Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Memo to the Democrats
Nominating Hillary Clinton to run agains John McCain is the best way possible, short of attacking children on national TV, to blow the closest thing in decades to a sure bet to win the Presidency. Hillary Clinton strongly appeals to the core Democrats, but John McCain appeals more to moderate Republicans. That's not a matchup you'll find favorable in the general election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I agree. I would almost certainly vote for McCain over Clinton, but McCain vs. Obama is a very live contest for me.
My voting would probably be similar to Kenny's, but with zero enthusiasm--I'm talking Jim Gibbons vs. Dina Titus-level lack of enthusiasm. (Obama is still a huge unknown to me; he's bright; he's a campaign rock star, but I'm still leery. I guess I'll have plenty of time to read up on him after the primaries, especially if Bill Clinton keeps opening his mouth.)
To the extent you are saying that Hillary is less electable than Obama, I would tend to agree.
However, McCain is not a lock to beat Clinton. Far from it.
McCain has received extraordinarily favorable treatment from the media as the "maverick" Republican senator throughout the years. Assuming he wins the nomination, for the first time in his political career, he is going to go head-to-head with a Democrat contender in a national campaign; it is not going to go well for him. The media is going to abandon the kid-gloves treatment he now enjoys and give him a thorough vetting.
People are going to learn more about McCain than they ever have before. Many moderates who now passively support him based on the snippets they hear on the 5 o'clock news will find a lot to dislike.
McCain's "straight-talk express" image is going to take a beating over the next year. He's tried to play both sides of the fence on immigration, taxation, regulation, and a host of other issues. He's going to get called on it.
Contrary to what Bill Clinton says, Clinton-McCain would not be the "nicest" campaign in history. The Clintons have plenty of ammunition they can use on McCain, and they will use all of it. His senate voting record, his ethical peccadilloes, his ties to lobbyists, his temper. In an election where the economy will be a major issue, he brings little to the table.
Quite frankly, Clinton, Obama (and Romney, for that matter), come across as a lot more intelligent than McCain. Plus, the guy is annoyingly pugnacious. Did anyone watch the debate tonight? I just don't think McCain looks "presidential."
Hillary's a flawed candidate. But so is McCain. He's no lock.
The G.O.P. is going to have serious buyer's remorse on this one.
On a lot of issues, including and immigration, my personal feeling is that the best position is somewhere between the Democrat and Republican party-line issues. On such matters, I prefer someone who's "played both sides of the fence," because it is a possible (though for certainty I'd have to be able to read his mind) predictor that he realizes where the best issue is.
George W. Bush has been, in many ways, a Republican's Republican. That path is probably forever sullied in my mind by his "party loyalty" because it was his refusal to curb the excesses of a Republican Legislature that put the country in the fiscal pickle we are in now, defecit-wise.
The Clintons are nasty people who will say or do anything to be elected. Of that, I need no convincing.
I haven't bothered to watch the debates now since there's no useful information for me. Every debate will be full of pandering to the base to try and win the nomination. Since I have no say in the process now, I'm waiting for the conventions.
He is no lock. He has his weaknesses compared to Romney (#1 is his self-professed economic weakness... especially with the economy looking sour, even though the President has little ability to control the economy, people like that perception). But he also has his strengths. Romney comes across, generally, as a New England politician. Cold, calculating, efficient. John Kerry, but conservative. John McCain comes across like an affable Westerner (generally more resonant with people, though the similarity to G.W. Bush may turn into a liability).
My short-but-sweet contest frames Clinton and Romney as the calculating, efficient leaders. McCain and Obama seem like the passionate rebels. With one pitted against the other, I think the passionate rebel speaks more to the undecided moderates while the calculating elite speaks more to the party base. To win a country tired of Bush, Republicans need to capture the middle.
I don't know if McCain can do that. But I'm even more uncertain if Romney can. I still think Romney would be a superior President, but I'm not sure he can get the votes to get there.
Ken,
I have a question, which may seem to involve a touchy subject, but I'm truly just interested. My understanding is that you are Mormon. To what extent does this affect your view of Romney?
Being from Reno, I know Nevada has a large Mormon population, and I'm pretty sure that explains Romney's giagantic win there.
A few months back, there was a lot of discussion of the role of religion in politics. One common refrain was "if you refuse to vote for someone because of their religion (here, Romney as a Mormon) then you're a bigot who's breaching the separation of church and state." Lately, it's been occurring to me that no one made the corrollary argument: if you vote for someone BECAUSE you share their religion, that's also a problem. I don't agree with either proposition, so I just put it out there for discussion.
But, bottom line, I'm basically interested to know how your sharing a faith with Romney affects your support of him (with me, for example, I know that I give Huckabee more benefit of the doubt than I would, were he not an Evangelical like myself).
Chiming in from the sideline:
For what it's worth, my in-my-head breakdown of the results in Nevada said (though I don't recall the #'s now) that even had the Mormon vote (25% of the turnout, which went 94% for Romney) split 50/50 with Romney and the next-closest candidate, Romney wtill would have won by 10 points.
I do like your point on the voting for/against because of religion. I'm not a fan of the "religious test means you can't consider my faith when evaluating me as a candidate" argument. I think that Constitutional phrase is intended to prevent an explicit, institutionalized test - not whether individual voters can (or should) consider a candidate's religious views.
It's definitely true that the Constitution only prohibits the government from establishing a religion and says absolutely nothing about how citizens can think about voting. So a lot of the outrage, I think, actually flowed from, well, ignorance.
But, to characterize that argument more charitably, I guess you might say that the principles should still be not to vote based on religion because we've all entered into this pluralist project together.
But, still, I think that's wrong. Everyone's values flow from first-principle, unproveable, faith-like beliefs, and so everyone is voting based on their "faith."
Not that this is news to anyone reading this blog. But sometimes it's fun to preach to the choir.
Fair question. If I’m biased, it’s more of a personal bias than a religious bias. One of Romney’s sons lived a few doors down from me at BYU. We put in a lot of miles in road trips. He was a great guy. He was a completely down-to-earth and genuine person. You wouldn’t have known he was a wealthy person from talking to him. His brothers that I met were also just as nice and just as genuine. Mitt himself was no different.
So when I hear people talk about Romney being an out-of-touch elitist New England blue-blood, I am comfortable saying they don’t know what they are talking about, because it is not the case—at all.
Does our common faith make him a better candidate in my mind? Indirectly, yes.
First, I don’t support people simply because they are L.D.S. Harry Reid is also a devout, active Mormon. I’ve never voted for him. I don’t believe Mormons in high office promotes my church or makes it more palatable to the average person. Sure, there’s more exposure to Mormonism in the news, but, as you know, the media does a lousy job of accurately depicting matters of faith. And if somebody is considering matters of faith based upon celebrity endorsements—well, that’s a pretty rocky foundation.
Where religious based bias probably comes most into play is in shared values. Because of my Mormon upbringing, I probably place more value in characteristics that Romney values—and epitomizes. Here is a short-lift of attributes I value in a candidate: faith, fidelity, loyalty, self-discipline, competence, organization, conviction, calm demeanor, politeness, polish, family-orientation, service, even-handedness, objectivity, hard-work, confidence—and the list goes on. Much of what I value is a product of my faith. My outlook on the world is informed by my faith, and so I have some internal biases that affect my world-view.
So sure, I’ve been a big fan of Romney since the late 1990s. Everything I’ve observed about him has been consistent with my initial impressions. Few people who weren’t living on the Wasatch Front can appreciate how messed up the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics were before Romney intervened. They were a disaster. Enter Romney. What he did was nothing short of incredible. He relied heavily on principles of volunteerism and community cooperation. He achieved outstanding results.
When he ran for governor, I was likewise impressed, and I have been totally impressed by what he accomplished as governor, and the way that he handled himself. He appeared to have a lot of strengths that I was coming to realize Pres. Bush lacked.
In short, Romney's faith plays a role in my preference, but it has a lot more to do with his personal accomplishment. Based on what I know, he genuinely is a great guy. So this talk of him being disingenuous and power-hungry. It's stupid to me.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Romney’s “religion test” argument in his Faith in America speech, was ill-informed. Romney argued that the founding fathers would disfavor a religious litmus test among the voters, and I think his assertion is up for legitimate debate. It’s more of an Article VI issue than an establishment clause issue. Since the government can’t administer a religious test, would it be proper for the voters to base who they vote for solely upon a candidate’s religion? Obviously, there’s no law prohibiting it, but it is at least up for debate whether such voter behavior is good for the country and what the founding fathers would think about it.
I’m pretty confident that Romney has a reasonably sound grasp on the nuances of the U.S. Constitution.
But enough about Romney. I want to talk about why McCain is a lousy G.O.P. candidate. Not that I need to convince a Nevada voter. I just want to vent.
McCain’s image as an “affable westerner” and a “passionate rebel” is largely a network-media-driven image. When he becomes the face of the G.O.P. establishment, the network-media is going to largely turn on him. Without his free pass, people are going see McCain in a different light. McCain really isn’t that affable, and it’s hard to be a rebel when you are more embedded in the establishment than any other candidate. I think a lot of moderate voters are going to be turned off as they discover McCain for the first time. As I have started to follow him this past month, I have been completely turned off.
Sure, part of my discontent is because I am upset at the double-standard the media has applied with respect to McCain and Romney. For a “straight-talker”, the guy sure has leveled a lot false attacks and spread a lot disinformation. The difference is the MSM doesn’t call him on it. For a supposedly principle-driven candidate, it sure seems he has changed his position on a lot of things. Yet the MSM ignores it while continuing to portray Romney as the “flip-flopper.” And as soon as people call him on it, he throws a temper-tantrum. The guy is not impressive.
I understand you not watching the debates. But I am confident that a lot of people who watched last night’s California debate were not impressed by McCain.
I don't see this going well for the G.O.P.
Sorry, I posted it twice. Hence, the deleted comment.
"Since the government can’t administer a religious test, would it be proper for the voters to base who they vote for solely upon a candidate’s religion?"
That's a possible argument. I don't think it's settled enough for Romney to claim that voters are prohibited from doing so.
My gut answer would be "sure." The one works hand-in-hand with the establishment clause, preventing the government from explicitly creating a religious qualification for office. Do I think it would be a wise course of action for a voter? No. But would I find it to be unconstitutional? No. I'm pretty sure that the constitution addresses who is eligible to be voted on, not how I make my choice once someone is declared eligible.
My beef with Romney's argument is that it takes the constitutional "test" and takes it out of the realm of a state-sponsored criteria to ANY criteria. The state can't require an Anglican candidate, proved by a religious test. But it can't because it's the state, not because Anglicanism shouldn't matter at all.
It's not the state's role to judge. That doesn't mean it's not mine.
Here is the relevant text of Romney's speech:
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
Romney is not saying it is unconstitutional for voters to demand that a candidate "explain his church's distinctive doctrines." He is simply saying it's a very bad idea. There's a big difference between "can't" and "shouldn't". He's telling the voters they shouldn't.
Romney is not referring to the Establishment Clause. He is referring to Article VI, where it says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States." (Although the two clauses are intertwined). In cases addressing the clause, the SCOTUS has discussed the philosphy of intolerance behind such test oaths. Romney is criticizing the philosophy.
So if your beef with Romney's argument is that it takes the constitutional "test" and takes it out of the realm of a state-sponsored criteria to ANY criteria... well, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that through people demanding a candidate explain the details of his church's doctrine, it is essentially a back-door, indirect way enabling the philosophy of intolerance that the founding fathers sought to curtail through the Article VI clause. He's arguing that such details of a person's faith are largely irrelevant. And in large part, I believe he's correct.
Ken,
You must be a pretty good lawyer, because that was a really plausible argument for what Romney meant in his speech :)
But, assuming he did mean that, then would you say it was inappropriate for 94% of NV Mormons to vote for him, assuming that many of them did so b/c of shared faith? It would seem to involve a version of a religious test.
That said, even though his statement wasn't about the Estab. Clause, it seems really clear that the same principle is behind both the First Amendment and the Art. VI provision. I think your "back door" argument is pretty good, but I think it's not right b/c that would be like saying the majority of the nation being Christian was a back door way of circumventing the First Amendment.
But I will grant you that you've made me think Romney might have made a better point on the matter than I initially gave him credit for, and btw, your earlier personalized defense of him also lends him some credence. It is a great shame that the MSM does such a poor job of telling the truth about issues.
When I said "The one works hand in hand with the establishment clause," I intended to say that the "test" clause he is referencing and the establishment clause go together in principle - that both legislate the separation of the state from church affairs. Given that the writing of Article VI precedes that of the first amendment, it's my thought that the establishment clause lays out more firmly the principle behind the test clause - that the church cannot dictate state affairs, and vice versa.
I still reckon there's a difference between tolerance, as applied by the state and tolerance as practiced by individual voters.
The one is rightfully universally applied. I don't think Romney should have to answer questions about his faith any more or less than McCain, Clinton, Obama, or Ron Paul.
But I don't think the other can be prohibited as a "back door" because I can imagine a situation where I would find a candidate's core beliefs to be simply incompatible with logic, reason, or reality.
If a man's faith is that invisible monkeys cause all objects with mass to be pulled toward each other, I'd find that outlandish enough to reject him as a candidate, as I'm sure some atheists do of a guy like Mick Huckabee. It's intolerant, and faith-based, but it deals with my judgement of a candidate's ability to gauge reality.
Should a voter be advised to be willfully tolerant of foolishness, simply because the foolishness is called religion? Certainly not.
Tolerance, alone, is no virture. It's a worthwhile principle, to a point. Romeny says, in essence "I'm enough like you that the differences shouldn't matter."(It's how I read: "There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.") On this, I agree with him. That's the judgement call I make.
But I think the judgement call of "what religious views constitute foolishness," or "when should we choose to be intolerant" does (and should) rest with the voter, because it needs to lie somewhere, and it certainly shouldn't rest with the state.
Kenny--
One small correction--94% of Mormons didn't vote for Romney. Las Vegas has its fair share of registered Mormon Democrats (rumor has it that Reno has a few as well). None of them voted for Romney. But that doesn't change your main point--a lot of GOP Mormons voted for Romney. To the extent they voted for Romney simply because he is Mormon, I believe they poorly thought through their decision. Romney argued that such identity group politics is inconsistent with the philosophy and ideals of the founding fathers, whether its Mormons or Evangelicals who are guilty of it. So Mormons who did so need to read Romney’s speech a little more closely.
In defense of those GOP Mormons who did vote for Romney—what were their other choices? Rudy Guiliani, a socially liberal candidate of questionable moral character? John McCain, an enigma Republican who many Republican Nevadans believe is on the wrong side of the fence on a lot of issues, especially immigration? Ron Paul? Fred Thompson, who was struggling to stay in the race? I will say that a lot of Mormons were turned off by Mike Huckabee’s campaign, which many perceived to be subtly anti-Mormon (whether they were correct or not is a different issue, but there was that perception).
Sometimes a religious group is just lucky to have the best possible candidate among them. Most Mormons—none of whom, obviously, were turned off by Romney’s religion—found him to be the obvious choice. Their alternatives weren’t very appealing and Romney himself is very appealing. To compare, when Orrin Hatch ran in 2000(?), most Mormons simply ignored him.
I’m not sure I understand your Christian-nation-as-a-circumvention-of-the-First Amendment analogy. I want to stress that Romney wasn’t saying voters were violating the constitution by demanding detailed answers to obscure points of Mormon doctrine. He was just saying that using such doctrines as criteria for candidate selection is inconsistent with the foundational principles supporting the relevant religion clauses in the U.S. Constitution. Not unconstitutional, just a bad idea. Emphasis on particular doctrines as criteria is just as absurd as a government religious oath.
Dave--
I agree with you that the decision concerning "what religious views constitute foolishness," or "when should we choose to be intolerant" rests with the voter. I believe Romney would agree, as well. Romney gave his perspective on where that line should be drawn in this election consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution.
Sure, there are relevant questions regarding the religion of a candidate, especially as it relates to his character, his policy, his decision-making abilities, and, as you imply, his sanity. It’s more about policy and character and less about specific doctrine.
But most questions regarding the nuances of this faith or that faith’s doctrine aren’t very relevant. For instance, a person is free to decide he won’t support Romney until Romney gives a plausible explanation regarding the L.D.S. practice of proxy baptism. But that person would be silly, because it’s hard to believe Romney’s belief affects how he governs as an executive, how he makes decisions, whether he is a person of good character, ect. Similarly, an atheist is free to reject Huckabee because he finds incredible the metaphysics of Calvary, and concludes anyone who believes such a thing is a fool. But you can see the flaw in that. Likewise, I could reject someone carte blanche simply because they are an atheist or Muslim. But I would be unwise to do so.
Ken,
Your point about Orrin Hatch is well taken, and I wouldn't quibble with a Mormon or Non-Mormon who said what you're saying, 'Gov. Romney is simply the best candidate, which is only correlated with his being a Mormon.'
My understanding of your interpretation of Romney's speech on religion was that 'the Constitution prohibits the gov't from having a religious test to hold office, and therefore it would be a bad idea for voters to impose their own religious test.' To me, it seem like it would then be parralel to say 'The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion, therefore it's a bad idea for the people to establish a religion.'
I'm just trying to keep up with the arguments made by those who have been trained to make good arguments. :-)
For what it's worth: 94% of the of Mormons (who comprised 24% of the participants) who voted in the GOP caucus, according to entrance polls, supported Romney. Given that, in this case, the sample is the same as the universe, I think it's fair to imply that "94% of Mormons..." means "94% of Mormons (who participated in the caucus)," as it would be fair to say that evangelicals in Iowa supported Huckabee 60-40 (I don't know that number. I know it was less than 94%, but not how much), when we really mean "evangelicals who participated..."
I don't think his argument was as simple as "if it's bad for the state, it's bad for the people." In this particular case, the reasons the founders established the religion test clause are probably pretty good reasons for the people to not to overly emphasize a person's faith. But, sure, that doesn't apply universally to all constitutional clauses.
But this is just my take on his speech. I can't be sure what he meant. And I just got done with my long run, so I'm feeling pretty relaxed right now. McCain becomes president? No worries. Obama? That's alright. Ron Paul? Sweet, lower taxes and less drug offenders at work. Life is good.
Post a Comment