Hewitt: Rudy, Romney Viable – But Not McCain?
There is an advantage in doing scores of events for radio audiences and Republican activists over the past two years: At each of them I get to conduct my straw poll. In early 2005, I offered audiences the right to vote for one of five possible nominees –Senators Allen, Frist or McCain, Mayor Giuliani, or Governor Romney.
Two years ago, Senator Allen usually won, but Mayor Giuliani was occasionally on top of the poll –the older the audience, the better he did– though usually he came in second.
By the dismal end of the 2006 campaign season –and I have only done one large event since the election– Rudy always wins and Romney is always second, and it is usually close. Before he dropped out Senator Frist had close to zero support, and Senator McCain usually gets about 2%.
John points to the low poll ratings of President Bush, but of course some of that low number comes from the disappointment wing of the GOP who thought the Bush Doctrine was exactly why we should have given Iran an ultimatum on nukes a year ago, and Syria a similar short note last summer. Some of that low number is also immigration driven, though not as much as a lot of the anti-immigration folks think.
But there is a near certainty that the 36% (or 40% or 45% or whatever it really is) who are still supporting Bush are not doing so because of No Child Left Behind or the prescription drug bill. No, they like his and the Vice President’s commitment to waging the war, their commitment to low taxes, and their judges.
They also admire his character.
John McCain is in trouble with the base because he is not credible on judges, and not reliable on party issues that come and go. His viability is only because of his reputation as a hawk on Iraq.
Rudy has a problem with the judges issue, but it is one the primary electorate will be willing to be persuaded about. He’s a hawk and a leader, so he’s viable.
Romney is right on all of the big three issues, and more conservative on most of the other issues than the other two, plus he’s got money and charisma, so he’s viable.
Maybe…but methinks Mr. Hewitt underplays McCain’s establishment support, as reported quite recently by Robert Novak. If Novak is correct, McCain may build up a head of steam that overcomes the aversion many conservatives have towards him. But if Hewitt is right, and McCain gets the nomination anyway, we might just be in trouble in the general election.
All the more reason to get behind Rudy now, some might say…
I agree completely that McCain’s clear lead in organization is being discounted here. There is still – and even would be if we looked at this during a McCain presidency – a vocal conservative minority who despise John McCain. I think that this groups seems larger simply because of it’s aggressiveness in attacking Senator McCain. Yet, as the primaries draw closer, I think that while the GOP establishment will not unite in the way it did for Bush in 2000, it will nonetheless predominantly back McCain. For example, he has already started snatching donors from Guiliani’s home turf of New York. And even though there is a long way to go, McCain is obviously not going to make the same mistake in SC again since he’s plainly establishing a top-notch organization there.
And for that matter, what did George Bush *really* have going for him in 2000 besides an incredible degree of organization? His record, while sound, was nothing phenomenal. McCain’s record, while somewhat sporadic in the eyes of some conservatives, is anything but liberal. Even things that some conservatives call outright betrayal, like his role in the “Gang of 14″ have to be taken in context: what did it accomplish? It got conservative judges confirmed faster and easier than had happened at any previous point in the Bush presidency. Sometimes you do have to cut deals to get what you want, and I think it’s indicative of McCain’s intelligence and character that he’s willing to do this in order to make things work.
Besides, as Richard Nixon said: “If a man wants to be a leader and isn’t controversial, it means he never stood for anything.”
Well, you don’t have to convince me of McCain’s leadership abilities, nor his role in the Gang of 14, which I quite prominently supported.
I prefer Rudy, but I’ve got no problem with McCain…though I’m beginning to think McCain is a wee bit vulnerable, as his newfound overtures to the right have cost him with his traditional crossover supporters among the moderates…
Mark, This is just my opinion, but I don’t think so. I think McCain’s image is so ingrained in the public’s mind that he can make as many overtures to the right as he wants and still be alright with the independents.
I think McCain is vulnerable because of his call for sending more troops to Iraq. This position is so far from the mainstream that I have difficulty seeing a large part of the electorate supporting it.
Peter, sending more troops to Iraq is so far from mainstream?
If mainstream doesn’t even know what it wants, other than change, that’s hardly the default fallback to getting the troops out ASAP.
Even cHillary is showing more cajones than Murtha ever had on that score.
To be sick of the war and willing to leave only with the unconditional surrender of an enemy is not mutually exclusive. If it were, we’d be referring to GW and Lincoln with the same level of contempt we hold for Mudd & Bunkum. When it’s all said and done, history will view Dubya better than Chamberlain & Carter could ever hope for.
Romney has the early organizational advantage in Iowa. McCain has burned too many bridges with his “Gang Of 14″ tactics,…and he’s just plain too old for the job.
Aaron: in the survey below (taken in June), only eight percent of respondents want to send more troops to Iraq – I would call that out of the mainstream.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-26-iraq-poll_x.htm
Needless to say, the Iraqis also want us out of there:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
Nor would I equate keeping troops in Iraq with cojones. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Why are you responding to me, Peter? I haven’t even posted in this thread — before now, of course.
Sorry, middle-aged forgetfulness — I meant Andy, not Aaron — I also forget where I park my car at the mall, so nothing surprising about my error –
I can’t believe what I am hearing from Huckabee supporters. Cute Christmas cards are supposed to prevent the coming recession?
SCARY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY #26:
Huckabee and Guiliani have nothing for the economy compared with Romney’s business and economic acumen. Will you still be complaining about Romney’s faith when they lay you off and foreclose your home? Get real, and don’t get me started about Huckabee as a foreign policy disaster. Huckabee and Ahmadinejad sitting across at a table???? That’s classic, what a nightmare.
Take all of the t-shirts mocking Bush you see at the mall and insert Huckabee’s face. That’s what college kids may be wearing until 2012. Bush haters are going to FEAST on Huckabee, what a goober…there’s a good image for the Republican stigma. Are you kidding me??
Why don’t we all vote for an inferior candidate merely because he’s not LDS. Evangelicals are going to ruin this nation.