The Candidates
Candidates—some final appraisals
Biden et al—how do these non-candidates (cf. Dodd, Richardson, Paul, etc.) mark the beginning and end of their non-campaigns, since there is no resonance at any time? One day it’s ‘why not try that’—and another you wake up and say, ‘ok, no more of that’? Is the decision to run predicated on the free face time on TV, and the decision to quit then taken when the cameras vanish?
Clinton—so many third rails, where to start? She has to watch her grating, shrill octave and cackling, and the innate tendency to get mean and nasty. Then there is Wild Bill, who is taking her up on his half of “the deal” (you got leftwing White House clout by sticking by me; I get White House ego clout by not embarrassing you during your turn). There is always the land mine of Bill’s financial prostitution, in which he glad-handed his way in a mere eight post-presidential years to hundreds of millions for his library and foundations.
Edwards—surely some sort of Harold Stassenian record: since his 1998 Senate election, and 2004 and 2008 presidential runs, he must have entered the most elections and won the least. He has now made blue-jeans into the equivalent of Mike Dukakis’s tank helmet.
Obama—the more he talks about not talking about race, the more he talks about race, apparently so that he never has to take a position or offer details about his European-like socialism, and so can be perpetually beloved for promoting “change.” In the white liberal mind, a suave rhetorician of half-African ancestry from Harvard can be safely reconfigured as an African-American victim of historic racism, and thereby avoid the Sharpton-Jackson scare factor. The more he writes and talks about his father, the more one is reminded that his critical training and education were more likely due to his mother and maternal grandparents.
Giuliani—a strangely comatose campaign, in which from August to November apparently it spent millions, but on what, no one knows? We tsk, tsk the New York Times, but their serial character assassination of him for days on end was picked up on the blogosphere and regional papers, and he never got over the damage. A reminder about human nature: most have no ideology other than wishing to associate with a winner. While Rudy sat on his lead waiting for the sure thing in Florida, others were perceived as “winners” and in the limelight, and so like the proverbial magnet stone drew away his supporters. He did prove by far the best candidate in one-on-one repartee.
Huckabee—I grew up with thousands like him in Central California during the 1950s after the Arkansas and Oklahoma Diaspora: bright, educated, witty, a good guy without any background in foreign affairs and whose overt Christianity would always help to achieve a strong second or third place primary finish, but ipso facto never win the nomination or the general election. 90% of the time he’s charming and suave, the other 10% wacky, and one never knows when or where or why that rarer side pops up.
McCain—the old warhorse. The Greeks might say that something happened in Vietnam, or maybe during his long career or his past failed bid in 2000, to suggest that in his twilight his luck has finally changed and it is now his turn. His candidacy offers intriguing possibilities: at 72 he might feel no need to triangulate and thus might really balance the budget, cut programs, and talk candidly in a way others would not. I’ve had the following experience hundreds of times: a Democrat will write or call and say if Hillary is nominated, he won’t vote for her, but would for McCain (alone of the Republicans), and that “lots” feel the same way but would never admit to such. I imagine he gets far more votes than he polls. As in the case of Giuliani and Thompson, McCain’s frenetic pace makes one confused about how a cancer survivor in late middle/old age could keep up such an ordeal. His last debate should be a warning to his handlers: he was confused and tired, and needed a rest. On the day of debates, ensure he gets plenty of rest. At 54 after an occasional kidney stone, yard work and writing, I’m exhausted; the notion at 71 after cancer, I could be traveling 18 hrs a day is inconceivable. McCain’s biggest problem? He must reach out to enemies and not gratuitiously insult his erstwhile allies.Go on Limbaugh and Hannety and take whatever they dish out.
Romney—I met him for breakfast twice and found him a thoroughly nice guy with enormous talents. On paper, he may be the most impressive: sharpest mind, vigorous, well educated, pleasant. His supposed liability—Mormonism—faded while his apparent strengths (looks, money, suaveness) were seen as his weaknesses, cementing the image of a “slick” product.
Thompson—solid conservative, but apparently surprised that a sixty-something, well paid actor, recovering from lymphoma, with young wife, and children, is suddenly told that he leads polls and could be the next president. How do you refuse that? I found him the most charming of the candidates (also had breakfast with him). I especially appreciate his relaxed attitude and ‘crap happens’ resignation, and hope he is considered as a VP candidate or cabinet secretary. Again, I never understood why a cancer-survivor in his 60s is called “lazy”—but then this campaign has proved that the press and its pundits are creepier than we ever imagined, as if we all have no memory of their own viciousness and triangulations.
“We’re Back!”
So said Bill Clinton Wednesday night in Denver. He was talking ad nauseam ostensibly about Hillary but mostly about Bill, past and present. And he seems to think things like 100mpg cars would be developed because of his wife, or that she would lower interest rates for affordable loans— although I thought shaky rules to get more people in homes were part of the problem by extending too easy credit to the unqualified.
He was speaking and speaking and speaking, pacing and without notes, in total stream of thought fashion, in which he can and does say anything that comes across his jittery mind. What does he mean that “Hillary is the best change maker” he ever knew? Answer—in second one he damns debt and all the money we owe to the Chinese and Japanese, and then in second two lists all the expensive federal programs she started or expanded, as if there is to be no connection.
If this continues, he will say some outrageous things before this is over. I’ll stop with the anecdotes he offers about their partnership—“Bill, do you love me?” (The problem with Hillary as President is not just being that we are on new ground with an ex-President shilling for his wife to find a way to beat term limits, but doing so as part of a mercenary and utilitarian, and cynical, tag-team marriage.)
The Debate
There was no California debate tonight between Obama and Clinton, just a consensus about a sort of squishy sort of European socialism—more federal programs, more UN, more retreat from Iraq, more assumption that the government alone can save us all.
His fear? Don’t mention one detail, one specific proposal that might suggest he’s not an Olympian but could offend someone who didn’t think he got as big a federal program as his neighbor. So “change” and “historic” (aka first black serious candidate) are the extent of his vocabulary. On immigration, taxes, defense he talks only in anti-Bush generalities. No mention that we haven’t been hit since 9/11, the Taliban and Saddam are gone, and the four soon to be nuclear powers of the 1990s (North Korea, Iraq, Iran [if one were to believe the NIE], and Libya) were not by 2007. We should compare the contrast with Pakistan in 1998 about which no one offers any mea culpa.
Her fear? The Cackle. From time to time she lets loose and it gets sort of eerie as even supporter gasp and think ‘Please don’t do that again!’. She too deplores the Bush debt as she lists billions in new federal programs—without a hint that they might be connected. And when she said that Syria and Iran will be in bad shape when we begin fleeing Iraq 60 days after her assumption of office, should we laugh (please! No!) or cry (sort of).
Re: the non-debate. I guess Obama thinks he’s gaining, so keep it cool; she’s cooling it to ensure she doesn’t blow it. Again, expect Bill to muddy the waters next time around.
McCainimosity
McCain is weak on borders, in that he changed and slurred his critics—but his present position is light years from the de facto open borders—and ‘proud of it’ attitude—shared by Clintama.
I still think if McCain goes on Hannity, Rush, etc., talks bluntly, but graciously and reviews his positions on the war, spending, corruption, and vows on illegal immigration, he can mollify his base—in light of the alternative seen tonight. See below:
I’m still being bombarded by those who promise that they will sit out if McCain is nominated. But any simple collation of his views with the Clintama positions will show an abyss of difference. I can’t believe that conservatives will stay home while someone with a 82 percent ACU rating may run against the Senate’s most highly rated liberal senator. If either Hillary or Obama is elected, conservatives could kiss the Supreme Court off for 30 years, and see the Petraeus surge squandered. For those who keep writing the McCain venom, at least turn some of it on St. Reagan (new taxes on payroll and gas, arms for hostages, flight from Lebanon, O’Connor and Kennedy as justices, 1986 amnesty, desire for global and rapid nuclear disarmament, etc.) or President Bush (massive growth in government, spending hikes, immigration bill, Dubai ports, farm bill give-away, etc.).
The debate has become so crazy that today they were attacking McCain’s war record! And complaining about his class ranking at Annapolis! I’d cool it, since we are really talking about a return of Bill Clinton and more Justice Ginsburgs, Madeline Albrights, a few cruise missiles when our embassies are incinerated, tax increases from payroll to income to estate, more reductions in military forces (peace dividend), and a near veto by Europe and the UN on U.S. options abroad. A McCain-Thompson ticket, with pledges on taxes and immigration, would not be the same as the above, and to suggest otherwise is, well…
Edwards Emeritus
After he withdraws, has Edwards created a blue-jeans jail in which he can’t go back to John’s room in the mansion? How long can he walk around in plaid and jeans as man of the people, now that there is not much political gain to be made from it, other than a cabinet post?
So I would suppose that insidiously he’d go back to the $50,000 a pop university lectures on poverty, the weekly-salary haircuts, and hedge-fund/Wall Street freelancing—Clinton-like using the cover of a foundation for poverty to pay for the private jetting and good life, sort of analogous to the Arianna Huffington Brentwood populism or the John Kerry camouflage and mansion show.
In the end, he remains the most enigmatic of all the candidates: how can an ambulance chaser turned into Blue-dog southern senator transmogrify into Tom Joad, and apparently fool millions of voters?
A Different Sort of Populism
A reader wrote in inquiring: who has the biggest house among our present populists: Kerry, Kennedy, Gore, or Edwards? I answered in total square footage, Kerry. But was not sure about the primary residence. Could it be Edwards? And does one count total houses and aggregate footage, or single residence or principal home?
All of our present liberalish billionaire populists who critique capitalism and want higher taxes—Soros, Buffet, Gates, Trump, etc.—beat the system years ago, once railed against government intrusion into markets and competition, and now, billions later, feel themselves exempt. So in Carnegie fashion, they sense before the twilight it’s time for a little magnanimity, one that will have absolutely no effect on their billion-dollar lifestyles. For a man with $1 billion there are ways to tax all ‘income’ at 20% as capital gains and not 35% plus as income—if taxed at all in offshore investments, trusts, and foundations. And if one high-profile magnate is making $70 million a year in interest, whether he pays $25 million or the higher $35 million is not as important as the sense of status and acclaim that greets his strikingly liberal positions on making the rich (i.e., those greedier families, making say $300-500,000,) pay their fair share—or else!
I can’t abide MCCain, to me he is as duplicitous as he is arrogant, and his “Straight Talk” infuriates me in a way remarkably similar to that of Huckabee. Regardless of his war record, he has been a terrible senator. If we elected presidents on war records then why didn’t we elect Audie Murphy. remember U.S. Grant was one of the greatest generals in our nations history and a terrible president.
I look at McCain’s record and what he claims to stand for and I only find myself agreeing on immigration and the war, but then considering I am probably to the left of the entire country on immigration that is not hard. When it comes to Judges or regulation of business, or Carbon cap and trade, I see little difference from the Democrats and a man who is way to dedicated to flattery from those who are our political enemies. On everything but the war and taxes I see little difference between him and the democrats, and I know deep in my heart that with him as president, their will be no Republican unity in opposing his statist schemes. Something that would be possible with either Hillary or Obama.
That leaves the war, and at the moment I am having trouble seeing Obama or Hilary withdrawing… It maybe that the very success of the war is the greatest boon to the Democrats, but I will have to see how things stand in October. At the moment I hope Romney will get the nomination and I will not have to face this dilemna. Otherwise I will have to choose between my livlihood and feeling about the long term strenght of our nation, and the short term of the war. A war that in the long term we are not going to lose.
However there
I watched enough of the Democratic Party “debate” to know that I must vote in November despite Fred’s withdrawal.
Let me be the first; McCain is a typical little man. He will attack and belittle anyone who differs from him or questions anything he says. Great way to make friends and supporters. Bush may have claimed to be a Uniter; McCain is the Divider. He is anti-business and proud of it. He thinks business is “unmanly.” He lies and lies about Romney, even when it is shown to be a lie.
I could go on at great length, but will tell you that I will not support any version of a Demo-lefty, be it Demo-RINO McCain, Euro-socialist Obama or the Evita Peron wannabe.
Dr. Hanson,
Yes, we’ve all see your constant refrain about Sen. McCain’s ACU rating.
But honestly, it has now come to light that McCain almost jumped to “Independent” in 2001 and that he considered running with Sen. John Kerry in 2004. Given these revelations and his apparent comfort with much of the liberal agenda, how can you continue to look askance at his Quisling leanings?
Again, I judge a man or woman by their actions, not their words, and his actions of the last 5 or 6 years have been decidely liberal.
McCain is no different from Clinton, and might be worse, in the largest National Security issue of out time:
How to prevent perpetually aggrieved Muslims, in a proliferating nuclear state, that is weak and tribally based, from handing off a nuke to some Colonel’s cousin and ending NYC. Or DC.
Iraq is irrelevant. Afghanistan irrelevant. So is Israel, the “peace process,” or McCain’s love for Open Borders (and his carefully constructed weasel words to allow his signing McCain-Kennedy Amnesty 2).
What is important is preventing the nuking of a US city and millions of US dead. Because once that happens it will happen again unless the US response induces fear and horror in everyone.
McCain is weak. He is old. He nearly became a Democrat in 2001. He is in thrall to the Press and will not do anything that invites their disapproval. McCain lacks political courage. A war hero? Yes. So was Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Now in jail for corruption because he too lacked political courage.
McCain is a disaster who is likely to be PC-driven and let nasty nations governed by weak leaders and tribal/clan factions gain nukes. Which pretty much guarantees a US city dead. Given that Teddy bears and obscure speeches by the Pope set off Muslims into rages that get people killed.
I’d rather have Hillary than McCain. Hillary at least has ambition beyond pleasing the Press and might actually be stirred to do something about preventing a US city being nuked. McCain is a disaster and really if you want a Democrat, why not vote for the real thing.
Both Hillary and McCain will give us Open Borders and Amnesty. [Personnel is policy -- McCain has an Open Borders Mexican official as his campaign director.] Hillary might strike at a proliferator betting that voters will care if NYC gets nuked. McCain won’t because his pals in the NYT won’t like him anymore.
McCain = Alcibiades
Come to think of it, McCain’s flirtations with the left remind me of Alicbiades flirtations with Sparta.
Why would anyone throw their support behind someone who is so much like this ancient traitor?
Mr. Rockford,
How exactly is President Rockford going to prevent me from being nuked? (I figured I would go with the only candidate you could support) I also fail to see how crushing Al Qaeda on the ground they have declared as their focus of operations is irrelevant to preventing nuclear terrorism.
“McCain = Alcibiades”
Good point!
I’ll vote against the greater evil, if I can’t vote for the greater good. Whoever’s running against Hilobama gets my nod.
Watching LBJ’s speech declining to run in ’68 and seeing how he’d aged, I realized that nobody who wants that job should be allowed to have it. I sat out a few rounds and we ended up with Carter – that cured me of that.
McCain has done things that I do not agree with but I think he is the best among those remaining. I also think we would be far better off now, had he been elected 8 years ago. He’s no more a liberal the Bush. Bush of the expanded entitlement programs. Bush who was himself in favor of the immigration law. And maybe the surge would have been in 2003 or 4. Maybe we’d still have a republican congress. Lower deficit…
Some of what is written above sounds like sour grapes. To whine about McCain pulling some nasty politics on Mitt the chameleon, Mitt who is whatever flavor he thinks he needs to be to get elected, is just pathetic.
That said, I’d suffer wind, rain, earthquakes, tornados, 2 hours of listening to NPR, whatever it took, to get out and vote for Mitt or Huck if that is who is there. Anybody but Billary or Osama Obama.
Play the odds, McCain may not sail the ship in the direction you prefer, but he’s less likely to wreck on the rocks.
Mr. Hanson, I have always loved to read your amazing articles and their detailed accounts of history, I’ve learned alot just reading your stuff. I was saddened deeply by Fred Thompson’s departure for the run of President, but am hopeful, prayerful, that McCain will ask Fred to be his runningmate. It may actually work out better that way. Fred likes behind the scenes stuff, and he’d be a magnificent influence on McCain, then in 2012, Fred can run again!!!! Thanks for reminding us that 4 years of Dems should get us off our keesters and go vote Republican!!!!!!!
“Midshipmen are persons of integrity,” reads the student pledge. “They stand for that which is right. They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. They do not lie. They embrace fairness in all actions. …”
McCain is the least homorable candidate since Reverend Al.
Biden et al—how do these non-candidates (cf. Dodd, Richardson, Paul, etc.) mark the beginning and end of their non-campaigns, since there is no resonance at any time?
There was, and still is, resonance for Ron Paul, but my guess is that after February 5, he will fold his tent as well. He made his point; that there is still some appetite for sound money, fiscal conservatism, small government and a modest foreign policy.
While I have no personal knowledge of what motivates him, my guess is that 72-year old Ron Paul is motivated by principle. How else do you explain his stance over the years on so many issues of that have put him at odds with his own party? His refusal to “go along to get along” on policies he find unconstitutional, financially irresponsible and destructive to the country set him apart. He’s definitely not Clintonesqe, getting a chapped finger by a daily checking of the political winds, and some of us found that appealing. And most of what he was proposing WAS the stance of what passed for conservatism a couple generations ago.
Maybe Ron Paul is just stubborn. From reading Dr. Hanson’s books on agriculture and his family’s struggle with the relentless trends in farming that helped destroy my own family’s farm, my guess is that it is a trait he is not altogether unfamiliar with.
The campaign is a “marketplace of ideas” where all positions are vetted, and the market is sorting out who is viable and who is not. Unfortunately in our celebrity-obsessed culture, it is also a marketplace of personality instead of substance, which is where Obama/Clinton come from.
For those of you who will sit home instead of support McCain, I respectfully ask you to reconsider. As a Ron Paul fan I can tell you that there is much about McCain I do not support, but given the alternative, which is more socialist band-aids charged to future generations, there is no question but to support McCain. McCain is a construct of the state, no question, virtually from cradle to present day, but he’s not stupid. He no doubt knows he needs to select a more conservative VP, someone familiar with business, and will act accordingly.
Professor Hanson!
I agree entirely with your assessment. McCain is probably the best we can have at this time. Hypothetically, how many 9/11-size attacks could the Republic absorb? I am saying security is number one priority. McCain has demonstrated the talent and strength of character of bringing order out of chaos. What can be more chaotic than being shot down and taken prisoner? You predicted and rightly so that the pulse of the battlefield would govern politics. Boots on the ground with rifles will defeat Islamic aggression. Further, as you have stated, it is the unpredictability of Bush that has helped keep us safe. McCain’s demonstrated unpredictability would at least keep us safe for four more years. And it was Gerald Ford that signed the legislation passed by a Democrat controlled Congress that cut off funds to South Viet Nam. And history does show that Grant was better than Jimmy Carter as far as character goes. The American Indians had no better friend. Islam has a good friend in Jimmy Carter.
A great deal of angst among commenters over McCain. Yes, he’s off the conservative reservation in some areas.
Many things I don’t like about McCain but, if we should get a Clintama we would undoubtedly get the following:
1.Liberal judges.
2.An attempt to socialize our medical system.
3.Higher taxes; income, FICA, and estate.
4.More government spending and programs that we don’t need.
5.Open borders.
7.More gun control.
8.Expensive programs to fight global warming.
9.Higher oil prices
10.With the higher taxes and more government meddling in business, a much weaker economy.
Add to the above that Obama promises to negotiate directly with Iran, Venezuela,and Cuba with no pre-conditions. Also consider that HRC detests the military. What either would do to combat terrorism is, IMO, a bit of a wild card.
If that list does not scare people who don’t like McCain into at least considering that he is a better choice, then they just don’t grasp what’s at stake.
If looks like it could be a brokered Republican convention. Whoever comes out of it will be my candidate.
Agree with Jimmy J. completely. To his points I’d only reiterate that Clinton or Obama presidency would see people like Richard Hollbrooke and Wesley Clark in highly influential positions, perhaps as cabinet members. And, as I suggested in an earlier post, imagine John Edwards as Attorney General or worse — a Supreme Court justice.
As VDH has pointed out, both Obama and Clinton would only be too willing to formally cede US interests to world-body authority, which would be consistent with their desire to have the world love and respect us again.
This might be a really big deal for the US in ways that it isn’t for other countries.
It’s my understanding if that we have signed on to international law and fail to live up to it (or some US lawyer thinks he can make a case that we haven’t), he (or an international body) can sue with some prospect of winning and forcing the US to abide by — what — some UN mandate?
If my understanding is correct, think about what that would mean in terms of the environment, “war-crimes,” free-speech, etc.
So those who wish to sit out voting for McCain, if he’s the nominee.
Are you absolutely sure that’s in the best interests of the country?
You make a compelling case, Dr. Hanson for not punishing the Republican party by not voting for McCain. Thanks to you I will probably do so (vote for McCain) if it comes down to it. Still, I can’t be very hopeful about a McCain candidacy.
If McCain is nominated, his only chance will be against Hillary. Obama vs McCain is no contest. The smooth-talking, good looking black man (the face of “change”) against the 70+ year old member of the white dinosaur club — who do you think most people will vote for?
Forget about the issues and positions. Most conversations I have with people revolve around the candidate’s looks and how the person makes them feel. Obama definitely has the warm and fuzzy vote.
On the other hand, most people I speak with (red or blue) are so solidly against Hillary that any alternative looks better. The best match up for the GOP? Romney vs Hillary. The worst match-up for the GOP? McCain vs Obama.