McCain, for instance, might pick up support if Thompson faded, and vice versa. But that's purely speculative.

Come to think of it, there is a credible scenario for Ron Paul. That would mean running as the Libertarian candidate for president in the general election. His scenario would see him winning more votes than any Libertarian presidential nominee ever has. Just not enough to win the presidency.

How Hillary Revived the GOP

Richard Baehr, Real Clear Politics, 23 ottobre 2007

A few months back, Republicans were troubled by the prospect of House and Senate retirements, the huge fundraising advantage for Democrats in the Presidential race and Congressional races, and the continued political overhang of the Iraq war and the President's low popularity. It is of course still possible, if not likely, that Democrats will significantly increase their Senate majority, hold the House, and win the Presidency. But the dynamic of the political races have taken a recent turn favorable to the GOP. And for that, the Republicans can thank Hillary Clinton.

The Hillary juggernaut is a boring story

Pretty much everybody, except Barack Obama and John Edwards, now thinks Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. She has opened a lead of 20-30 points in most national opinion surveys. She leads in the polling in every early primary state, and pretty much everywhere else as well. If she wins in Iowa, she is the certain nominee of her party. Even if she loses Iowa, it is hard to see how this would prove fatal to her campaign.

The Clintons are a political machine, and this presidential race has been 40 years in the making. The campaign has been meticulous, and cautious, and boring, but has enormous fundraising power, a national campaign infrastructure built on two prior presidential runs, plus the Clintons' star power. Finally there are powerful media sycophants who have been part of the Clinton team since 1991, as the two Clintons have traded access for reliably favorable coverage.

Barack Obama has raised a lot of money and genuinely inspired some people, particularly younger Americans. He could win Iowa. But compared to the Clinton political machine, his campaign has been an amateur hour routine, replete with foolish comments on foreign policy issues betraying a candidate only three years removed from the Illinois State Senate. John Edwards is running because he seems to have lost interest in anything but running for President.

If Obama surges in Iowa, where he has over 3,000 people working for him in the state, it will be at Edwards' expense, not Clinton's. And you can be sure Hillary will not cede the state to Obama, understanding the knockout punch she can deliver there.

The coverage is shifting

As the pundits and media have all but anointed Hillary, attention has shifted to the GOP race for the Presidency which has been significantly under-covered the past year. One recent survey found there have been approximately twice as many stories about the Democratic race as the Republican race by national papers, wire services, national and cable networks so far. This disparity has obvious explanations: the media is not neutral in the contest between the two parties. Why should their coverage of the Presidential race be any more balanced than their coverage of the war in Iraq?

As the American military effort in Iraq has made progress in recent months, the media has been relatively silent on the story; better no coverage than favorable coverage of the Bush administration. Another example of such a news blackout has been the relative lack of attention paid to the campaign and election of Bobby Jindal as the new Governor of Louisiana. Jindal is a dark-skinned Asian American, the kind of candidate that might be expected to give the New York Times the vapors. But the paper's coverage suggests that racism still lives in Louisiana, and that Jindal was elected mainly because these are desperate economic times there. Assume Jindal were a Democrat: how do you suppose the Times would cover his election?

GOP nomination is up for grabs

The media like a close election contest, in the same way that baseball writers like to cover a tight pennant race. And the GOP race offers that in spades. There are scenarios that lead to victory for Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and perhaps even John McCain, who was declared prematurely dead for not the first time a few months back. Some paths to the nomination are obviously more mine-laden than others.

There is now even a dark horse of sorts, with a mini boomlet for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has emerged from the second tier of candidates by an impressive series of debate presentations and by exhibiting a sense of humor. Huckabee is now a serious contender the VP slot, if the nominee is a northerner with some issues with "values voters" and Southerners (Rudy or Romney), and he actually has an outside shot at pulling an upset in Iowa. If Huckabee won Iowa, it would probably end the Romney effort, which is relying on a series of wins in Iowa, and New Hampshire, and Michigan to boost him into national contention before the collection of February 5 big state primaries. A Huckabee win would also be good news for Fred Thompson, whose campaign has been underwhelming so far, to be generous. It would put Thompson in competition with the under-funded Huckabee for the right to square off with Giuliani instead of a Thompson-Romney fight for that spot.

A Romney defeat would also be very good news for Rudy Giuliani , since it would badly damage if not eliminate his best-funded opponent, and the opponent with perhaps the clearest strategy for derailing Rudy, who remains the current front runner for the nomination in the national polls. Like a race for a playoff berth in the NFL, Romney has been the one candidate who could control his own destiny by running the table early.

Rudy Giuliani will not win Iowa and does not need to win it, but he is close behind Romney in New Hampshire, slightly ahead of Romney in Michigan, and about even with Thompson in South Carolina. He needs to win somewhere before February 5, and if he doesn't, then his hope is that the first few contests have different winners, and he is a close second in several of them. Were Rudy to win New Hampshire, I think he will be the nominee. I think Rudy can win South Carolina with New Hampshire momentum, especially if enough conservative candidates stay in the race to that point (likely) to split the vote, and then he can follow it with a big sweep on February 5th in the populous coastal states to clinch it. No one yet knows when New Hampshire and Michigan will vote, and both states have similar dynamics at the moment, with Rudy and Romney the principal contenders. Thompson, a regional candidate to this point, needs to break through somewhere early to have a chance, and have Romney damaged before South Carolina to win that state. John McCain has to hope for some of that old New Hampshire (and maybe Michigan) magic to propel him back into the race. This is unlikely to occur but not impossible. McCain has one thing working for him that Giuliani also has: the best head-to-head numbers versus Hillary Clinton at this stage of the race .

It should be obvious from this quick once around the candidates, that the GOP race appears to be wide open, and the Democratic race less so. If Obama trounced Hillary in Iowa, that would change the dynamic of the race but probably not its final outcome. I would guess the Hillary camp is already vetting VP nominees: Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh, Wesley Clark, and Jim Webb have all been mentioned.

Campaign story lines

The media has been intrigued by the "firsts" offered by the Democratic candidates - a woman nominee and President, and an African American nominee and President. But the case can be made that if Rudy Giuliani, a social liberal, and pro-choice candidate can be nominated by the Republicans, that this is an even bigger shock to the political system. It would certainly not fit with the pundit class models which have been comfortably wrapping Republicans into a neat box for a few decades, and would suggest that Republicans think national security is the key issue at this time, and can live with candidates who do not meet their expectations in all areas.

Where do independents go in the primaries?

One consideration I have not seen addressed elsewhere is that if Clinton wins Iowa, and wraps up the race early, independent voters, who are allowed to vote in either party's primary in some states by selecting that party's ballot, may find taking a GOP ballot of greater interest than voting in a Democratic race that is all but decided. Independents swung heavily to the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional races and Barack Obama, in particular, has drawn a lot of interest from younger unaffiliated voters. But if Obama is not a real contender after Iowa, then this will benefit Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, who are both perceived as more centrist than other Republicans, with appeal to independents. This could help either or both candidates in several early states, and in the general election as well.

Hillary unites the GOP

The other shot-in-the-arm for the GOP in recent months has been the realization among Republicans that Hillary Clinton is the likely nominee. Nothing unites the GOP faithful more than a race against a Clinton, particularly Hillary. I expect that when it becomes clear who the GOP nominee is, that the party's fund raising problems will begin to disappear. At that point, the nominee to be will be perceived as the head of the party, not a lame duck President with low approval ratings.

Finally, on the congressional front, the GOP has had some success recruiting top tier candidates for two open Senate seats: former Governor Mike Johanns in Nebraska, and Congresswoman Heather Wilson in New Mexico. This may limit the extent of the party's likely losses in that chamber next year, when the GOP has to defend 22 of the 34 contested seats. In addition, a GOP challenger outspent by 5 to 1 still came within 6% of winning an open house seat in Massachusetts in a district that has been about a 60% democratic district in recent years.

Overall, Hillary Clinton's ability to pull into a big lead at this stage of the race has energized Republicans, freed up some independent voters to consider GOP nominees in that party's primaries, and created more media attention for the GOP race, providing national exposure to its candidates.

For the GOP, Hillary may be the gift that keeps on giving until next November.

Richard Baehr is the chief political correspondent of American Thinker.

Aggiungi il Tuo Commento:

nome (*)

e-mail (*)

commento all'articolo (*)

Inviando questa risposta dichiaro di aver letto ed approvato le condizioni di utilizzo di questo sito web.

(*) = campo obbligatorio.

Condizioni di Utilizzo

1 - Tutte le risposte inviate a questo sito saranno sottoposte a moderazione manuale da parte dell'amministratore al fine di evitare il fenomeno detto "SPAM".

2 - Tutti i dati inseriti nel modulo di risposta verranno pubblicati in questa pagina ad eccezione dell'e-mail. Tale informazione viene richiesta ed archiviata dagli amministratori al fine di scoraggiare un utilizzo non consono del blog.

3 - Non utilizzare le risposte per pubblicizzare il tuo sito web. Tale tentativo verrà cancellato dall'amministratore. In ogni caso ai link inseriti nelle risposte viene applicato il "nofollow" per cui non ti portano vantaggi.

categorie disponibili

ultimi articoli

Presidenziali USA '08: nel campo repubblicano

Aggiungi il Tuo Commento:

Condizioni di Utilizzo