Wednesday, January 30, 2008:
The Florida voters have taken their victims, and now the fields for both parties are smaller by a factor of one. Charles Gibson, leading off his broadcast on ABC News, remarked, "what a difference a day can make."
As expected, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, once the presumed front-runner of the Republican field, bowed out of the contest today. Speaking in the media room at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, Giuliani offered his endorsement and support wholeheartedly to John McCain, now the undisputed front-runner in a GOP field with only four candidates remaining.
Meanwhile, across the country in New Orleans, an optimistic and stalwart John Edwards conceded his need to step aside, in part, he said, to allow the Democratic Party to make history in November. Edwards chose the still hurricane-ravaged Ninth Ward to make his withdrawal, not far from the site where he announced his candidacy a year ago.
Within minutes that afternoon, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each heaped generous praise on Edwards and the heart-felt advocacy of old-school Democratic principles he brought to the campaign. Obama and Clinton each specifically highlighted Edwards' tireless commitment to shedding light on poverty in the U.S. And as would be expected, many in the media circus immediately interpreted these kind words as an indication there would be behind-the-scenes moves to gain Edwards' support.
Edwards was non-committal to reporters, and said simply it was too early to decide, and besides, too many states had yet to cast their votes. Edwards said that any decision would be made "in private conversation" with the remaining two candidates, and he refused to offer a timetable for those discussions.
But the real news of this announcement was instantly more profound: John Edwards' withdrawal would change the political templates forever: indeed, for the first time in United States history the presidential candidate of a major political party will be either a woman or an African-American.
Giuliani's withdrawal from the Republican race creates two tiers: a top tier with Romney and McCain battling for the leader slot, and a second tier consisting of Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Giuliani told the reporters and McCain supporters present that he would campaign for McCain if needed wherever and whenever.
"John McCain displayed tenacity, courage and a willingness to get things done," the former mayor said, "I have always had tremendous regard for John McCain. This is a man prepared to be president of the United States in a time of great peril." Giuliani talked of their shared trait of fiscal conservatism, a selling point that Giuliani himself had turned to when his previous central theme-national security-began to fade in importance during the last few months. Giuliani also talked of McCain as someone who shares a vision of a larger Republican Party, a big tent GOP able to attract voters of all colors and religions and backgrounds, and a party able to break free of the red state blue state divide.
For McCain, Giuliani's exit is tactically important at a moment when he is seeking to solidify his status as front-runner and rightful heir to the party's top role. Internally, Giuliani's endorsement and assistance may do little to assuage the fears and apprehensions of some conservatives, nor will it impress the staunchest of the right wing bloggers and radio hosts. Despite his hawkish talk on security and foreign affairs, and despite his tax-cutter credentials in New York City, Giuliani is still viewed with skepticism and distrust by many conservatives for his positions and past statements on gay rights, abortion, gun control and other social issues. In short, the McCain-Giuliani alliance may have little effect in stopping Romney from racking up still more votes from the "truest" of the conservatives.
Furthermore, Mike Huckabee has said he will stay in the race, at least for now. Huckabee hopes to still generate some excitement with a few solid wins on his home turf in the south, and in a race without Fred Thompson, Huckabee may still perform well in Super Tuesday states like Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia, pulling some potential conservative votes away from Romney.
And Ron Paul remains active as well, although it is unclear at this point what purpose his campaign serves going into the last few days before Super Tuesday. His enthusiastic supporters greet him everywhere he travels, and in debates he sometimes draws a loud chorus of cheers for his unvarnished libertarian views. But one thing seems certain: his campaign has already reached its high water mark and cannot possibly crescendo again, leaving him with his handful of delegates and the oft-rumored option of bolting toward the Libertarian Party for a third path run, as he has done previously.
There were a total of nine names on the ballot in Florida on Tuesday, including the names of the Iowa missing in action: Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and perennial candidate Alan Keyes. But the big news was the sudden progression of events toward John McCain, no longer the underdog.
In addition to the Giuliani endorsement came rumors that other big name Republicans would jump on board for McCain, including popular California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, though spokesmen for the governor said he would make no official announcement until the next day to allow him to remain a neutral host for the GOP debate that night. He would probably make a certain announcement by noon the next day.
So what of those nine GOP hopefuls? By the evening of January 30 the field was down to only four: McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul. And at 8:00 p.m. (5:00 p.m. in California) those four men sat down at a small glass and metal conference table in the cavernous gallery of the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley to debate their differences and give Super Tuesday voters one last chance to size them up.
With the gleaming blue and white fuselage of the retired Air Force One looming in the background, the candidates sparred for 90 minutes in a widely watched debate, perhaps one of the most watched debates in TV history. Hosted by CNN, The Los Angeles Times, and Politico.com, it became apparent very quickly that the real battle was now between McCain and Romney.
The first question, tossed out by CNN's Anderson Cooper, was directed at all four men: under the watch of President George W. Bush, are we better off today than we were eight years ago? This was a clear and deliberate reprise of Ronald Reagan's famous challenge to Americans in the closing minutes of the 1980 debate between Reagan and Jimmy Carter, a very personal but eloquent question that many historians say tipped the balance and sealed the landslide victory for Reagan a few days later.
Romney, avoiding what could have been a bear trap, said he was not running on Bush's record, he was running on his own record, a shrewd way to turn the conversation back toward Romney's plus column: his success as governor of Massachusetts, his success at being a turnaround artist, and his understanding of real world economies. Washington, said Romney, is broken, and it will take someone with his skills to make it work again. Romney reframed the question in terms of the challenges that lay ahead, and the need to elect a non-Washington insider to make things better, his indirect and polite way of painting his chief opponent-McCain-as the consummate political insider.
McCain, on the other hand, ran instead headlong into the question: yes, generally we are better off overall, and by a long stretch. Asking that we look at the long view, McCain listed the gains: we are safer as a nation, the economy has grown and we have produced more jobs with low inflation. In short, we are stronger when the eight years are viewed as a whole. But, he said, "let's have some straight talk: things are tough right now. Americans are uncertain about this housing crisis, Americans are uncertain about the economy." McCain went further: "We've got to stop this outrageous, squandering spending spree that is now causing us to borrow money from China. We've got to get our fiscal house in order. We've been on a spending spree that betrays Ronald Reagan's principles about tax cuts and restrained spending."
McCain cited the country's economic struggles as a sign that government has been behaving irresponsibly with taxpayer money for too many years, and used the current sub-prime mortgage mess as an example of something that needs to be addressed quickly.
When the question of "are we better off" came around to Huckabee, he took the middle path, saying that certainly the United States is in much worse shape now than before, but that it is unrealistic and unfair to blame all of that on Republicans in general or on President Bush specifically. "We've had a Congress that sat around on its hands and did nothing but spend a lot of money," Huckabee said, "and their spending is leaving us $9 trillion in debt, debt that we are passing on to our grandchildren...I don't blame this solely on President Bush." From Huckabee's perspective, the problems Americans face as a nation include rising unemployment and a housing crisis that may lead deeply into recession; to begin to fix these things will require not wasting time on assigning blame to any one person or institution.
Huckabee gave direct examples: home sales are falling, which has an immediate effect on anyone in the lumber business; gas prices are rising, strangling those who drive trucks for a living. What will be needed is a president who can talk honestly with Americans and resolve to bring honest solutions to the table, and that will include leadership in Washington who can touch people at the bottom of the economic ladder, not just those at the top.
Ron Paul grappled with the question in his usual boisterous style, framing a response in his familiar constitutionalist and libertarian terms: clearly the country is much worse off now than four years ago. "It's partially this administration's fault, and partly the fault of Congress...but it is also because of an economic system, a monetary system and a foreign policy system that is coming to an end."
Republicans, Paul said, were elected in 1994 with a clear mandate to change the way Washington works, and the GOP failed in that mission. Again in 2000, Republicans were elected in part to bring fiscal restraint and modest foreign policy objectives to the forefront, and instead did just the opposite-running up unfathomable debt while attempting to intervene militarily all over the world in a costly attempt to "maintain this empire."
"When you destroy a currency," Paul said, "you wipe out the middle class...we used to have a middle class in this country, but they're on the ropes right now."
A clear sense emerged that although all four of these men seek to find that magical Reagan chemistry of style, grace and true conservative principle, none are completely able to capture that lightning for themselves. But each felt a desire to make the attempt.
The high stakes plays in this debate quickly turned into a heated slugfest between McCain and Romney, who began to show on their faces their clear distaste of each other. While Governor Schwarzenegger, Nancy Reagan and other GOP bigwigs sat nearby and watched, slowly at first, then with more bluster, McCain and Romney traded some of their toughest and most stinging barbs. And it was also very clear that McCain was the one who let the debate wear most noticeably on his face and expression. Analysts afterward were in general agreement that McCain seemed irritable and impatient, glancing at his watch, fiddling with his tie, grimacing visibly and reacting with disgust to some answers and some questions, while Romney remained the more "presidential," poised and cool, careful and graceful with his responses and restrained in his reactions when the others candidates gave answers.
Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times brought the next round of discussion even closer to the question of fiscal conservatism and mainstream GOP economic policy. Romney, she said, had painted McCain as a neo-liberal on many issues-but isn't McCain really very part a part of mainline GOP thinking when it comes to fiscal responsibility? Romney said that though John McCain certainly has a solid reputation of conservative thought on many issues, it is the maverick stances that often cause him to deviate from the mainstream. Citing McCain's record on McCain-Feingold and McCain's partnership with Ted Kennedy on immigration reform, Romney attempted to demonstrate that McCain was no core Republican. Romney also offered-somewhat in jest-the recent New York Times endorsement of McCain as evidence enough that the Arizonan tilts substantially toward the liberal agenda too often.
After the awkward laughs in the room settled down, McCain seemed a little too gleeful to retort that he (McCain) had also received endorsements from the two biggest newspapers in Massachusetts-the conservative Boston Herald and the liberal Boston Globe. Again, McCain ran headlong into the question, citing his ability to work with members of the political opposition as a benefit, not a liability.
"Let me just say I'm proud of my conservative record," McCain said, "it's one of reaching across the aisle to get things done for Americans, obviously...whether it is McCain-Lieberman, which established the 9/11 Commission, or the legislation that implemented that...or whether is it working across the aisle on the Armed Services Committee to provide the men and women with what they need to defend this nation. And I'm proud of that record." McCain took it a step further and turned the issue back onto Romney, citing Romney's taxes increases as governor (some increases were called "fees," but they cost citizens nonetheless), his poor record on job creation, and the fact that Massachusetts was left with a large debt after Romney's term ended. McCain also listed some of his supporters who count themselves as among the most reliably conservative in recent history: Jack Kemp, Phil Graham, Tom Ridge.
Romney responded patiently, disputing many of McCain's accusations, among them the claim that Romney had presided over a loss of jobs. Romney said that the study most often cited was in fact based on a time frame through two gubernatorial terms-including Romney's predecessor-and that the job losses occurred in her term, not his. Massachusetts gained jobs during his term as governor, not the other way around. Further, Romney said that many of the "fees" that were raised during his administration were in fact boilerplate and issuance fees that had not been adjusted in decades, and these increases helped close a huge budget shortfall that faced the state. Romney used as an example fees on signage along interstate highways, some of which were raised by hefty margins while having little impact on consumers or taxpayers. Lastly, Romney said he did not leave Massachusetts with a deficit but left the state with several billion dollars of black ink, what he called "a rainy day fund."
"Facts are stubborn things," Romney said, "I'm proud of my record."
When the question came around to Mike Huckabee, CNN's Anderson Cooper reframed it slightly, alluding to the growing hostility some right-wing bloggers and talk show hosts have toward Huckabee and McCain: "Rush Limbaugh says that if either you [Huckabee] or John McCain are the nominee that it will destroy the Republican Party. How do you respond?"
"You know, I wish Rush loved me as much as I love Rush," Huckabee said, "he's a great voice for conservatism, but it doesn't mean he's inerrant. And I think he's flat wrong on that point." Huckabee used the opportunity to insert what he considers an important point: "this is not a two-man race." Huckabee defended his own conservative positions on everything from taxes to balanced budgets while governor of Arkansas. The former governor also pointed out that he was the only person on that stage that night with a 100% consistent record on the human life amendment, something he says has been core to GOP principle and platform for almost 30 years.
"I believe in less government...I believe in lower taxes, not higher," Huckabee said, adding that some of his Arkansas programs had once been sources of praise from Rush Limbaugh and others, including a provision that allowed individuals to opt to pay more if they felt like giving a little more when they filed their return. Huckabee said the program only netted about $1200 after about a year and a half, a clear indication that people were not in favor of their legislators raising taxes again. Huckabee also said that some of his efforts to streamline state government-such as simplifying the process of drivers license renewal and combining redundant agencies-saved the state huge sums of money and helped stave off the need for tax increases.
The next round of discussion centered on automobile emission standards as they relate to global warming. McCain was asked whether Governor Schwarzenegger and California were right to unilaterally push for tougher greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks over the objections of other states and President Bush. McCain used the moment for a bit of levity. "At the risk of some physical danger, I have to agree with the governor," McCain said while Schwarzenegger and Nancy Reagan laughed. But McCain quickly focused: as a federalist, he thinks states can make up their own minds about such standards.
"I applaud the governor's efforts, and the efforts of other states in this region, as well as states across the country...to try to eliminate the greenhouse gases that are causing climate change." McCain said surely the ingenuity of Americans will find a way to make the world greener and cleaner. But McCain took it a step further, linking our dependence on foreign oil to an economy in peril and money that may easily find its way into the hands of terrorists.
"It's no big secret that I have disagreed with the Bush administration on climate change," McCain said, but adding that he would not sign on to any global agreement without also including India and China in the process.
The question turned to Romney.
"I side with states to be able to make regulations about emissions standards within their own state," Romney said. "I think we all agree that America should become energy independent. The consequences of us continuing to buy over a billion dollars of oil a day from people who often use this money against us is bad...bad for our economy, and bad for our foreign policy...so a unilateral action to get ourselves off of foreign oil makes all the sense in the world."
But Romney stressed that we would have to work with the rest of the world in this process, citing the enormous economic cost and pain if the U.S. government introduces strict mandates on the American people-along with all the costs, fees and hardships this would create-as well as the market strain a sudden, forced change would impose on the economy as whole. Romney also says the ripple effect would eventually lead energy intensive industries to move their manufacturing plants overseas, further stressing the U.S. economy.
Then the discussion turned to Huckabee, who essentially said that the proposition was a win-win scenario for Americans.
"Let me tell you why I believe that Governor Schwarzenegger ought to be able to carry out the plan," Huckabee said. "Because if he's right, every other state is going to copy him...and if he's wrong, every other state is going recruit the jobs he lost in California to their own state." Huckabee said that one of the advantages of allowing states to experiment with their own programmatic fixes to larger problems is that states become laboratories for what works and what does not. Federalism, in Huckabee's view, ought to trump government regulation when it comes to finding solutions to our most pressing national problems.
When it was Ron Paul's turn, he predictably sided with federalism and a state's right to do as it chooses, particularly when it comes to innovation. But when Paul tried to return to the topic of fiscal and social conservatism, Cooper cut him short, saying there would be plenty of opportunity to revisit the issue. Paul seemed understandably perturbed, but he acquiesced politely.
With the U.S. economy so close to the edge of recession-or in the beginning stages of recession, as some analysts would argue-the question of tying economic stimulus to infrastructure improvement generated lively discussion. While campaigning in Florida a few days earlier, Huckabee had said at several stops that a massive rebuild/rework of Interstate 95 from Bangor, Maine to its terminus in Miami would serve the dual purpose nicely-a win/win scenario which would employ many thousands, stimulate business, and make our roads and bridges safer and more reliable in the process. Then Huckabee had some fun with his own words.
"It is not necessarily I-95 from Bangor to Miami," Huckabee said with a wry twinkle to his otherwise straight face, "I said that when I was in Florida. Today we might look at a western highway that goes along the California coast." With this the room erupted with laughter.
Mitt Romney agreed with the idea that a national effort toward infrastructure improvement and renovation would serve as a massive stimulus for a lagging economy, citing some of the projects that spanned his term as governor of Massachusetts. But he cautioned that large-scale infrastructure projects do not always spark the economic fires as quickly as needed. Road improvements, bridge replacements and highway overpasses may take years to wind their way through the development and engineering processes- delays that that may render market stimuli too late.
"An economic stimulus plan," Romney said, "has to put money into the hands of consumers and businesses and home owners...now."
Paul turned the question back around, citing the irony of surgical bombing of bridges, roads and power plants in Iraq, which now require American dollars to rebuild-at enormous cost-while our own roads crumble and our own bridges collapse from old age. From Paul's perspective, for the daily cost of waging wars overseas-by his estimate, trillions of dollars annually-we could easily renew our American infrastructure. But Paul pounced directly onto the question of the cost: where will the money come from for these projects? Printing more money? Greater dependence on China? And why don't the other Republican candidates talk about ways to cut spending and reduce taxes?
Though Romney was viewed by some analysts after the debate as being the most "presidential" of the four men, McCain has his moments to shine as well. The Arizona Senator was at his most eloquent when the conversation turned even closer to the economy and the current housing crisis. McCain said that some of the recent steps to alleviate the sub-prime mortgage mess were helpful and netting positive results, but he acknowledged that things are going to get tougher, particularly in the high growth areas of the country.
"We've got to return to the principle that you don't lend money to people that can't pay it back," McCain said, "and I think there are some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished." McCain stressed that lending regulations need to be tightened again to the pre-housing-boom levels. And, he said, transparency needs to be brought back to the process of lending. As to the issue of rebates to help stimulate the economy: "Part of the problem in any recession is psychological...and I am still optimistic that nothing is inevitable...but, we've got to stop the spending. One place where Ron Paul and I are in total agreement: spending is out of control-we've got to stop spending, and we've got to stop borrowing from China."
By the end of the debate several things were clear. The first was that there exists some real personal animosity between John McCain and Mitt Romney, and if current polling is to be believed, the race may ultimately winnow down to those two candidates-depending, of course, on Mike Huckabee's performance in many of the southern states on Super Tuesday.
The second thing-and this is the more strategic issue for Republicans-is that a battle is being waged within the party over the definitions surrounding conservatism-the not-so-small irony being the very location of this debate at the shrine to the Reagan legacy.
Neither Romney nor McCain nor Huckabee (nor Ron Paul, for that matter) is trusted completely by a majority of those who define themselves as conservative. Where Huckabee scores well among so-called social conservative or evangelical Republicans, he scores badly among fiscal conservatives and free market advocates. Romney wins those hearts, but then loses on issues of social consistency-abortion, gay marriage-and may suffer more quietly because of the distrust some Christians may have toward his Mormonism.
And McCain suffers mightily from many Republican faithful for his historical willingness to compromise easily with the titans of Senate liberalism.
And though the feud among Republicans is mild and family-friendly and G-rated compared to the machetes and chainsaws being deployed between the major Democratic camps, between now and the end of spring the GOP faithful must find a path toward an agreeable and unified definition of the kind of conservatism once defined so effortlessly by Ronald Reagan.
