John McCain's Conservative Conundrum

Common knowledge: John McCain is not a hardline conservative.

He's right-of-center, sure, but his positions on campaign finance reform, environmental warming, immigration, tax cuts, and institutionalized torture set him apart from many of his Republican colleagues. Perhaps more critically, the senator has long refused to play nice with the vulgar and vitriolic breed of culture warrior that has consumed the modern GOP -- thus rendering him a total black sheep.

He has a deeply-held but closely guarded sense of righteousness. It causes him to "act out" now and again, to chafe against the demands of Washington partisanship. Detractors and cheerleaders alike call McCain a "maverick", but I disagree with that characterization, which implies that an unnecessary degree of contrarianism. In reality, he's just an old timer, set in his ways, confident of the integrity of his moral compass.

Anyway, the senator's ideological unorthodoxy, abrasive temperament, and history of cross-aisle overtures have earned him knots of enemies among the right's media-political monolith. In certain corners, there was visible delight over the sight of his faltering campaign.

But now "The Mac is Back." Not only is the Mac back, the Mac is dominating. An easy win in New Hampshire established the senator as national frontrunner. This come back frustrates the National Review set, that loose fraternity of the canon conservatives which dominates right-wing airwaves and magazine pages and pulpits. It means Mitt Romney, their horse in the race, is in danger of losing. Their money's in serious jeopardy.

So they've switched into attack mode. Rush Limbaugh regularly beamons McCain's success, and the lesser dons of talk radio have followed suit. There's serious anxiety at The Corner. National Review, mouthpiece of D.C. conservatism, endorsed Romney (who, entirely coincidentally, once contributed to that exact publication!); they consider him the only thoroughbred conservative. By their estimation, he's bears a fine enough resemblance to Ronald Reagan to carry the party standard come November. He's the "most conservative", thus he deserves to be the nominee; so goes their logic.

But what does that imply? That Republicanism is now beholden to an agenda "solid right" in every way, shape, and form? There was a time when true red voters still gave equal ear-time to liberal and moderate candidates, a time when the GOP was a more balanced organization. Well into the 1970's, the Republican Party was freckled with "purple" conservatives -- Rockefeller, Ford, Eisenhower. Even the first Bush flirted with so-called RINOdom here and there.

The GOP will always be the more conservative party (the more American party...), but it need not become a party of, for, and by strict conservatives. There must be as much room for the Chamber of Commerce man as there is for the Club for Growth man. There must be room for Main Street, not just K Street. Maybe America is sick of the Republican right. Maybe, maybe, it craves the rejuvination of the GOP's middle -- of the GOP's heart.

John McCain is the only man with power to exorcise the far right from the inner sanctum of the Republican Party. His win in N.H. should excite anyone who doubts the potential and questions the intentions of GOP wingers. Down with the extremes, power to the center.

Hacktivists?

The New Republic website is currently down -- without explanation. It has been out of order for at least a day now, perhaps longer.

This comes on the heels of editor Jamie Kirchick exposing almost certainly harmful info on the independent-minded congressman from Texas.

I don't mean to cast aspersions, but Paulists are known to be extraordinarily net-savvy, not to mention zealous and strongly opposed to establishment media organs. Certainly, the Paul campaign sanctioned no extra-legal 'direct action', but could some pugnacious "hacktivists" have taken it upon themselves to settle the score, so to speak?

The Big Tent Party

More musings from the highway south.

Between the leave-me-alone Paulists, the neo-con bloc (which remains hardy despite setbacks), the big government "heroic conservatives", the know-nothings, the coporatists, the increasingly noisy evangelicals, and the emerging right-wing populists ("Christian democrats" indeed), the GOP is actually starting to resemble the "big tent party" it has claimed to be all along. Some of these impulses are temporary, but I suspect that the days of mindless Reagan emulation are over.

Despite the appearance of certain unsavory characters, I for one welcome this change. There's so much talk about the death of the old social-fiscal-defense coalition -- well, maybe that's a good thing. I don't think the traditional Republican loyalties are gone, they're just rearranged, repackaged: they must be accessed and exploited through novel means.

In this hyperactive century, it's critical not to fall back solely on the "tried and true", even if that's the old school conservative thing to do. Getting stuck in a rut is about the worst thing a party can do to itself. Aren't there new alliances to be formed, fresh dynamics to be created? Let's forget the retro act and have on with this brave new party. Gazing backwards doesn't maintain political capital, it allows it to dimish via stagnation. Forget that.

Some Thoughts

1. As I write this (on the road in Virginia), it appears Obama will lose to Clinton in New Hampshire. That's too bad, though I think the media set Barack up to lose. And, as I said before, the Clinton machine is daunting. The pundit class was foolish for dismissing it so easily (wishful thinking much?). "There will be blood . . ."

2. Mitt Romney is in deep you-know-what. He has been running as the perfect "Reagan Republican": a defense conservative, a social conservative, a fiscal conservative. In Iowa, he lost to Huckabee as a so-con; tonight, he lost to McCain as a def-con. Very likely, he'll lose again to Huckabee in S. Carolina. What's left, then? There's no way he can revamp himself as penny-pincher numero uno. Plus, that's not exactly what GOP voters are looking for right now (later, Rudy).

3. Many folks -- in the grassroots and in the media-political establishment -- have been hammering home the "fact" that these early primaries will thin the field. It appears, however, that they've done the exact opposite. Forget the margins and percentages: on the Democratic side in particular, this thing is wide open, and getting wider. Look at the delegate count: Obama has 18, Clinton 17, Edwards 14. That's very competitive. The GOP is mixed-up as well: Romney with 23, Huckabee with 17, McCain with 7, Thompson with 6. (Those numbers don't figure in everything that happened tonight.) This campaign is just getting started . . .

Reality Check

Barack Obama: very much a liberal. By NARAL's reckoning, he's a flawless abortion advocate. Pity.

Even so, he continues to make stellar impressions on the right.

You Spin Me Right 'Round Baby

Mitt Romney, a dominant favorite in New Hampshire just weeks ago, said Sunday that a "close second" to Arizona Sen. John McCain would be a significant feat on Tuesday [...]

In the Politico interview, Romney dismissed talk of staff tension and made it unmistakably clear that he will simply turn attention to Michigan and elsewhere if he falls short here Tuesday.

Romney said a close second-place finish would be impressive considering the attention McCain has paid the state over the past eight years.

--via Politico

More than one person has attempted to locate the source of my pretty serious animosity towards Romney. They've all pointed to the obvious: Romney has proven his managerial chops in business and (to a lesser extent) in government, he's not a total neocon, he's a moderate who's playing right in order to win the GOP nod. I don't really disagree with any of those points, and I'll add that Mitt appears to have a kind heart and a clear mind and an admirable sense of patriotism.

But, ultimately, the man is a bamboozler of the first order. He perpetually has a finger to the wind. He's a husk of a candidate, driven by instincts more appropriate for private enterprise than public service. I doubt his ability to heal the wounds of the Clinton-Bush era, to restore our civil liberties, to end institutionalized torture, to move forward a unifying immigration program.

Oh, and he wants to double the size of Guantanamo. Awesome.

ABC Debates

ABC, as in, Anybody But Clinton. Can we all agree that last night's Democratic performance wasn't every-man-for-himself, but rather a concerted effort by Richardson, Edwards, and Obama to effectively undermine Hillary's shot at the nomination? She complained about the "pile on" strategy once before, and I didn't really buy it.

Now, however, the charge seems legitimate. Nobody's looking to befriend Hillary. Despite Obama's newly acquired status as frontrunner, she remains the person to beat. That's telling. If she can't squeeze a win out of N.H. (increasingly doubtful), she'll be in fairly mortal danger. Even if the party base is still willing to lend an ear, the most visible power players are aligning against her. That includes Richardson, a man twice appointed by her husband to prominent positions inside the executive branch. Ouch.

On the GOP side, there were no winners. I think Romney failed to take a much needed stand. There's no way he triumphs in New Hampshire now. There's still Michigan, but even that's looking increasingly precarious. Wouldn't savor being on his team at the moment.

Ron Paul played the black sheep/crazy uncle (yawn). He's finished. I'll be surprised if he polls over 10% in New Hampshire. McCain held his ground but didn't do anything to impress; Thompson and Giuliani were both so-so.

Huckabee made a few cute quips, and probably distinguished himself the most. For his efforts, he'll enjoy a small bounce in the Granite State, and large one in Michigan.

Not a very exciting night, except for Hillary's near meltdown. Almost a Dean moment -- almost.
Well, with the coming and going of that zero-gains debate, I think all the pieces are in place. Barring something major, something unexpected, N.H. will pan out thusly . . .

DEMOCRATS
1. Obama (by 5 or more)
2. Clinton

3. Edwards (trailing, a lot)

REPUBLICANS
1. McCain (again, 3 - 5)
2. Romney (solid second)
3. Distant third, will only matter if it's Huckabee, and even then not so much

My Thoughts Precisely

Senator Obama has weaknesses, including his inexperience and his liberalism, and they matter. We’re electing a President, after all, not deciding on a prom date. And so scrutiny on Obama’s positions, which has largely been missing from the campaign so far, will increase – and that will eventually take a toll. The impressive but vague and abstract appeal of Obama should decrease as the prosaic side of politics – namely, a candidate’s stand on the issues – begins to push aside the poetry side of politics.

What Obama has working in his favor, I think, is that his areas of vulnerability are off-set to some extent (and maybe to a large extent) by his personality, his tone, his bearing. He is inexperienced – but he radiates a sense of good judgment. He has a liberal voting record – but he comes across as largely anti-ideological and certainly as anti-radical. Those things should help him down the road, though they will certainly not inoculate him. --(neocon) Peter Wehner, Commentary Magazine

There Will Be Blood

Clinton elicits boos and groans from fellow Democrats at the largest political dinner in New Hampshire history. James Fallows describes her entourage -- even the dapper Billy Boy -- as deeply shaken. Michael Crowley, who flew from Iowa to New Hampshire with the Clintons, pens an article in The New Republic that paints a fairly morbid scene. And Jonathan Chait, also writing in TNR, calls Hillary "toast."

I'm not so certain. The Clinton machine is vast and formidable. It maintains a huge pool of resources: media spinsters, skilled behind-the-scenes agents, vicious attack dogs, big name surrogate campaigners. Also, tons of treasure. Make no mistake, the Clintons aren't going down without a goddamn tough fight. It'll be tooth and nail if New Hampshire goes to Obama. All their hard-earned political capital is at stake here. Failing to capture the Democratic nomination could mean the end of their public lives in any meaningful way.

It's hard to picture, a day when Bill and Hillary are out of the spotlight. They've managed to stay center stage for going on two decades. But that's the way the chips will fall, particularly if Sen. Obama triumphs. No more Clintons. Say that again. Savor the taste, the texture: No. More. Clintons.

But first Obama must drive the stake through the heart; he must seal the crypt. Does he have the strength to do so? Does he have the will? I'm not yet convinced.

Ironically, they would fade with the Bushes, their rival house. What poetic justice! A two-for-one deal. Farewell York, farewell Lancaster. Good riddance, to both.

Only The Dead

Sure, all things being equal I would have preferred to have more time, but I have no business complaining with all the good fortune I've enjoyed in my life. So if you're up for that, put on a little 80s music (preferably vintage 1980-1984), grab a Coke and have a drink with me.

Major Andrew Olmsted, a frontline soldier who blogged for small venues and large, died yesterday in Iraq. He was killed in the line of duty. These are his last public words; they appeared in the Rocky Mountain News, to which he sometimes contributed. This is his goodbye letter, which he wrote this past July, with orders it be published if he lost his life in battle.

I read many of his writings, always taken by their warm intelligence and easy wisdom. Now, more than ever, these numerous blurbs are worth hunting down and taking to heart.

I lived my life better than some, worse than others, and I like to think that the world was a little better off for my having been here. Not very much, but then, few of us are destined to make more than a tiny dent in history's Green Monster. I would be lying if I didn't admit I would have liked to have done more, but it's a bit too late for that now, eh?