Surprisingly enough, this brings things back full circle to Romney, who up to now has been busy laying the groundwork for another presidential bid in 2012. It would be an intriguing thing if, after waiting a day or two out of respect for the late senator, Romney were to downshift and announce he will be a candidate in the upcoming election to fill Kennedy's vacant Senate seat.
Such an announcement would likely be embraced immediately by the Republicans, who would like almost nothing more than to deny Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada his new, hard-won, 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority. As a self-funding candidate who has already been elected once statewide, Romney has nearly 100 percent name ID. And, in an environment where President Obama seems to be dragging the Democrats down, he would be a serious threat to the Democratic hegemony in Massachusetts's congressional delegation. Meaning Romney likely would win.
I mean, Romney declined to run for a second term because voters hated him so much. Remember, he's talking about a guy who won only 51% of the vote in the Republican presidential primary in 2008.
Funny that Roff fails to speculate what a humiliating loss to Joe Kennedy II would do to Romney's 2012 presidential ambitions...
Congratulations to Mitt Romney for his decisive victory in yesterday's Montana Republican caucus. The final numbers:
Alan Keyes: 2
Mike Huckabee: 245
John McCain: 358
Ron Paul: 400
Mitt Romney: 625
The caucus seemed to be won in the larger counties, which went strongly for Romney (and Paul, to a lesser degree), and not at all for McCain. To wit:
Yellowstone: Romney 47, Paul 36, McCain 12
Gallatin: Romney 47, Paul 28, McCain 14
Missoula: Romney 42, Paul 45, McCain 7
Lewis and Clark: Romney 36, Paul 16, McCain 15
Flathead: Romney 36, Paul 25, McCain 9
Ravalli: Romney 32, Paul 4, McCain 8
Lake: Romney 14, Paul 18, McCain 8
Of the five biggest counties, Romney won 44.5% of the votes, Paul 32.1%, and McCain 12.2%. Compare that to the rest of the state: Romney 35.9%, Paul 21.5%, McCain 25.9%. If you take out the sixth-largest county's -- Ravalli -- 32 votes for Romney, he pulled only 34.2% of the statewide vote.
What seems clear is that Romney won his votes from the larger, urban areas of the state; McCain from the rural counties. (Check out the Gazette's report on the Treasure county caucus for a color story on McCain's supporters.)
Romney's Montana state campaign director, Chuck Denowh, attributed the victory to a strong grass-roots effort and the former Massachusetts governor's compelling message.
"We worked here really hard to win Montana, and we didn't come in here two weeks ago and expect to win," Denowh said, referring to McCain's late bid. "We've been working for five months."
Given the demographics of the results, that sounds about right.
In an open election, turnout is indicative of a candidate's support among the general population. In a closed caucus of party stalwarts, it's a little hard to say. Do Romney's 36 (of 48) Ravalli county votes represent a deep passion for the Massachusetts governor south of Missoula? Or does it represent the party machine quickly organizing its members? In a closed caucus, it's probably the latter, as Romney's camp is claiming.
John McCain performed well in a July 2007 poll, in which 62 percent of those polled said they would consider voting for him if he was his party's candidate. (Thirty-eight percent said they would not.) Romney finished behind Giuliani, Thompson, Obama, Richardson, Huckabee, Biden, Bloomberg, and Edwards with 49/51. A November 2007 MSU-B poll (of dubious accuracy) showed McCain with the best favorable/unfavorable rating among the general population at 44/40. Romney lagged far behind at 24/38.
So the general population of Montana obviously prefers McCain to all other candidates, Democratic or Republican, and definitely feels some antipathy for Romney. But how do they fare among Republicans?
A January 2008 poll showed that Huckabee led among self-described Republicans with 16 percent support from those polled, followed by Giuliani (15%), Romney (13%), Thompson (12%), McCain (5%), and Paul (4%). ("Not sure" won with 23%.) Still, McCain had the highest favorable rating among Republicans (40%).
Given the results of the January poll, then, Huckabee was the big loser in Montana's caucus. The top three winners of last night's contest - Romney, McCain, and Paul - were, as of a month ago - not the top choices of self-identified Republican voters.
So how does that inform our understanding of the caucus results? A good question. I'd posit that Romney's and Paul's votes were probably the result of their campaigns organizing followers to participate in the caucus. Romney's organization was probably top-down (Denowh, Romney's state chair, is the former head of the MT GOP), Paul's bottom-up (a result of the Paul-bearers' typical enthusiasm). McCain's votes likely came out of his broad base of support in the state. Where campaign organization is naturally less effective - in rural areas - McCain supporters filled the gaps. Huckabee was never present in Montana - maybe a mistake, given the pre-caucus poll results - which may explain his lackluster fourth-place finish.
Given McCain's front-runner status and likely nomination, Montana's caucus results in the end likely will be meaningless. General election voters will get their preferred candidate - despite the state GOP's efforts towards a different outcome - and the sting of getting shut out of the closed caucus will fade.
I also think it's unlikely the state party will see much help from Ron Paul's supporters in the general election: those that adore Paul's no-nonsense old-school conservatism will likely find it hard to swallow either McCain's neo-conservatism, or Romney's corporate conservatism and situational values. Paul's campaign represents a break with the big government/big business characteristics of contemporary conservatism; don't count on them choosing party over ideals, especially if that means fighting for a nominee that embodies the status quo.
Did you hear the news (via Montana Headlines)? "Boss Hogg" Burns is now the new chair of frontrunner John McCain's campaign here in the Treasure State .
Two words: high comedy.
McCain, as you may remember, was one of the authors of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Conrad Burns' claim to fame is an all-too-cozy relationship to convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Burns also infamously changed his vote on a Marianas Islands labor bill that would have ended forced prostitution and slave labor, after a 15-minute meeting with a representative of the islands' garment industry and a $5K campaign donaton. (Which he apparently did out of principle.)
McCain, as you also may remember, was an outspoken critic of pork-barrel spending and a proponent of earmark reform. Conrad Burns, of course, was the drunken sailor of spending. In 2006, his campaign essentially consisted of him telling us we owed him our support for the pork and earmarks he brought to the state, never mind the tawdry methods by which the money was acquired.
In short, marrying Burns to McCain feels like a state GOP project to rehabilitate Conrad Burns' reputation in time for the 2012 election (when Dennis Rehberg will no doubt run on the platform that Tester "stole" his seat from the now "saintly" Burns). But I wonder how McCain feels about being tied to Conrad Burns?
Now, after the Florida primary, with McCain seizing the reigns of the primary race, the Montana GOP finds itself in a bind. After all, it certainly appears as if the state's Republican caucus was engineered to give establishment candidate Mitt Romney Montana's delegates. And now? What if the state's Republican voters want to vote for McCain - and Iverson et al gives them Romney? And McCain wins the nomination? The state GOP leadership would find itself defying both the party's nominee and its base.
But changing the caucus - as suggested by Montana Headlines - so that caucus goers vote for the winner of an open Republican primary would necessarily p*ss off the hundreds of folks who signed up to be party precinct captains so they could help pick the presidential nominee. So much for enthusiastic help next November, which seemed to be the other goal of a caucus.
In the end, of course, John McCain is the conservative apostate, and the state GOP probably can't stomach the thought of a McCain win of Montana 's Republican delegates. So the caucus will likely stay as it is, and Conrad Burns can continue to enjoy his retirement, unmolested.
Just wanted to bring your attention to the sordid underbelly of David Brooks' column today, which while praising Obama left, right, and center, took this gratuitous shot against John Edwards:
He's made John Edwards, with his angry cries that "corporate greed is killing your children's future," seem old-fashioned. Edwards's political career is probably over.
It's the conventional "wisdom." Edwards is toast. Why hasn't Edwards dropped out? He's dead in the water. Some folks on the left see the Iowa caucus -- what with Obama's message of bipartisanship (and flying pigs) polling so well -- as an end to progressive populust economic policy. (As obviously does Brooks.)
A couple of things to remember. First, both Clinton and Obama took Edwards' lead in setting policy. Universal health care? Withdrawal from Iraq? Edwards took the stand, it polled well, Clinton and Obama scurried to match his stance. Ezra Klein said it best, Edwards "set the agenda and finished second."
Second, Eric Kleefeld noticed something interesting about the caucus results, compared with pre-caucus poll: if such a comparison can be made, then it appears Edwards was the biggest recipient of second-choice delegates. What does that mean? It could mean that, as second-tier candidates drop out of the race, Edwards' numbers improve. Also, if the primary gets ugly, it's likely Clinton and Obama who take the swings at each other. Edwards could end up smelling like a rose in a couple of weeks. One word: youneverknow.
And third, and the most striking fact about John Edwards' results at the Iowa causus are the results, compared to the Republican candidates. According to the The Group News Blog, some 356,000 Iowans voted during the caucus. Of those, 20.5% -- or approximately 73,000 -- pulled for Edwards. That's more votes than Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney earned combined. That's about a thousand less than Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani combined.
While Edwards may not win the Democratic nomination, Edwards' populist policies outpolled nearly the entire Republican field in the Iowa caucus. End of his career? Death of his message? Where are the columns dedicated to the death of the Republican party as a national force in politics?
David Brooks just doesn't get any better than this:
The most impressive thing about Mitt Romney is his clarity of mind. When he set out to pursue his party's nomination, he studied the contours of the Republican coalition and molded himself to its forms.
Only Brooks (and his chattering ilk) would see the gaping black hole that is Romney's belief system, and see good.
The column, a laudatory paen to Romney's "dynamic" and "flexible" political skills, chimes in on today's buzz surrounding the possible collapse of the Republican coalition, summed up ably by Steve Benen.
Those of us who hibernated this week might have missed the bad news for the Romney camp in New Hampshire. First, it was the Concord Monitor's ringing unendorsement of the Massachusetts politician, "Romney should not be the next President," which faulted him for not appearing to have any core values. And today, it's the Manchester Union Leader questioning Romney's commitment to conservative values:
There is a reason Mitt Romney has not received a single newspaper endorsement in New Hampshire. It's the same reason his poll numbers are dropping. He has not been able to convince the people of this state that he's the conservative he says he is.
The paper endorsed John McCain, calling him a man of "conviction."
All you need to know about Romney's struggles in New Hampshire is embodied in his answer to the first question posed to him by the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage in a candidates' questionnaire on the Constitution (hat tip, Dave Crisp):
Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
Intelligence and surveillance have proven to be some of the most effective national security tools we have to protect our nation. Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive and the President should not hesitate to use every legal tool at his disposal to keep America safe.
"Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive"? How do you think that goes over in a state whose license plates read, "Live Free or Die"? It's also telling that the nearer Romney is to his home state, the worse he fares. Familiarity breeds contempt, indeed.
Out of all the Republican presidential candidates, Romney is clearly the best funded, polished, and prepared for this campaign and, arguably, the presidency. (And I'm not saying that'd make him a good president.) It's hard to say, though, what the man actually believies. And it doesn't help that he's running in the namby-pamby, inoffensive manner of a front-runner.
I still think Romney wins the nomination in the end, but he's not making it easy for himself.
Mitt Romney had his "JFK moment" in the presidential campaign yesterday with his speech, "Faith in America ," which was an effort to make himself palatable to the Evangelical voters who make up a substantial portion of the Republican base. Other than Hugh Hewitt - who's already a groveling Romney sycophant - the speech didn't seem to sway many, from Evangelicals to liberals.
First, there was dissatisfaction at Romney's insistence that religion is critical to freedom, which, naturally implied agnostics, pagans, atheists, and the like apparently can't handle freedom or contribute to the national dialog. This point of view was, ironically, best expressed by Peggy Noonan:
There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.
Sorry for the unannounced absence. I went on vacation -- was in an undisclosed locale with temperatures over 90. Coming back to Missoula was a bit of a surprise -- but it is great to see snow.
Interesting stuff happening here. Like many others, I was sorry to hear about Bill Kennedy's apparent health troubles. I don't know anything more than what I've read -- and that includes for potential new candidates in that race. I don't even know if the candidates being talked about are seriously considering it. So no real news on that front.
But there's something else going on in Montana politics that seems worth discussing. That's the GOP caucuses. So far they haven't been getting much mention. That's too bad.
That said, I was talking to a Republican today who is eligible to caucus who said she got an ID phone call from the Romney campaign (she's not a Romney supporter). She also indicated that in her neck of the woods, Ron Paul supporters are lining up to fill empty seats on the central committee and be able to caucus for their guy.
Now, I have no idea how many vacancies GOP central committees had statewide prior to this process. I do know that one of the big strengths of the caucus process was the likelihood of campaigns doing a lot of the legwork to build GOP grassroots in Montana.
So here's the question: is anyone other than Romney and Paul working in Montana (noting that Steve Daines is apparently helping Huckabee, for what that's worth)?
And is anyone other than Ron Paul supporters lining up to join central committees?
And, can Ron Paul supporters gain sufficient numbers to be a real force in the caucus?
And, will Ron Paul supporters stick around in the GOP even if/when their candidate loses?
Dean's grassroots operation from 2004 embedded itself pretty firmly inside the Democratic and progressive establishments. A lot of my cohorts from back in the day are now working at the DNC for the big candidates or whatever. Others, like me, went into the less partisan, but still ideological, world.
The question is what Paul's supporters will do after this. Stay in the GOP? Move to the Libertarian Party? Start a significant national PAC a la Democracy for America to impact conservatism in general?
Another MSU-B poll came out, this on Montanans' attitudes towards the 2008 presidential candidates. McCain (49 positive/29 negative) won the favorable/unfavorable matchups for the GOP, with Giuliani (44/40) and Romney (24/38) chugging behind. (No word on Huckabee.) For the Democrats after Obama come Edwards (36/35) and Clinton (31/59). (No word on Dodd.)
I'm not terribly shocked at Clinton's huge unfavorable rating. It kind of goes along with what we've said on this site: a Clinton nomination would not go over well here, based on the present numbers. Still, Clinton's managed to budge her unfavorables quite a bit among Democratic voters quite a bit this year, so if anybody could overcome the prejudice against her, it's New York's junior Senator.
Twelve percent of those polled said they would not for for a woman for president. Period. Welcome to Montana!
I am a little surprised about Romney's numbers. Besides indicating either nobody's heard of him here, or the poll is an outlier, what gives here? Why is he so unpopular? Is it his religion? I doubt detail of this flip-floppin' snake's unpopular gubernatorial record has filtered out West among the common woman yet, so I can't imagine what else would be taking him down.
The New York Timesexamined the President's rhetoric on vetoing the bipartisan CHIP bill, and found...well...nothing. In short, the paper's editorial board finds only "blind partisanship" behind the veto.
Washington Post's Eugene Robinson goes even further, and calls Bush's excuses "lies":
To say that George W. Bush spends money like a drunken sailor is to insult every gin-soaked patron of every dockside dive in every dubious port of call. If Bush gets his way, the cost of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon reach a mind-blowing $600 billion. Despite turning a budget surplus into a huge deficit, the man still hasn't met a tax cut he doesn't like. And when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, Bush might as well have signed their pork-stuffed spending bills with a one-word rubber stamp: "Whatever."
So for Bush to get religion on fiscal responsibility at this late date is, well, a joke. And for him to make his stand on a measure that would have provided health insurance to needy children is a punch line that hasn't left many Republicans laughing.
Considering the popularity of the bill - and the unpopularity of Bush's veto - it's a head scratcher that all four top-tier Republican presidential candidates - Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain -- support the veto.
I know the candidates have to win a primary before facing the bulk of the American electorate, who rank Bush right up there with wart removal and genital herpes, but CHIP is popular with Republicans. It's not like the health care industry is sending money around to squelch the bill, either. As far as I can tell, the veto is just plain partisan stubbornness.
What gives? Are these guys really this bad? And why do I keep putting McCain in the "top tier" of candidates?
I flipped on last night's GOP debate for awhile and couldn't help but notice the empty podiums on stage. Those podiums belonged to the four front-runners in the Republican primary: Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson.
The debate took place at historically black Morgan State University and was scheduled to talk about issues important to African Americans. It's pretty obvious that either the top-tier Republicans don't want to be associated with African Americans, or feel the questions wouldn't play to their strengths, and they declined to show.
You have to wonder about this 'big tent' we used to hear a lot about. You might remember that though all of the candidates were invited to speak before the NAACP event, only Tom Tancredo showed up. You might also recall that all the Democratic candidates took them up on the offer.
Remember all the hooplah from the media for Democrats refusing to debate on Fox? What was that quote...how can we trust you to stand up to al Qaeda if you can't handle Fox News? Well, how can we expect these men to govern the nation if they won't talk with their own citizens?
The Montana Republican Party is considering replacing the June Presidential primary with a February caucus limited to state party officials, county committee members, and Republican elected officials. Turnout would be limited to roughly 2,300. Turnout in a contested primary in Montana typically numbers around 100,000 for each party, so this is significantly different.
Upshot? Some Montanans get a real chance to provide input into the nominating process.
Downside? We make a big first step away from inclusive party structures and into smoky backroom deal-making.
There are some interesting other parts of this. It may be an attempt to give the GOP base something to get enthused about, the grassroots a reason to get involved in their county committees by being appointed to precinctman and woman spots. No doubt it will be a good organizing tool.
At the same time, it indicates the problems the Republicans face. The Montana Republican Party has little chance in top-of-the-ticket races and will be aiming to put most of its resources into state legislative campaigns. To spend party money instead organizing caucuses for a race that ultimately will be decided somewhere other than Montana is an indication either of a die-hard dedication to making at least some Montanans heard in this nominating contest or a resource call that it was the single best chance to actually fire up the base.
Call me a cynic, but I've got my guess as to which of those options it is. But I'm always inclined to hear other thoughts as well.
After the speech, Sen. Corey Stapleton indicated that both Democrats and Republicans could support Multiple Choice Mitt Romney. That's probably because he has such diverse views. For example, he's pro-choice, pro-life, and strongly pro-choice. He's pro-gay rights and anti-gay rights. He's for campaign finance reform and against campaign finance reform. He votes for Democrats because he supports them. He votes for (the same) Democrats only to help the Republicans.
No doubt, Mitt Romney has some strengths. Namely, he's rich as hell and looks good in a suit. But when it comes to issues, he's invented quantum politics. His views are not fixed. They're probabilistic and those probabilities change radically over time, depending on his personal situation and electorate.
