Blog

There are lots of things that you can say about Tim Pawlenty. My sense is that he represents the future of the Republican Party in many ways. This is, in many ways, the hypothesis of the Sams Club Republicans.

More broadly, we can see Tim Pawlenty as more of a populist than many of the first-tier Vice Presidential picks. In many ways, he is closer to Mike Huckabee than any of the rest of them.

It seems to me that he also represents a generational shift in the Evangelical tradition. He is known as a Republican who embraces even more green positions than John McCain. While I have not seen him speak about poverty, I suspect that he is as articulate as John McCain, Sam Brownback, Rick Warren, and other people of the right who have moved this issue.  In this way, he seems to be embracing the future of the American evangelical tradition.

He also seems to represent a rejection of the donor class which was highly invested in Mitt Romney. Now, this was a rejection by John McCain. If McCain were to win,  that would seal some of that effect. If McCain were to lose, Pawlenty’s elevation would likely lay out a conflict between Romney and the donor class and Pawlenty who has a much more mainstream, within the Republican Party, evangelical constituency than Mike Huckabee.

This is an interesting point. Much will happen over the next couple of days and 69 days. We will learn a lot about America and the Republican Party. I am excited that Pawlenty will be one of our leaders in this period.

CQ’s Craig Crawford thought this about Hillary Clinton’s speech last night:

Many of Clinton’s supportive words seemed almost tacked on as an after thought. Several times Clinton listed various things she believed in, and then almost parenthetically noted that these were her reasons for backing Obama. In other words, she’s for Obama because he agrees with her.

She basically said that Democrats should vote for Barack Obama because they agree with him. But here’s what Bill Clinton said yesterday about "Candidate X" and "Candidate Y":

Suppose for example you’re a voter. And you’ve got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don’t think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom would you vote?

I have no doubt that Bill knew what was in Hillary’s speech when he said that line.

As Ben Smith noted, "Clinton did little to sell Obama’s personal characteristics, his qualities or ability as commander in chief."

There is still no audio-visual rebutal to Hillary’s Not Ready" statements that she made in debates that has become the Republican communications rallying cry.

She and Bill did their duty as Democrats, but are leaving enough out that Republicans, Hillary supporters, and independents have something to chew on.

I don’t get it. Some outside group runs a weird, false ad linking Barack Obama to Bill Ayers. And Obama responds. But maybe they are so afraid of becoming John Kerry that they overdid it. And not just a little.

First, the substance of the ad is a problem. It attacks John McCain, seemingly in response to the original ad. But John McCain didn’t run the original ad. These guys are rebutting some clown and linking the clown to McCain.

Second, the fact that Obama is running a false attack ad requires McCain to respond. And the central points of that ad will be about that falsehood.

Third, in all likelihood, the buy that Obama is responding to is small. So Obama’s ad ends up elevating Ayers as an issue.

Fourth, they are doing this in Virginia. So in the media market of the Pentagon and the Captiol, the Obama campaign is, in essence, running a false attack ad against McCain about someone attacking buildings that nearly everyone knows someone who works in.

Are you kidding me? The Obama campaign is lying about a situation involving bombing landmarks in people’s lives?

This is just inexplicable. They are jumping at shadows. That doesn’t make smart politics.

Again, it’s all about the Clinton

Craig Crawford at CQ has the story:

The Democratic convention now teeters on the brink of a
media disaster thanks to real news that threatens to distract
reporters from the scripted show.

And wouldn’t you know, it’s all about the Clintons. The trouble
with the news-free nature of modern conventions is how anything
unplanned can instantly get of hand with thousands of reporters in
town vying for every morsel of something different.

The word on the street is total meltdown.
The Clintons and their advisors aren’t even staying for the final
speech.
Bill Clinton is openly whining about his speaking
assignment.

And that’s before Joe Biden stuffs most of his leg in his
mouth.

John McCain talks about competitiveness. Why doesn’t Obama?

Where would you put your business? And wouldn’t cutting it be
real stimulus?

H/T Greg Mankiw

Update: Looks like the RNC is on it. Morning stories in the WSJ and Politico.

The conventional wisdom of Barack Obama’s Joe Biden pick is that he will be an attack dog, especially on foreign policy, where he has the most credibility. But there’s a problem. In April, I wrote a litlte about Joe Biden:

Over the last couple of years, he has resisted the far-left at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by refusing to demagogue the Iraq issue. He has generally pushed for responsible changes and a little bit more detail. A National Security Council staffer (translation: Bush White House staffer) has described Biden’s interventions to me as "generally helpful."

It would certainly be far from the truth that Biden was a cheerleader for the Bush administration, but I got the sense in 2003-2004, when I was working on foreign policy on the Hill for a Republican that Joe Biden was our ally. He wanted us to succeed in Iraq. He said so on a regular basis. He regularly articulated a hawkish and sophisticated position on a range of issues. It wasn’t just his vote on Iraq, for which the left attacks him.

If I were the McCain campaign or the RNC, I would be digging through old C-SPAN, Senate Foreign Relations videos, and the transcripts. He has said lots of things that will give rhetorical cover to McCain and contrast with the attacks that he is going to make for the next two months.

When Biden lays into McCain, all the RNC has to do and turn out his old words on the issues, if not McCain. These will make it hard to continue a spirited attack on McCain.

The irony is that before Joe Biden ran for Vice President, he was probably closer to McCain on foreign policy than Obama.

There is a lot of talk around DC about who will be the RNC Chairman if John McCain were to lose. I generally hear about four candidates:

• Saul Anuzis, Chairman of the Michigan GOP
• Katon Dawson, Chairman of the South Carolina GOP
• Jim Greer, Chairman of the Florida GOP
• Shawn Steele, incoming National Committeeman of the California GOP

There is also talk that non-RNC-member elected candidates could run. (note that RNC rules require that the Chairman be a member of the Committee, but that can often be fudged with a supportive state party)

If McCain loses, the RNC Chair would likely be the public leader of the party. It is unlikely that Mitch McConnell or John Boehner, the presumed leaders of the Congressional party, would have the time or the umph to be public leaders like that. (although, I have at times thought that Boehner could do it)

The RNC Chairman’s race will also have strong implications for the 2012 Presidential primary. Mitt Romney is widely seen as having a substantial foot up because of the scope of his organization for 2008. It is likely that he would have a preferred candidate in the RNC Chairman’s race to keep tabs on the whole process.

We all very sincerely want McCain to win. But the maneuvering over the Chairman’s race is going on full-speed ahead and we intend to follow that in addition to the Presidential race, Congressional races, party growth, etc.

Consequently, please share information about this with us. We get a bunch as it is, but the more people reach out, the more we can document what is happening and make a difference in the process.

WaPo’s Dan Balz reports on Barack Obama’s plans to change the Democratic Party rules. There are 3 significant ideas. The first two are about openness. He wants to reduce the influence of the super-delegates, and he wants to include absentee ballots in caucuses. The other is simply a good government reform.  He wants to un-screw-up the timing of the primary calendar.

It should be noted that Obama is trying to force the GOP’s hand by raising these issues now. We pass our rules for 2012 in Minneapolis, after which point they can only be interpretted, not changed. By contrast, the Dems have well into 2010 or even 2011 to mess around with this.

But the ideas, because these are actually important. First, the delegate-super-delegate relationship:

"The number of superdelegates has gotten too large in relation to overall delegates," Plouffe said. "We want to give more control back to the voters. . . . Everyone thinks there ought to be more weight given to the results of the elections."

The commission will be encouraged to consider either reducing the number of superdelegates eligible to attend the national conventions or increasing the number of pledged delegates — those elected on the basis of caucus and primary results.

This gives more power to the voting public and takes it away from the party insiders. Recall that Obama lost the pledged delegates and won the super-delegates. He is biting the hand that fed him.

Obama also wants to open up the caucus process some:

The other major area the commission will be asked to examine is the operation of caucuses in states that choose that process rather than a primary. The caucuses drew criticism, particularly from the Clinton campaign, which said that they restricted participation and that in some states they lacked the necessary infrastructure to ensure fairness.

"We agree that we ought to make sure they’re funded properly, staffed properly and run smoothly, and even see if people ought to be eligible to vote absentee," Plouffe said.

The Democratic caucuses, outside of Iowa, included allegations of voter intimidation and fraud by both sides. Improving the operations would be important. But the really interesting part is the idea of opening up absentee ballots. Active-duty military cannot vote. Some elderly have problems. People with shift-jobs cannot (this was a big problem in Nevada). And others.

This is a move to enfranchise voters. That’s a big deal. There is some indication that Republicans are considering a similar reform.

Finally, there is the calendar, an issue of endless speculation in 2007:

The other significant change is the call to redraw the primary and caucus calendar. The 2008 calendar received significant criticism both for the early starting dates for the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary and also because so many states were crowded into the first month of what turned out to be a five-month battle.

Under the system envisioned by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, most contests could not be held before March, except for those in a handful of states authorized to go earlier — presumably in February rather than January.

Plouffe also said the commission will be urged to look for ways to avoid the bunching of states on particular days. Almost two dozen states held Democratic contests on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, and party officials hope to avoid a repeat in 2012.

My gut is that the RNC should recommend a rule like the March one, while studying the timing one. The real problem is that if the parties disagree on the timing of primaries, states parties are forced into caucuses because in nearly every state, legislatures pick primary dates and state governments pay for them.

Just some random thoughts that I have had watching this. I have been too busy to focus on blow-by-blow, which may or may not help for clarity.

First, the Republicans:

• It really feels like the pro-choice thing is a hip-fake. One option is that it is a hip-fake for Mitt Romney. Another is that it is a way of telling moderates that McCain is thinking about them even if he is not capable of giving them something.
• It sure feels like the Romney campaign is back in full gear. I mean, why today, of all days, does Mark Halperin have a link to something about Romney’s healthcare plan? This is exactly the sort of tactic that the Romney campaign excelled at in the primary. Romney’s problem is like Obama’s. All the great tactics, etc., will only get you so far. In the end, "the dogs won’t eat the darn stuff."
• Thinking back to the 3 subgroups (see the POS presentation after the jump on these groups) that the McCain campaign thinks that they need to move, I wonder who helps. This feels like a list for Tim Pawlenty or Carli Fiorina, except for the 3rd:
  
  • Rehab Republicans. I think that they are mostly back. Mostly "the Mac" being "back" was enough to move the dial on them. Someone too convention probably is mildly repelling.
  • "Walmart Women" Who would do that?
  • Facebook Independents.
• Wouldn’t Joe Lieberman put the exclamation point on "old"?

Really only one thought on the Dems:

• Perhaps Patrick was right. A very good source is telling me that multiple DNC members have told him that Hillary is the person. While not immediately intuitive, Clinton is the candidate who one can easily imagine helping with Barack Obama’s numbers. Which seem to be … in bad shape? Who else would fundamentally shift the numbers? You could see her bringing Democrats back home, etc., in a way that none of the other candidates could.
• By the way, she would probably school most Republican VP candidates in the debates. And she and Bill know how to attack attack attack.

But what do I know?

<!–break–>

David Brooks wrote a column today about the "education of the McCain" about how John McCain’s campaign has become conventional. The old McCain acted like this:

This sort of behavior has been part of McCain’s long-running rebellion against the stupidity of modern partisanship. In a thousand ways, he has tried to preserve some sense of self-respect in a sea of pandering pomposity. He’s done it through self-mockery, by talking endlessly about his own embarrassing lapses and by keeping up a running patter on the absurdity all around.

The new McCain is:

The man who lampooned the Message of the Week is now relentlessly on message (as observers of his fine performance at Saddleback Church can attest). The man who hopes to inspire a new generation of Americans now attacks Obama daily. It is the only way he can get the networks to pay attention. […]

As the McCain’s campaign has become more conventional, his political prospects have soared. Both he and Obama had visions of upending the system. Maybe in office, one of them will still be able to do that. But at least on the campaign trail, the system is winning.

I, for one, believe that the system is poisonous, and I agree with John Weaver that John McCain is better than the system. But let’s be clear, who has done this. The media has done this. First, as Brooks points out, their love affair with the process itself forced McCain’s hand:

McCain started his general-election campaign in poverty-stricken areas of the South and Midwest. He went through towns where most Republicans fear to tread and said things most wouldn’t say. It didn’t work. The poverty tour got very little coverage on the network news. McCain and his advisers realized the only way they could get TV attention was by talking about the subject that interested reporters most: Barack Obama.

The country could have had a debate about ideas. The media wouldn’t cover it. The country could have had a debate about what was really going on in the country. The media was not interested.

McCain offered the townhall. There could have been authenticity. The American people could have had access to the candidate. Only a couple of people in the media who have real respect for the process like David Broder called on Obama to accept. McCain tried and failed:

McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. He would pick a postpartisan running mate, like Joe Lieberman. He would make a dramatic promise, like vowing to serve for only one totally nonpolitical term. So far it hasn’t worked. Obama vetoed the town meeting idea. The issue is not closed, but G.O.P. leaders are resisting a cross-party pick like Lieberman.

As a Republican and a fan of John McCain, I am very glad that McCain is learning these lessons. I am, however, sad for our country that an unconventional candidate who really understands how repulsive the process is can’t run that campaign.