A Win for Mitt

I missed the vast majority of Fox News' "No Ron Paul Allowed" debate to watch the season premiere of The Wire (yes, yes, I know I could have watched it earlier on demand, but it's easier to coordinate with a group of people by just sticking to the air date) but Josh Marshall thought Romney did a good job. Mark Levin liked Romney too. And apparently a Frank Luntz focus group handed it to Romney. Anyone else out there see it?

In the brief segment I saw, the candidates were mostly beating around the issue of who has the right kind of experience to lead. McCain and Romney, in particular, were having a kind of classic debate of presidential politics wherein the senator argues that you need specific experience with foreign affairs questions that you don't get at the state level, while the governor argues that you need the kind of administrative experience that you don't get in the Senate. My sense is that, historically, that kind of argument has usually gone in favor of the governors but clearly plenty of senators win nominations as well.

In a broader sense, I had trouble discerning a distinctive argument being made by McCain. The argument I often hear made on McCain's behalf is either that Romney is too weak a general election candidate, or else that orthodox conservatives need to unite around semi-orthodox McCain rather than risk a win by heterodox Huckabee or Giuliani. But McCain himself doesn't seem to be pushing the electability argument. Nor does he seem to be pushing the David Brooks argument that, yes, he's less orthodox than Romney but that's a good thing. But if those aren't his arguments, then what is his argument? That circles back to leadership and experience, but I don't think those issues clearly cut in the favor of a very old man who can't really touch Romney's experience as a manager.

Comments

If Fox News handles every debate, Romney wins in a landslide.

The Luntz focus group was really something to behold.

K-Lo will have her first good night sleep since Santorum lost.

Posted by hlah | January 6, 2008 10:47 PM

McCain's argument is that he is authentic, whereas Romney is not. We don't want an MBA to be our leader, we want a human being.

Posted by Franken Blunt | January 6, 2008 10:55 PM

I heard the focus group while driving and it sounded very bizarre - like a Romney infomercial. Since I missed most of the debate I haven't a clue as to whether this was at all justified, but ...

I almost choked when one panelist exclaimed that Romney would be the best candidate because he speaks with such passion. Lunz seemed to be steering the panel but he dadn't need to as they all seemed to be diehard Romneyites.

Posted by GPS | January 6, 2008 10:58 PM

McCain had no chance.

Romney was playing on the bumper lanes tonight.

Posted by hlah | January 6, 2008 10:59 PM

Something for your amusement…

A 2008 Presidential Candidates Net Worth Graph in which the candidates are sized relative to their net worth…

http://thememlingindex.com/2008_presidential_candidates_net_worth_graph.html

You might be surprised at just how large Romney turned out.

Don’t forget to read my rant below the pic and links

Posted by Onslow Memling | January 6, 2008 11:00 PM

McCain's argument centers around foreign-policy experience, and that he has a long track record of experience in foreign policy that is relevant in the post 9/11 environment. I don't buy it, but that's the argument.

Posted by right | January 6, 2008 11:04 PM

Little Mittens did an excellent job of presenting his message. Ignoring the righty punditocracy, who pine for Fred's seeming gravitas, Romney hit all the notes exasperated Republican suburbanites want to hear. His focus on competence and management is slick way to distance himself from the current administration without being impolite. It'll play better nationally with independents than Rudy's 911911911 and Huck's gee-gollyism. It's Mitt's race to lose now.

Posted by RoboticGhost | January 6, 2008 11:05 PM

I realize this doesn't have anything to do with who "won" or feelings or anything important like that, but:

1. In last night's Dem debate, there was no mention of "immigration" or any related word. What word do we use when someone refuses to even mention his opponent's weakest spot? If this were the NBA perhaps what's going on might even catch MattY's pundit eye.

2. On tonight's show, Huck said we should make sure to never have AnotherAmnestyEverAgain. Yet, his scheme - and that from McCain and Ruuuudy - would give tremendous PoliticalPower to those who currently oppose our laws, making YetAnotherAmnesty almost completely certain to occur. Needless to say, Wallace didn't call him on that. Wallace didn't ask him how long it would take after someone left the U.S. within his farcical 120 window before they could come back.

Posted by TLB | January 6, 2008 11:05 PM

I did see Hannity delivering remote BJs to Romney and 9iu11ani afterwards, while whining about tax increases, because he's one of those men-of-the-people who earns enough to have the Bush cut sunset on him.

The big question out of NH is going to be the relative size of the electorates, and whether uncommitted voters feel the pull towards the Dems or GOP. After the 2006 election, with two House pickups, party identification -- or at least, the party you'll vote for -- is up in the air.

If this were the NBA perhaps what's going on might even catch MattY's pundit eye.

Oh noes! No-one but Ned Kelly is raising the Very Important Kwestin on what to do when The Brown Insurgency begins!?! The horror!

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 6, 2008 11:15 PM

Look at Iowa. Ron Paul was just three points behind McCain and Thompson. All three of them were well behind Romney and Huckabee.

Therefore Ron Paul would take New Hampshire's number three position if he were allowed to debate. He may do it anyway, since I'm sure a lot of New Hampshire Republicans know and like him. Fox isn't going to be able to muzzle him. He has more money than McCain.

So I predict Paul taking number three in New Hampshire after Romney and Huckabee - or Romney and McCain.

Giuliani is history, so is Thompson. McCain might still survive after New Hampshire if he comes close to Paul or beats him by some margin.

How Huckabee (or McCain since he seems to have gotten a serious bumb from Iowa) vs Romney will do is the real issue. I have no prediction there except that I think Romney, being a New Englander, has the better chance. Whether he can overcome the sort of lead Huckabee had in Iowa is up in the air, though.

The latest Zogby poll, however, has Romney WAY ahead of both Giuliani and McCain, with Hagel at 3%, and Huckabee and Paul tied for 1%.

The CNN poll shows McCain ahead of Romney by six points.

Which, I guess, establishes that the polls are crap.

The CNN poll has this howler:

"But Giuliani is still tied for first overall because he gained 11 points among moderate GOP primary voters...In February, most of Giuliani's support came from conservatives; most of his current support comes from moderates."

WTF? Since when did Giuliani become a "moderate" Republican? He's a frickin' lunatic!

Just found an interesting site that tracks all the polls here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html

Their average of the various poll results shows McCain ahead of Romney by six points (34 to 28), Huckabee way back at 12, and Giuliani and Paul tied at eight, with Thompson dead last at around 3.

I think a lot of that is name factor for McCain. Once people hear this crap like "100 years in Iraq", his numbers are going to go down pretty fast.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 6, 2008 11:27 PM

My sense is that, historically, that kind of argument has usually gone in favor of the governors but clearly plenty of senators win nominations as well.

But so far since 1789 we've had forty-three presidents and only one came from the United States Senate. Also note that one -- John Kennedy in 1960 -- took office with a minority of the popular vote and an electoral college 'majority' based on election fraud in Chicago and the Rio Grande Valley.

There has never been a senator elected president with a majority or plurality vote or even with an honestly obtained electoral majority.

Lots of governors have been elected. The people seem to have a solid opinion on the qualifications of governors over senators.

Posted by Brian | January 6, 2008 11:56 PM

Brian,

I seem to recall Ohio Senator Warren Harding had presidential aspirations back in the day.

Posted by beowulf | January 7, 2008 12:14 AM

"I seem to recall Ohio Senator Warren Harding had presidential aspirations back in the day"

American history began with ww2.

Posted by mad6798j | January 7, 2008 12:23 AM

But so far since 1789 we've had forty-three presidents and only one came from the United States Senate.

What in the world are you talking about? Warren G. Harding was also a sitting US Senator when elected. In addition, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Benjamin Harrison, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon all served in the Senate, and several of those (Jackson, Harrison, Pierce, Harrison) had "senator" as their most recent qualification when elected to office.

Furthermore, Matt was talking about nominees, not winners. Of sitting senators who won major party nominations, add in Kerry, Dole, McGovern, Goldwater, Blaine, Douglas, Cass, Clay, etc. And with former senators, add further Gore, Mondale, Humphrey...

For governors, we have Jefferson, Monroe, Van Buren, Tyler, Polk, Johnson, Hayes, Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge, Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. Of losing nominees, add in Dukakis, Stevenson, Dewey, Landon, Smith, Cox, Hughes, Tilden, Seymour.

The balance is nowhere near as tilted as the constant "it's always governors" refrain would lead one to believe.

Even just looking at post-1945 presidents, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Bush elder all had congressional experience, compared to Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush younger who were governors. That looks like 6 to 4 to me. Going with major party nominations, rather than victories, 16 of the candidates nominated by the major parties from 1948 to 2004 had congressional experience, as compared to 12 who had gubernatorial experience. When one removes incumbent presidents it's 11 to 8 in favor of congressional experience as opposed to gubernatorial.

Posted by John | January 7, 2008 12:27 AM

You are incorrect. Warren Harding is the other one out of the Senate. A bad one, but still having 8 years experience in the Senate as the gifted orator and before that many years as State Senator.

JFK wasn't the best President, but he was damn experienced. Besides being in an executive position as commanding officer, Kennedy toured Europe, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union for almost a year and wrote a bestseller at age 23 that was NOT ghostwritten. He enrolled at Stanford as a MBA but left to get his Naval commission half a year befoe before Pearl Harbor. He received some of the nations highest medals. Then he had 14 years almost straight out of the Navy in Congress. Six as a Rep, then 8 as a Senator. His foe, Nixon, also went into Congress the same year as Kennedy with a very similar achievement level in private life and in the Navy and government.

Barack Obama is "like them" only in the distant way that he was a Senator, too. Warren Harding had more Senate experience than Obama at 8 years, though no military or executive experience - but like Obama, was also wildly popular as a gifted speaker..getting 60% of the 1920 "Time for change and a return to normalacy in America" Presidential vote.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 7, 2008 12:37 AM

Chris, how old was Obama when he wrote his (first) bestseller? And would you say that heading the Harvard Law Review compares favorably or disfavorably with enrolling in Stanford's MBA program?

For my money, both the "next JFK" and "He's no JFK" comments tend to be pretty silly exercises in cherry-picking.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 7, 2008 12:58 AM

John - your list omits the other accomplishments of the "Senators" on your list. They were ALSO Generals or other executive officers, Founding Fathers who fought the British, VPs, governors besides being a legislator in the Senate.

Only Buchanan and Harding had no military or executive experience. Just Senator. They were disasters.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 7, 2008 1:05 AM

I'll say again that Thompson is really helping himself. If you're in South Carolina and just tuning in, Thompson's the only one on TV who doesn't appear to be a slimy insurance salesman.

Given that NH either ends with Romney on a gurney or McCain out of the race, there will be room for a new face. Fred has a shot.

Posted by southpaw | January 7, 2008 1:10 AM

Then again Lincoln's highest office was US house of representatives before becoming president.

Posted by mad6798j | January 7, 2008 1:10 AM

"...experience as a manager..."...I know there are people out there who swallow this swill but I just don't understand how any serious political commentator came be impressed with such "qualifications" - esp after gwb.

Beyond that, "managing" the winter olympics is somewhere between managing the people's choice awards and managing an nhl all-star game.

Posted by berger | January 7, 2008 1:24 AM

Then again Lincoln's highest office was US house of representatives before becoming president.
Posted by mad6798j

Not quite accurate if you leave out Lincoln was also a executive officer in the Militia, served in the Blackhawk War but saw no combat. He was also one of 3 Midwest (Minnesota through Ohio) executive creators & leaders of the new Republican Party.

***********************
Mtsaturdaypants - Chris, how old was Obama when he wrote his (first) bestseller? And would you say that heading the Harvard Law Review compares favorably or disfavorably with enrolling in Stanford's MBA program?

His first book became a best seller after Obama was 44. After got the keynote address and subsequent "rock start" treatment. Written years ago and selling few copies, it was rescued off the literary shitpile and republished. A good thing it was rescued. "Dreams From My Father" shows he is a decent, thoughtful writer.

JFK and Nixon were successful executives in the military. Both had 14 years experience in high government office before they and Party members decided they were experienced enough to run. Both had a full-time job in the private sector. I mentioned Kennedy's national best seller "While England Slept" when he was no rock star but an unknown son of a fairly disliked financier -because it showed an early gift. Just as going for a Stanford MBA showed, like Nixon (summa cum laude Duke Law) and Obama (magna cum laude Harvard law) - that JFK was, with RFK and Dad Joe - one of the 3 smart Kennedys.

Not as a job qualification for President. Kennedy had ample real qualifications after getting his Naval Commission in 1941.

Obama is smart. Definitely smart enough to be President, at least. Just not testing as an executive leader in the militarym government, or private sector. But he sure talks nice.

For my money, both the "next JFK" and "He's no JFK" comments tend to be pretty silly exercises in cherry-picking.

No, certain traits that are recognized attributes of past executive success in the private sector, military, government are used on present candidates and continuously refined and reevaluated. Obama has certain executive skills like his articulate speeches and charisma, but lacks any grounding in other predictors of executive success.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 7, 2008 3:02 AM

hlah is absolutely correct.
fox news has apparently decided to hitch its wagon to mitt now. they seemed to have kicked poor rudy to the curb. understandably.
the lunz focus group was a joke.
it was obviously set up to provide a boost to their newest favorite son, the mittster. it was so transparent that i cannot believe that anyone would credit the group for anything. a bit of investigative reporting on that group might turn up some interesting info about the group and how it came to be.
for those who would scoff at the idea that fox would do something of the sort, consider this: faux news would not allow paul into the debate because they wanted to influence he nomination process. no matter what bs excuse they may try to serve up to rationalize their decision. they've been using their network, up to this point, to promote guiliani's candidacy. in a pretty blatant way.
why would they balk at using a "focus group" to help along their newest best guy?
of course they would do it.
they have no shame.
and they know that the other networks don't have the guts to call them on it.

Posted by frankie d | January 7, 2008 3:07 AM

Southpaw, Thompson has ZERO chance of a shot. He's so far behind it's not even funny. Nobody is likely to self-destruct in New Hampshire. Ron Paul will beat Thompson there to a pulp.

People DO remember that he's an actor, so whatever his "Presidential" appearance, it's not going to help.

They remember Reagan was an actor, too. But Reagan had ideology. Thompson has nothing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 7, 2008 3:25 AM

McCain is not just chronologically old, he is looking and acting increasingly decrepit as well. And there is a crankiness and rigidity that look to me like presenility of a brain that is starting to shut down.

Doesn't this get to be an issue with an opposing candidate who radiates vigor, youth, and optimism?

Posted by bob h | January 7, 2008 8:12 AM

Well, as I argued to some Republican friends of mine the other day, Thompson was very low in the polls, had no money, didn't stand for anything in particular, seemed like a terrible campaigner, and hadn't previously done anything notable during his one term in the Senate. Other than that, he's fabulous!

Posted by RKU | January 7, 2008 8:23 AM

There was a point in the debate in which Wallace asked a substantive question (I can't remember what it was about) to the whole group. Everyone was silent, and then Mitt went on a long disquisition, very fluent, showing complete mastery of the material. Compared to him, the rest of the candidates seemed like sullen, underinformed old men.

And, Fred Thompson really was pathetic, in the portions of the debate that I saw.

So, all in all, I think the focus group was on target. Since its Fox news, though, the unanimity of their responses made me wonder if they were planted Romney supporters or something.

Posted by Jim W | January 7, 2008 10:11 AM