Man Bites Blog

Matt Yglesias writes:

I mean, people point to plenty of examples of campaigns that lost, in large part, “because of” this or that gaffe or damaging random thing dredged out of the record but you never see an example of a campaign that won because it successfully avoided gaffes.

I can’t think of an example of a baseball team that won by avoiding fielding errors, or a football team that won by avoiding turnovers, either.  Doing these things is the baseline of competent performance.

Indeed, I think both of George W. Bush’s elections can be credited, in part, to his discipline.  On each Election Day, most people thought Bush was a decent enough guy, in part because he didn’t say things to reinforce negative stereotypes about Bushes, Republicans, or Texans. 

Avoiding gaffes isn’t enough to win an election, but failing to do so is sure as hell enough to lose one.

Marc Ambinder writes:

Sen. John McCain had better get used to lots of questions about 2004 and whether he was ever close to accepting John Kerry’s offer to be vice president…

It seems to me this issue would have had a lot more relevance back in January, when the nomination was in doubt, and McCain was being branded as “not a conservative.”

Now that he’s the nominee, it’s hard to see how this would hurt him in the general.  Would someone vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton instead of McCain because he considered accepting the second spot on John Kerry’s ticket?

Expanding on my post below, I think part of why I find Obama’s exteme but respectful position more appealing (or less repulsive) than a more moderate but intolerant position is that if Obama is elected, it would signal the end of, “you’re an extremist” being a winning argument.  It would be impossible to deny that Obama is an extremist on the pro-choice side, now we can have an honest argument over whether the fetus is a person, and whether it is worthy of protection.

That is a debate I believe the pro-life side can win.  I do not believe that the pro-life side can win an argument based on who is more moderate or less of an extremist.  

Again, I could be deluding myself, but I think the cultural landscape with Obama as president would be more receptive to the pro-life point of view than the current one.

Or I could be wrong, and with the pro-choice movement having a popular and articulate leader, more people move over to that camp.

As a pro-lifer, Obama’s votes and stated policies obviously give me pause.  His record is that of an extremist on the issue, voiting against things like the “born alive” act in Illinois, which passed in the US Senate by a 98-0 margin, criticizing the Supreme Court for not fining a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion, etc.  His position is much more extreme on this issue that politicians like John Kerry, the Carnahan family, or Claire McCaskill, whom I have rejected on the basis of the abortion issue, or his current opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton.

Yet, if the election were held today, I would probably vote for Obama.  How could this be?

In part because in spite of his extreme position, Obama has not expressed contempt for the pro-life position.  This is in contrast to people like Andrew Sullivan, who have a more moderate position (if I’m not mistaken Sullivan favors banning second and third term abortions), but tags anyone to the right of him has a theocratic extremist.  It’s my opinion that the pro-life position has a greater chance to gain currency under the leadership of someone like Obama than someone who has drawn sharp lines.

Am I deluding myself?  What matters more — a candidate’s absolute position or attitude?  Part of the reason I would even consider voting for a Democrat is the Republicans’ lack of commitment to the unborn. 

In other words, there is more than one dimension to consider – there are the checkboxes of what policies a poltician favors and does not favor, but there is also the intensity and arguments the politician uses in support of that position.

What I’m struggling to figure out is the relative weights each of those dimensions should be assigned.

Jonah Golberg writes on the Clinton campaign’s failure to establish a comparing narrative for the legitimacy of the superdelegates.
One metaphor that has been offered in support of superdelegates is that they are the Senate and the pledged delegates are the house.It seems to me that the Clinton campaign would be able to cite many examples of how things would be worse from the Democrats’ perspective if the House were not tempered by the Senate.  The only power the Democrats have had in Washington for most of the past eight years is a significant enough minority in the Senate to support a fillibuster.

Of course, the most obvious case for Senate tempering would be impeachment and conviction of Bill Clinton.  This might not be a topic the Clinton campaign might not be eager to bring up, but it seems like they could find a way to spread the meme that without the Senate’s “undemocratic” influence, Kenneth Starr would have been allowed to run a successful president out of office for oral sex.

This would require some finnesse, but then so would being president.

IMO, the proper role of the superdelegates is kind of a “break glass in case of emergency” role.  If Obama were to take the lead in regular delegates, and then be wounded as a candidate by some sort of scandal that he is in denial about, the party should not have a suicide pact to nominate him anyway.  Having the superdelegates change the outcome under any other circumstance would strike me as illegitimate.

or more accurately, the Democrats’ path to defeat.

• Obama continues to win primaries and caucuses, building a significant but not decisive lead in delegates.
• Clinton wins the nomination on the basis of superdelegates going for her and the Michigan and Florida delegates being seated.
• Nader runs; those disgusted with him who are more moderate go for McCain, leftists go for Nader, and McCain ekes out an electoral victory.

It would seem almost impossible for the Democrats to cede the high moral ground coming into the general election, but if party bosses manage to thwart making Obama the first African American nominee after he had won most of the primaries and caucuses in order to nomiate someone who has already spent eight years in the White House, well, it could get ugly. 

It might make McCain’s problems with consrevatives seem like child’s play.

I guess one key is how Obama would play this.  A Clinton nomination and loss would position Obama very strongly for 2012.   But it seems like anybody who just had the nomination (and more than likely the presidency) taken from him would have a very hard time getting behind the person on whose behalf the stealing was done, whether he wants to transcend politics or not.

I’ve got to believe the Democrats know what a disastrous scenario this is, and won’t let this play out, but this is also the same party that thought Michael Dukakis and John Kerry would be good candidates.

I’ve been hard on Mitt Romney. Which isn’t entirely fairs, since every time I’ve seen him, including his speech today, he’s seemed to be a decent competent guy. It’s more his boosters that made drove me batty.

But I’m still glad he’s not going to be president.

An except from his speech today:

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This shows it all — Romney being a decent person and team players, but also a bit scary.

If there’s one thing scarier than a president with hawkish tendencies, it’s one who has to prove what a hawk he is. A President Romney, unlike a President McCain, would have had to prove what a “tough guy” he is, and maybe gotten us into even more trouble abroad. The talk above, as well as his discussions of “doubling Guantanamo” smacked of someone with something to prove. We sure as hell don’t need that.

As far as his recent conversion to socially conservative position, it’s not the idea of “flip-flopping” that bothers me so much, but that he has not had to defend his newly discovered positions in a hostile environment. It’s one thing to argue the pro-life position in a primary; it’s another to do it when scientists find another wonderful use for embryos and people are running ads with sick kids who would be cured if only those darn pro-lifers would quit holding things up. That can only be proven over time. If he had stood on that stage and defended conservative positions against Ted Kennedy, then I could believe he would do it again. Someone like Huckabee has done that. Romney has not proven that he would.

There was also the sense of entitlement from his supporters that I found quit distasteful. People seemed positively shocked that people weren’t flocking to support Romney for the nomination, and blamed everything from anti-Mormon bigotry to McCain’s dishonesty.

What they forget is that Romney became linked to the Republican establishment, and the Republican establishment isn’t that popular in the midst of a war that, while improved, is still a mess, and economic trouble.

There was also something a bit too familiar about how the Romney candidacy emerged. Check out this list:

• Touted success in business
• Successful governor who worked with Democrats
• Experienced a “conversion” from previous unconservative ways.
• Son of another successful Republican politician
• Suddenly presented as The Chosen One by the conservative press a year before the election

Sounds a little bit too much like how George W. Bush was foisted on us, and most of us don’t want to go down that road again.

Conservatives need to abandon McCain and support Mitt Romney, a True Conservative…

But we should reject a McCain because he said something in a private meeting (that nobody will go on the record about) that might suggest thatg he prefers Justice Roberts to Justice Alito.

Rarely have I seen people more in need of some time in the wilderness.

I’ll tell you, if the Democrats have the opportunity to nominate this guy…

and then decide, “No, we’d rather nominate Hillary Clinton,” they will deserve whatever they get. The land is hungry for this brand of leadership, Democrats. Please give it to us.

For my part, I plan to vote for Obama in Missouri’s open primary on Super Tuesday.

Contrast this with the current whinefest over on the Corner over whether it was “dishonest” of McCain to say that Romney wanted a “timetable” for withdrawal from Iraq, when all he really wanted was “milestones.” Could I care less?

1. Democrats nominate Clinton
2. Republicans nominate McCain or Romney
3. McCain or Romney defeats Clinton in the general election

I think that if this were to happen, the clarity of Obama’s message that the current politics aren’t working will be inescapable.  If Clinton were to be nominated and lose, it should ruin the “experience” theory.  In addition, some of the older generation that is supporting Clinton will die off.

I think that if we get four year more years of a (likely unpopular) Republican president, Obama will win the 2012 election in a landslide.

Ross Douthat and Mickey Kaus may be right that a man uttering the exact same words in the exact same tone would be lauded rather than criticized for this sequence:

but for me, it just made me think of this:

Mark R. Levin challenges those who think Huckabee is a good choice for pro-lifers to “explain how Huckabee’s views on abortion and same-sex marriage differ from Thompson’s and Romney’s.”

Well, Huckabee never ran for office touting himself as to the left on Teddy Kennedy on abortion.  He never worked as a lobbyist for pro-choice organizations.  He didn’t go on Meet the Press and talk about how he wouldn’t want to send doctors to jail. 

Also, when he talks about thing like abortion, he doesn’t look like he’d rather be passing a kidney stone.

Plus, he’s against torture and waterboarding, which positions him better to advocate for life.

There seems to be this notion that George W. Bush is the absolute standard against which the pro-life credentials of cadidates should be measured.  But last time I looked, there hasn’t been a decrease in abortions under Bush, nor any meaningful restrictions or changes to the cultural landscape.  So, given the open field, I’m hoping for something better.

I know a million lives a year is a piddling thing compared to the need to keep the winning coalition together and beat Hillary, but that’s where we are.

The current meme on the Corner seems to be that it’s bad to support Huckabee because he’s a threat to the “winning coalition” that has won seven of the last ten presidential elections.

To which I reply, winning coalition for whom?

Hey, I like backing a winner as much as anybody.  But if abortion’s my issue, the fact remains that there are just as many abortions now as there were before George W. Bush took office.  Bush has not done anything to change the cultural landscape to make it less friendly to abortion; on the contrary, he has made it moreso with his creating legal space for torture and preemptive war.  Most of the party leadership seemed to be fine with having a pro-choice, pro-torture candidate as the nominee.

If your issue is bombing Arab countries or lowering taxes, then the current coalition is great.  But if your issue is a culture of life in general and abortion in particular, then what’s in it for you?

The “winning coalition” is dead.  Nominating someone like Romney who panders to everybody isn’t going to change that.   Shooting the messenger Huckabee isn’t going to change that.  This is the new reality.  Deal with it.

The “rainbows of faith” sentence in Mitt Romney’s big religion speech, has been thoroughly pilloried and parodied.

It would be fun to see Romney get the nomination, if only to see if he would try to repeat the performance in his acceptance speech at the convention.

He could try to run through the 50 states (In my mind I’m goin’ to Carolina, though Georgia’s always on my mind, and I’ve got a sweet home in Alabama…), but that would probably go on a little long.  He could go the regional route (”Well, east coast girls are hip; I really dig those styles they wear..”), or try cities, “(”D.C., San Antone, and the Liberty Town.  Boston and-a Baton Rouge…”), but then he’d probably offend someone by missing a big city in a swing state.

As for “dog whistles,” I’m with Froline Maria Von Trapp — there’s a word for those who respond to dog whistles — dogs.  Don’t talk to me in code; talk to me.

The advertising for tonight’s YouTube debate among the Republican candidates prominently notes that Anderson Cooper will be the moderator. This is consistent with how the advertising of the Las Veas Democratic debate featured Wolf Blitzer.

It strikes me as akin to promoting the World Series with a picture of Joe Buck.  The promotion of Cooper for tonight’s debate seems especially odd since the questions are submitted by video.

Tim Russert came in for some criticism after Senator Clinton fumbled his driver’s license question, but from that to Chris Mattews’s “raise your hand” evolution question, it does seem like the debates are increasingly more about allowing the reporters to make a name for themselves than the candidates.

I mean, does anybody remember who moderated the famous Nixon-Kennedy debate?  Was Walter Cronkite’s home town common knowledge?

Bernard Shaw made himself famous asking Michael Dukakis if he would favor the death penalty for the murderer of his family.  It seems that today’s moderators are similarly swinging for the fences, hoping for a “gotcha” YouTube moment, with unlikable results.

Some people seem to be under the impression that if the GOP nominates Rudy Giuliani, we pro-lifers will be so frightened by Hillary Clinton and “The Terrorists’ War On Us” that we will rush to support Giuliani.

Let me state for the record:

1. I would vote for Ron Paul or someone representing his positions over Rudy Giuiliani in the general election.
2. I would vote for Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama over Rudy Giuliani in the general election. (And maybe Edwards).

In short, absent a complete and convincing reversal from Giuilani on abortion, torture, and war, there are no feasible scenarios in which I would vote for Giuliani.

Selecting a pro-life VP candidate will not win me over. Wink-nudge pledges to nominate “strict constructionist” judges will not do this.

This is not a pose or posturing or a threat. This is the truth. I. will. not. vote. for. Rudy Giuliani.

I feel like I write this post every month, but the Cornerites seem convinced that this will all blow over.

Anyone remember 2004?

Back then, we Christians were lecture mercilessly about how abortion and same sex marriage are “non-negotiable” issues, and are the only ones we could possibly use in determining the candidate who would receive our votes. Oppose the war? Fine, but that’s not as important abortion. Don’t wand to open the door to torture? OK, but the scope of that is not the same as 1.3 million babies. Want to do more to help the poor? Well, Jesus never laid out specific means to do that, so you can’t base your vote on who has a better health care plan. A million babies a year, remember?

Fast forward to 2008, and we get this:

Scenes from the news conference in which Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president: “To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorism,” Robertson told reporters. The second-most important issue, Robertson said, is fiscal discipline. And then there are the social issues. “Uppermost in the mind of social conservatives is the selection of Supreme Court justices,” Robertson said, and Giuliani “has assured the American people that his choices for judicial appointments will be men and women sho share the judicial philosophy of John Roberts and Antonin Scalia.”

Asked to elaborate on his decision to endorse a pro-choice candidate, Robertson said, “I think he has articulated a philosophy that he really is for the life of the unborn.” Robertson said that for social conservatives, “the most important thing…is the selection of judges,” but beyond that, “As long as the Supreme Court has ruled as it has, there’s very little a politician can do.”

Apparently, if you oppose aggressive wars, that’s not a good enough reason to support a pro-choice candidate. But if you support them, it is. Pro-war Christians can support Giuliani but anti-war Christians better not support John Kerry. Right.

Remind me why we were listening to these people again? Have the last seven years been so good that we should let them tell us who our candidates should be?

Despite the dismissals from the Corner, I’m going to support Ron Paul, and I am excited about the monetary support he received. Yes, I disagree with him on some things, but I agree with him on the important things — abortion, war, and torture. And when I do disagree, it’s at least on principle. If he were to veto S-CHIP, it would because he genuinely believes in smaller government, not because he discovered fiscal responsibility when it was time to pay for kids’ health care instead of another invasion.

The conservative base has no clue what people want. None. They really seem to think that people want a lot of tough talk against Muslims. Most of us have realized that peace is not going to be achieved by invading countries, and are ready to try something different.

The conservative leadership apparently has a dimmer view of us than liberals do. Liberals think we care more about the unborn than those born. Conservatives apparently think we don’t really care about the unborn either, and will throw them under the bus to support a candidate who is really mean to Muslims.

Let’s show them they’re wrong.

David Brooks writes about what politicians have to do to get elected.

Of course nobody wants politics like this, but we all do have our buttons, and the consultants have become very good at pushing them. 

And I find myself sorting the presidential candidates based on how much I think they’re real vs. doing what consultants tell them to do — Clinton and Romney seem to be pretty clearly fake and saying whatever it takes to get elected.  Giuliani is a mixture of both; I just disagree vehemently with the things he seems genuine about.  Obama and Edwards also seem genuine.  Thompons seems to be saying as little as possible.  McCain dances between the stances.  Paul also seems genuine.

But then I think — how much am I being conned?  Obviously, “genuineness” is a positive trait, and one that consultants would want to develop in their candidates.  What if the genuineness isn’t genune, but manufactured?

Matthew Yglesias has the thinking of the pro-life movement on a Giuliani candidacy about right. 

I am not assuaged by the idea that Giuliani will nominate the right judges, for the following reasons:

1. An overturning of Roe v. Wade tipped by a justice nominated by a “pro-choice” president will not last.  Pro-choice voters will feel (perhaps rightfully) hoodwinked, and work that much harder to overturn the decision.
2. I get the sense that a Giuliani presidency would piss off a lot of people, and judicial nominations would offer him an opportunity to reach across the aisle and gain some political capital.  In other words, I sincerely doubt a President Giuliani would have the political capital neccesary to push a “strict constructionist” through the confirmantion process, and I don’t think he’d be inclined to do so even if he could.
3. As MY mentions, a Giuliani nomination and win would send a loud and clear message that Republicans need not even feign concern for the unborn in order to be elected, which would be a disaster.

Now, the pro-life movement has a self-preservation instinct just like any others, but I do wish MY wasn’t so dismissive of our motives.  I find it difficult to believe the unborn would be best served by a Giuliani Administration, and think it would be dmaging in other areas — torture, expansion of the war, etc.

• Those who are so concerned that Sam Brownback will whip the nation into a sectarian frenzy by recounting anecdotes about what motivates Mother Teresa might want to look into the “root causes” of why this would have appeal.Imagine your an Evangelical or conservative Catholic.  You don’t approve of your school district’s sex education program, so you homeshool or send your kids to private school, at considerable sacrifice.  For this you are sneered at and assumed that your teaching Creationism.  You try to shield your kids from a popular culture that glorifies little but banality, sexuality, and beauty, and are called a prude for doing so.  You got to church, but it’s getting more an more lukewarm.  You’ve been chastised at work for inviting people to a retreat you work on.Now, here comes this candidate who unironically refers to Mother Teresa as a paragon of virtue, and reassures you that your faith is a good thing.  Might you find that appealing?If secualrists are so damned concerned about candidates like Sam Brownback gaining appeal, I can think of few more counterproductive things they could do than drive mentions of God and Jesus from the public square.
• When people are challenged to point out an example of the poisonous influence of the Christian Right on American policy, the answer inevitably comes back, “Terri Schiavo.”So, let me get this straight, the Republicans held all three branches of the federal government, and the president’s brother was the governor of the stat in question.  The “Religious Right” wanted to stop a feeding tube from being removed from a comatose woman.  Her parents had volunteered to see to her care.  She was opposed by her husband, whohad since married another woman.In spite of some last minute Congressional acts, the feeding tube was removed, and guards were stationed to make sure nobody tried to feed her until she starved to death.According to the emerging history, this led to political backlash against the Republicans, and contributed to their defeat in 2006.

  Man, sends chills down your spine about how powerful the Religious Right is, huh?  They almost prevented the government from removing a feeding tube from one woman.  Shudder to think what’s next…