Larry King interviewing John McCain. The Senator came clean with Larry and spoke, softly, his confident that credit for his geopolitical authority and sincere bipartisan effort are granted. At least that was the intended tactical program. I think it “came across”, except for the fact he’s looking old. 4 years tops, we’re to think. Careful, now; I see no commitment that he'd be one term and done. So, we'd have a ridiculous re-election campaign, as in 2004. 1968, yet once more into the breach--in 2012. That's the Crimean danger his candidacy presents, and it's a major one.
McCain’s big 3: Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan. We’ll come back to this.
added 7/31/06:
McCain, the ABB.
this shorthand reference may initially be seen as referring to The Anti-Bushite Bushite, which in some important policy areas he would be. No, instead it is The All But Bushite.
2006 will be the proof of the McCain thesis, and will pose the simple challenge: McCain. Who can beat him? Who will take the crown from the unelected Presidential favorite?
(This is where the Democratic challenger comes in.)
Before we get ahead of ourselves, though, our pre-race designation of Sen. McCain as the party's pre-emptive champion presumes something very important, and not to be taken for granted, Romney-style (not Mitt, the late George Romney. You remember him, don't you? The presumptive leader in 1968 from the conventional wisdom when the primaries began, Gov. George Romney of Michigan blew it when he admitted he had been "brainwashed". )
John McCain doesn't have to worry about that charge--it's well-documented-- but he does have a host of potential challengers. Many have lined up for a shot at the action, and with no electoral reform in sight, the field will divide rapidly into those who can churn in the money and those who cannot. There's contribution space for quite a few early, but the second-round money goes to three guys/gals tops. There are interesting primary results sometimes for other candidates, but the weight of delegates will end up going to those who continue to draw contributions.
So, besides McCain, we see a couple of slots that will remain open through the primaries, as long as a contender's bank balance can sustain the challenge:
Giuliani/Pataki. Another spatially-driven encounter: Only one of them can occupy the candidate space of offbeat choice from New York of moderate Republicans. Giuliani can do that and make the anti-terrorism cop role stick. That makes him favored to take that role into the final series of primary challenges.
A Bushite. The one I'm looking to see make a run is Frist. He auditioned for the ABB role but was not called back.
(This is where the previously-mention challengers are mentioned. Gingrich. Hagel. )
And then, there are others still:
Romney. I think tarbaby killed his momentum. Doesn't he have to get re-elected or something? He will not make it to the starting gate.
Brownback. Could pull a solid 3-15% kind of number. Will deliver the evangelical vote. Has a shot at making the finals. A potential kingmaker, unless McCain can bag him early.
George Allen. All right, he's a Bushite. Write him in there instead of Frist, I don't care. Only one of them gets to be the alpha dog, though. He has the advantage of being on the right side of the stem cell issue (unlike Frist), for the purposes of keeping Brownback out of it. He's got to win one early; maybe they can get a caucus in Nevada going for him, too, get some of Daddy's old gambling friends?
Friends, we need the Bushite in there; otherwise, it gets too complicated. Once the candidate gets nominated he can run as the Anti-Bushite Bushite, he won't get to that spot without being able to do that.
Huckaby. A-yuk, a-yuk. Will get much of the Lamar Alexander vote.
OK, we got through that. Any more names?
I think McCain will hit 40% or more in every primary and have established himself as the clear leader by April. After that, it's a question of how much further the Bushite and Giuliani/Pataki carry it forward, and when Brownback will acknowledge the obvious and take the VP slot. (In the form of a question.)
ABB is Reagan Revisited.
As mentioned before, McCain sees himself as the logical continuation of Ronald Reagan. It is not too early to consider what this means, not in the terms of electoral positioning on some imaginary one-dimensional axis of "left" and "right", but in terms of governing strategy when dealing with some of the most challenging problems in the history of mankind.
2. Anderson Cooper.
a) Pictures of Al Gore, promoting An Inconvenient Truth.
Picture of the icecaps melting. Unfortunately, this all reminds me more of The Truth
Hydrologists Don’t Want You to Know. We’ll talk later.
Anyway, Gergen and John Roberts were brought on to answer that burning question, “Is Al Gore the Man of the Moment?” They gave quite reasonable assurances that, yes, depending on how the movie release goes, he could be very well
“The Most Hype-othetical Candidacy in America. And I do mean “hype”.
But seriously, though, Donna Brazile managed to point out before the segment ended (during which, I believe, they did not fail to mention twice the parallels with Nixon, the former defeated VP, coming back to win eight years later), saying, seriously, Gore will only be taken seriously as long as he’s not serious about running.
b) Some post-Katrina Gulf Coast reconstruction news bit. Don't recall what it was, but I do Love the way Anderson says, “N’Awrlians”.
Read the excerpt in Vanity Fair from his new book, Despatches from the Edge. First, I have to give kudos to the editing by Graydon Carter. I jumped from the end of Douglas Brinkley’s piece to Cooper’s opening—pausing only to look briefly at the picture pages in between--and it's nearly seamless in time, just skipping the actual hell of the hurricane*. I was amazed at the improvement in immediacy, the humor, the compelling quality of the writing, doing this segway from the academic to this guy, who I considered just a competent TV anchor. Well, we have revised our opinion of the man, we're impressed with the second dimension of his infotainment performance capability, and Despatches from the Edge is going on my summer reading list.
The Vanity Fair excerpt has some amazing stuff. This guy has the dream bio for a reporter to cover, including the tragedy of his brother’s suicide, so movingly told in the excerpt; including growing up a Vanderbilt, specifically a Gloria Vanderbilt. So he told it. Back to the Cooper 360 show (what about the other 5 1/4 days?), though:
c) Rahm Emanuel: The Man Running the Democratic Party—I’d have to say that, though thorough in talking to many Dems and getting the correct answer, this segment was presented to Me The Viewer rather badly. First, I predicted it from the teaser before the segment was shown. “Who’s Controlling the Direction of the Democratic Party? The Answer May Surprise You,” they teased. It was obvious the segement would start with the default position, i.e., nobody. As usual.
The profile bounced around and ended up giving The Name Unfamiliar. I think it was a pretty cheap shot (with anti-Semitic undertones?), mainly because they never properly explained the logic why all would name him as the critical man in the party’s affairs this year: he is running the strategy for the House elections this year, the one branch of the one branch the Democrats have a chance of winning. Or so Emanuel at least would allege in his off-the-record briefing to NY Times stenographers.
So, instead of Harry Reid, as it appeared at one point when the issue of judicial nominations before the Senate looked as though it could be the flash point of battle, it is the House campaign which is make or break, as far as any progress whatsoever in progressing towards the future anytime before January, 2009. I tend to think we're looking at a tactical result in a multi-frontal battle which is going to have another heartbreaking “no change” outcome.
Let’s just say I’m wrong and the Democrats win in the House. If there is any progress, it’s going to have to be Nancy Pelosi in the spotlight as Speaker, one would presume. The question the media will be groping for will be, “Who’s The Power behind the Throne, then? “ They won’t take her seriously, and it would have consequences.
If the Democrats should win, Pelosi’s performance would set the backdrop for Hillary’s Run for the Record**, which I think can only be to Her (uncrowned) Royal Clinton’s detriment. Choose your nightmare scenario conclusion—Barbaro (catastrophic) or Barry Bonds (caterwauling and cantankerousness). This is the core of the “Electability” rumor being spread about Hillary—that the anti-feminism her candidacy would provoke (in code-word camouflage, of course) would once again successfully distract sufficiently the electorate to allow another sham “no change” result in 2008.
This time I simply won’t buy it. I think that the gap will be closed in both the House and Senate, but not enough to switch. So, the history of never having a woman in a key constitutional leadership/decision-making position (as opposed to the collegial Supreme Court seat) will still be wide-open for Hillary to try to bust in 2008. If she wants.
3. Back to Larry King interviewing McCain
This is as close to a stump speech as I care to see, and it tells me what I need to know.
The news item here is that McCain has done his preparation and is ready to take on a variety of general candidate-type questions and has figured out where he stands on them. His stands already mark him as the potential Republican nominee with the greatest appeal to Independents and Democrats. I think he's in a position to make an appeal to the effect that, "Before we abandon Republican national leadership forever out of anti-Bushite fervor, give me a chance to show that we can lead you in a different way." Could work, once. But it would be four more years wasted in terms of orienting ourselves politically to face the unforeseen challenges of the future, and I'm not sure he'd be able to put that many of the unresolved challenges of the past behind us, either.
Most critically, from a political strategy point of view he's successfully putting himself in the Loyal Anti-Bushite Republican bloc, clearly a growing segment of the population. McCain seeks to have positioned himself for anything from a Republican disaster to a decresase in majority. His wide-ranging criticisms of Bushite administration will then appeal to a party elite which will be chastened but still in place.
If, somehow, the Republicans defeat expectations and hold their majorities largely at their current levels, it will be hard to deny a Bushite like Frist, or horrors! Jeb the first (best, and only) shot at top spot on their ticket. Jeb would be especially likely if HRC goes for the brass ring and remains viewed as likely to get the DemNom. McCain would be logically advised to stay out of it then, and this whole argument actually lends credibility to the standard delaying words he uses in postponing any decision until after the 2006 elections.
2006’s task for McCain is trying to score loyalty points for Republican candidates this year, an effort to make his nomination as close to inevitable as possible in the eyes of party loyalists. He was at great pains to put on display his willingness to compromise to get things done (unlike the Bushites), but also to point out that his philosophy is a “conservative” one. Here he's taking the safe ground and giving fair warning to those liberals who might be tempted: if elected, he will work with you to solve certain issues in a bipartisan way, but don’t be fooled. He’s not with you on your agenda.
Strategically, the Democrats would need to confront McCain with a candidate willing to represent the interests of the young, our future. More on this soon.
As I have said before about McCain, I respect him as an authentic American war hero (more authentic than Kerry; in the league with McGovern, the elder George Bush, Bob Murtha, and the ex-Georgia Senator and Vets' Admin head Clefeld) and a man of integrity. As a candidate, yes, I fear him.
I recall 2000, of course; I felt the same way about him then, basically. He was a much more potent general election candidate than Dubya in every way. The fact that Dubya managed to eke out victory does not change that, though I admit I felt foolish later to think that I felt relieved at the South Carolina Republican primary outrages of 2000 which pushed Dubya to the fore.
4. And Back, Once Again, to Gore
So, no, they're not really serious about him. Although this could change. CNN's John Roberts in the (taped) dialogue with Cooper identified a key concern about any notion of Gore-mania. Democratic leaders, deep down, are afraid that a Gore nomination (much like a Kerry nomination) would bring up the past, when they want to put Democrats on the right side of the Future issue (at least in this regard I feel they are coming around to the topic, even if they don't know how to address it yet).
Paradoxically, though, I think Gore would put the Future on the agenda, and he'd have the angels on his side on this one. So, maybe they will come around to him again. If the movie thing pans out.
Gore 2008: Political Stump Speech Embodied in Film
Gore 2008--the Sequel: The Candidate as Film Director
*The ideal segway would have been shots from CNN's coverage of Anderson Saying 'Dat 'Dere, while getting smacked about by the storm. I would guess that CNN wanted too much for what they wanted.
**In The Record Book, it would read: Most times elected President of the U.S., Women's Division---(1)--H. Rodham Clinton, 2008.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment