Now Michigan has a 2-1 match. That is, for every dollar he raises, he gets 2 from the taxpayer. In exchange, he gets a cap on total spending. I have several thoughts on this:

First, John McCain tried this. He lost. And he lost for a reason. If you can't build the grassroots army to fund your campaign, you probably can't win.

Second, this funding only applies to the primary. He will need to raise huge resources for the general too. This hampers your ability to win the general because you haven't built your finance organization. And if he uses this in the general, then he could be at a real disadvantage.

Third, Hoekstra was really outspoken about campaign finance. He repeatedly criticized campaign finance bills throughout his career in the House. This displays a certain lack of principle...

Fourth, will struggling Michigan voters -- recall that this is the state with the highest unemployment rate in the country -- really want their taxes going to welfare for politicians?

I hope Mr. Romney does well enough in Michigan today that he gets the opportunity to introduce the public to the real Mitt Romney. He is a wonderful and gifted guy. It would be nice if he and his campaign allowed the voters in on that secret.

If Mitt Romney’s closing speech to the Detroit Economic Club is the real, Mitt Romney, then we have an even bigger problem then we thought. Byron York had this analysis of the speech:

Romney’s proposals might not be music to the ears of free-market conservatives who believe Detroit made its own problems and needs to fix itself. But it’s what a lot of people in Michigan want to hear.

In other words, Romney ran to the left telling "a lot of people [what they] want to hear." If this is the real Mitt Romney, still telling people what they want to hear, abandoning his new refound principles, then just wait until a general election.

Macomb County, Michigan, is one of the homes of the Reagan Democrat. Today, I saw John McCain give a town hall in the closing stretch of the Michigan primary. I don’t have pictures because my video camera was stolen, but I have impressions.

Michigan is in an a single-state recession. Unemployment is above 7%. Many of the current jobs are in manufacturing which, the Detroit News, the conservative paper in the state, has noted won’t come back. How to handle this is the fundamental debate. Mitt Romney is saying that he, personally, can turn the state around and that the future of Michigan is bright. McCain has argued that more realism and effort is needed, and has focused on retraining programs. My gut is that McCain wins this fight by recognizing the challenges. In New Hampshire exit polls McCain received substantially more support from people with economic anxiety, and Romney won only one economic subgroup, those making between $150k and $200k.

McCain’s answer is a retraining program. In March, I was in New Hampshire (before my camera was stolen), and asked him a similar question. This was his answer:

McCain was asked about the subprime crisis, and he passed the microphone to Carli Fiorina, the CEO of HP (formerly Hewlett Packard). She said that she had never campaigned before and was supporting McCain because he is "a unique and inspiring leader." She turned to answering the question and focused on the need for transparency and accountability. She said that there were many things "off balance sheet" so that risks couldn’t be properly accounted for. She then invoked Enron and said "if you can’t see it, you can’t understand it." One person in the audience liked the answer enough to say "Thank you Madame Vice President."

Off to an event at the Americans for Prosperity Forum.

Dear McCain Supporter,

Over the past 48 hours since John McCain’s comeback win in the New Hampshire primary, the McCain campaign has received many endorsements of people who were previously neutral, or in some cases had endorsed other campaigns. This list includes a former Governor, a high-ranking statewide official, State Representatives, County Chairs, and many more.  Senator McCain clearly has the momentum in this campaign and people want to be a part of it.  They know that he is the only candidate prepared to be Commander-in-Chief.

We will be releasing a new list of people in the next few days who have endorsed Senator McCain since his New Hampshire victory over Governor Mitt Romney.  If you would like to endorse, or have any family or friends whom you believe would like to join Sen. McCain’s campaign, please let me know at jyob@mccain08hq.com.  As we mentioned in a previous email, we request that any person who intends to run as a McCain delegate to the Republican National Convention emails us an official endorsement prior to the Primary.

Finally, here is a link to a list of people thought to support Mitt Romney in Michigan:  http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/romneymisupporters.xls.

Based on what has happened the last few days, we have every reason to believe that many of these folks are ready to join Senator McCain’s campaign.  Several already have endorsed.  Please contact anyone you know on this list and encourage them to join the team and let them know their support would be appreciated.  We accept all late comers and would be grateful for the support of anyone who would like to climb aboard the Straight Talk Express as Senator McCain travels Michigan over the weekend!

Thank you for your help and strong support.

Sincerely,

John Patrick Yob

Deputy Political Director

John McCain 2008

PS:  Here is a link to the most recent Michigan poll – taken prior to the New Hampshire primary.  http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/michigan_poll_011008.htm

PSS: Here is link to the McCain Michigan Momentum video from the post-New Hampshire stops in Michigan.  Some of you are in the video! http://www.johnmccain.com/video/mi.htm

Two days ago (technical problems delayed this) in Manchester, New Hampshire, I sat down with Steve Forbes, and we talked about his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, and his thoughts on the economic records of the other candidates. As a supporter of Rudy Giuliani’s he has the most to say about what he likes about Rudy, but it was interesting to me that he ripped pretty hard into Mitt Romney’s record.

The next step of the Presidential race will turn to Michigan and South Carolina. Michigan is a big northern state in, perhaps, the worst economic state in the country, the old rust belt. Voters are going to want to know what can be done for the economy. This is different than taxes, which was an important issue in New Hampshire. In Michigan, the question on voters’ mind will be "who will create jobs?" Mitt Romney’s record is weaker than is generally assumed. The Club for Growth is already up with ads attacking Huckabee, although I suspect that this is more press release. John McCain, as a Senator, has his voting record and new policy proposals to defend and propose. Erick and Neil have more on that.

South Carolina is more complicated. I will be back with more about that.

"You know, I’m an English literature major as well. When we say, ‘I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there — excuse me, the Super Bowl. I saw my dad become president of American Motors. Did that mean you were there for the ceremony? No, it’s a figure of speech."

This reminded me when he tried to weasel out of answering a question about whether abortion was murder by invoking being a lawyer:

I don’t want to use that term because it means different things to different people. … It is taking human life … Murder has — I used to go to law school — murder has malice of forethought and  all sorts of other things …

You know, I don’t know any serious person who cites their college and graduate school education as authority when they talk. Experience, sure. That just strikes me as a weird, weird trait. And also note that it is ad hoc. He didn’t cite his lawyerly authority when he said "I’d have to ask my lawyers" about Iran.

I saw …

Romney explains what he means by "I saw":

“If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term ‘saw’ includes being aware of in the sense I’ve described,” he said. “It’s a figure of speech and very familiar and it’s very common and I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort.”

Ahh. That’s clear. So not "I saw" in the sense of seeing it actually happen but in the sense of being aware that it happened. So Romney was aware of his:

… my father march with Martin Luther King

So what does "with MLK" mean? According the Boston Phoenix:

Fehrnstrom had originally told the Phoenix that the two men marched together in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, either in June 1963 or March 1968, a claim the Phoenix called into question earlier today. An additional source, William LeFevre of the Reuther Library at Wayne State University, who is in charge of the papers of the Grosse Pointe Civil Liberties Association, has since confirmed to the Phoenix that George Romney was not at the 1968 event, and that King was not at the 1963 event.

Fehrnstrom now says that the event in question was King’s “Freedom March” in Detroit on June 23, 1963. …

However, numerous contemporaneous and historical accounts say that Romney did not participate in the Detroit Freedom March, because it was held on the Sabbath. The New York Times, for example, wrote the next day that “Gov. George Romney, who is Mormon and does not make public appearances on Sundays, issued a special proclamation.”

So it seems that when Romney said "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King" he means that he was aware that his father participated in a civil rights marches that were supported with Martin Luther King.

The dude clearly doesn’t know what the definition of "is" is. So he just makes stuff up.

A Huckabee success in Michigan seems plausible. After all, the state has 7.7% unemployment which is, I think, the highest unemployment rate in the country. So it would seem that Michigan could be receptive to a Huckabee message.

But there is something much, much deeper going on. First, there basically is no Democratic primary. From the Detroit Free Press:

The result is that there are almost no Democratic candidates on the ballot here, and it’s unclear whether Michigan Republicans will be fully represented at next summer’s convention. It’s a mess, and an expensive one at that, costing state taxpayers $10 million-plus for the election.

Specifically:

Four Democratic candidates – Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson – have opted out of the Michigan primary because its early date violates national party rules.

Second, there is no party registration. Meaning Democrats can — and will — vote in the Republican primary.  With practically no Democratic primary, could Huckabee’s union endorsements push him over the top? How many Dems can Huckabee add to the mix?

And what happens if Huckabee wins Iowa and Michigan? What does that mean for South Carolina? Or Romney?

Thompson: No reason to believe in a recession. He rattles off the numbers. He cuts to long-term spending, which is right up his ally. They follow up and ask about the polling and the angst.

They switch to Romney and ask about foreclosure. 1/100-some. Romney responds. "Inexcusable that Michigan is suffering a one-state recession." Good line. Invest in technology and research. Fix schools. Etc. He gets in a great line about Granholm’s taxes.

Matthews asks Giuliani about private equity. Rudy responds that "the market is a wonderful thing." He gets his whack at Hillary. "Presidents have to work on the fundamentals." It is interesting that he throws in tort-reform as a basic economic issue.

Matthews asks Ron Paul about the Hedge Fund industry. Paul gets to talk about inflation and the working class.

Now they ask McCain about the income gaps. McCain responds about industrial jobs and health care. Whacks at S-CHIP. The smoking line doesn’t quite work though. But it does point out the absurdity of the funding mechanism for S-CHIP.
Mike Huckabee jokes that people want to spend money. He then talks up the Fair Tax. He makes a nice point about the underground economy. Then he pivots to talking about poor-people.

Duncan Hunter then makes Mike Huckabee look like a radical free-trader.

Thompson responds as a decent free-trade advocate.

Sam Brownback pledges not to raise taxes. Solid and easy. He pivots to a flat tax. Then he talks about spending. Brownback then gives a back slap to McCain. They really are buddies.

Tancredo makes the right point about earmarks and mandatory spending.

Mitt vs. Rudy on taxes.

Rudy talks about his tax cuts. 23 times and a 24% income tax cut.

Romney talks about his tax cuts and spending. And he bashes Rudy on the line-item veto.

Rudy crushes Romney on the response. Romney struggles. Rudy delivers a great line. Rudy did won that exchange.

Job losses and manufacturing.

They ask Thompson about people who lose jobs. He doesn’t say that much that is interesting.

Hunter then talks more about rules and China.

McCain talks about the new economy. "We know that the people have been left behind." He talks about the differences between health care between UAW and non-union plants. He talks about retraining. He then riffs on spending.

Trade

Romney says that he is a pro-trade guy… $9k/family richer because of trade. He talks about his business record.  He reminds the business groups that he would be their tool

Giuliani. He talks up trade more. But it did duck the question about foreign ownership.

They ask everyone about a Dubai company buying part of NASDAQ. Paul yes. Huckabee dodges and talks about tariff and tax systems. McCain yes. He then sounds like an adult on trade. Romney yes. "America can compete around the world." Thompson, yes. Hunter, no. Brownback, yes. Tancredo, no.

Taxes. Thompson. AMT. He gives a good riff on taxes. Phase out AMT. Short-term is to index for inflation.

Iraq

They ask Thompson about Iraq. He says that "this is the right policy." "Not have to leave with our tail between our legs."

They ask McCain about his criticism of Bush. He would have asked people to join the military, the Peace Corps, Americorps, etc.  Gives Rudy a back slap. Points out his Rumsfeld criticism.

They ask Ron Paul about "war for oil". Paul rejects that. So does Brownback. "I voted to go to war in Iraq to fight the War on Terrorism." Brownback plays up his partition plan and that meeting.

Congressional Authorization of an attack on Iran. This is a good question.

• Romney: "Would you need Congressional approval?" He talks about other strategies and the Ahmedinejad thing in NYC. Romney makes a potentially colassal blunder. Marc Ambinder has the exact quote. "We’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and didn’t need to do." Dave Freddoso at NRO doesn’t buy it either.
• Hunter: Maybe. On the path to building a nuclear device.
• Paul: Yes. Need a declaration. "Just war propaganda. Continuing war propaganda." Big applause for that.
• Huckabee: No-ish.
• McCain: He qualifies the hypotheticals. He says that the minimum is consult. He suggests that we are closer to a conflict than people realize.
• Thompson: Says "John has it right." Cites War Powers. Says that we should go to Congress to get political support, even if illegal.
• Giuliani: Depends. He whacks at Ron Paul. Paul misses the right response, which is that we declared war on the Barbary Pirates. Rudy whacks Hillary and Iran.

Energy and Oil Independence

Rudy gives the generic answer…

Brownback talks about "energy secure." And says we have to chase it down. "Get more electricity involved in our car fleet." Supports ANWR and Florida drilling if it is environmentally sound.

Tancredo gives the generic answer.

McCain says that the energy companies should be using their profits to invest.

Huckabee is asked about ethanol. He says that national security is a good reason to subsidize ethanol.  Hmmmm. Huck then talks about renewables in general.

Thompson on ethanol. He repeats Huck.

They ask Romney about subsidizing farmers. He is for it. Of course, that’s not what he used to think. FLIP-FLOP.

How does the GOP win back the economy as an issue?

• Paul: Overtaxed. Over-everything. Can’t be bailing out farmers and subsidies for ethanol.
• Huckabee: Points to the restoration of confidence.
• McCain: He talks about faith in the government. Good contrast with Huckabee, although the emphasis on the government is awkward.
• Romney: Don’t be doom and gloom. "The future is going to be even brighter than the past." He talks about business and implementing health care legislation
• Thompson: Tell people the truth.
• Giuliani: He keeps going after Hillary. A good place for him to be.
• Hunter: Save the economy by closing the borders.
• Brownback: Be optimistic. And flat tax. "This place rocks."
• Tancredo. Lemme guess. Immigration. Stop pandering.

Social Security. They ask Thompson what he would do about social security. He talks about indexing to wages. He talks about accounts. And he talks about growth.

Trade. They ask Tancredo about Romney’s comment about the Bush administration trade negotiators. Tancredo says that the agreements have been lousy. I more or less agree.

Health care. Romney talks about market dynamics in health care.

Are unions good for America?

• Paul. People should be able to organize.
• Huckabee. Unions will take a more prominent role as a response to income inequality. He bashes CEO and hedge fund salaries.
• McCain. Unions have played a very important role. Advocates Right-to-Work.
• Romney. Back slaps McCain. Some good, some bad. Praises the Carpenters.
• Thompson. Unions are good. Same stuff.
• Rudy. Grandma was a garment-worker.  "UAW reached a responsible pact."
• Hunter. Praises the steelworkers. Aren’t they the worst?
• Brownback. Can be abuses. His ma was a postal worker. DoL is documenting abuses.
• Tancredo. Slams Brownback’s union mom. Brownback responds. "Don’t attack my mother." Awesome. "My mother is not an illegal immigrant."

GM and Ford. McCain. McCain points out that health care is a good bunch of the problem for companies like Ford and GM. "My dear and beloved Ronald Reagan. He must be spinning in his grave." Awesome.

Chrysler. Thompson. The government shouldn’t step in. The right answer is markets. Matthews pushes back. Thompson slams him, "That’s your opinion, Chris." Nice.

Internet stuff.

Giuliani. Don’t tax the internet. Police the internet. Don’t need a new organization.

McCain. Must stop internet pornography. Go after the money.

• Huckabee S-CHIP. The issue on the S-CHIP bill was political posturing. Says Bush screwed up on the framing. Not certain about the veto. The political loss on the veto is huge. ‘I don’t trust the government, the insurance companies. I trust me."
• Romney. Arab-American bias. We don’t discriminate. We are nice people.
• Thompson. Dangers of a weak dollar. Will damage us internationally. Creditors. Helps our exports. Didn’t really answer the question.
• Rudy. Too much owned by foreigners. How about we sell more things.
• Brownback. Who would be the economic advisor? Greenspan’s thoughts. Brownback doesn’t have an answer.
• McCain. Bernancke cut enough? McCain says "I don’t know." The problem hearing thing looks bad on him.
• Paul. Won’t promise to support the party.
• Tancredo. Won’t do lesser of too evils.
• Brownback.  Will support the nominee. Nominee will be pro-growth and pro-life.
• Hunter. Will also. Built on a respect for human beings. Sounds like
• Giuliani. Will London replace New York as the financial capital? He is not answering the question. He is just praising the US. There are real problems. They give him a second bite at the apple. And he talks about corporate tax rates.
• Romney. Same question? He addresses Sarbox. Says he would support people. His line about Thompson was good
• Thompson. He says that the relationship with Canada is great. Gave a shout-out to Canadian oil
• Huckabee. Airline issues. Cracks a joke. He talks about airlines "getting in the program." What is he talking about?
• McCain on finding Bin Laden. Set up a new intel agency just for that.
• Romney on the biggest threat. Sense of optimism. Good answer.
• Brownback on the biggest threat. Breakdown of the family.
• Giuliani on third-parties. Sure, whatever, next. Points out that education is the biggest problem.

What are the Dem candidates going to do? Does John Edwards run to join the picket lines? Does Hillary Clinton, confident in her primary victory, stay lukewarm? Or, sensing that she needs the votes of those struggling factory workers in Ohio, feel forced to say something?

What are the implications for the calendar debate? Doesn’t this put Michigan even more at the forefront of the debate?

What about the fact that the Democratic Party is going upscale? I suspect that the anger in the new upper-middle class progressive voters isn’t going away. But do they really want a full-throated rally against globalization?

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder asks the UAW. They say, basically, that this is tactical not strategic, and the strike should be very short.