Brotherly Love

December 12, 2007

Mike Huckabee wonders aloud if Mormons believe that the devil and Jesus are brothers, but the saddest part of the coming saga over these comments will be Romney’s initial response: “That’s been something that’s been leveled at our church over many many years and of course that’s been set straight now.” Are you kidding me?

Advice to Mitt - try this tact:

It’s sad that Mike Huckabee, an apparently experienced Minister, would give creedence to such religious myths. Thinking the devil and Jesus are brothers is ridiculous, almost laughable - Mormons have never believed this, I hope Mike Huckabee does not believe this, and please, someone send a message to the good Minister that I don’t believe this.

Team Mitt can not afford to drop the ball on this - this should only hurt Huckabee if it’s played correctly.


Mid-Week Polls

December 5, 2007

Graph

The latest from Pew confirms the ground Huckabee has gained in Iowa while Romney has an almost comfortable lead in New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, Romney’s much-anticipated speech on Mormonism is expected tomorrow on the heels of another Pew survey that concludes:

 Overall, one-in-four respondents to a recent nationwide Pew survey said that they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate for president, and those who take this point of view express substantially more negative views of Romney, compared with those who express no such reservations about voting for a Mormon.

Which makes me question the Romney strategy on this front for two reasons:

1. What can this possibly accomplish for the candidate if the folks he’s trying to bring-along have such a negative view of him anyway?

2. What can this possibly accomplish for Romney if Iowa Republicans are religious enough that they can’t be brought along and New Hampshire voters aren’t religious enough that this may actually remind them of some facts that they had been trying to ignore?

Also, some data on the Democratic side that’s a bit older (December 3) but contains some interesting results regarding “strength of support:”

Figure

 Based on what the experts say, I would have guessed that New Hampshire voters would have had higher marks in the ’strength’ category for 2007. I had been thinking that Hillary had a good hold on NH, but these numbers make me think that there’s enough space in the Granite State that performances in Iowa could have a big impact on NH Democrats.


Weekend Wrap

December 3, 2007

Just some links to wrap-up some of the themes that wound their way through the weekend talk shows and wider press.

It’s NYtimes.com’s most-emailed story, so you’ve probably read Frank Rich’s Sunday piece - but the salient theme, that Barack Obama is poised to “upend the beltway storyline,” is important because of how it emerges in other contexts.

For example, Garrett Graff in the Washington Post opines about the importance of technology policy for the next presidency and wonders why we’d want someone in office who can’t “work the machine.” He also mentions this interesting fact: “Part of the problem is simply generational. According to the Senate historian, the Senate is the oldest it has ever been, with an average age of 62 during the 110th Congress.” As I’ve said before, Obama is leading the candidates when it comes to tech. policy and as Andrew Sullivan has made clear, the candidate pundits are really talking about when they talk about generational change is Barack Obama.

This all makes me wonder how helpful it is to be billed as the revolutionary candidate? Perhaps it is in the primaries, but my bet is this ’storyline’ kills any candidate who makes it to the big show.

Meanwhile, plenty of talk about the Republicans going after each other on immigration following last week’s debate and The Wall Street Journal [no link, subscription only] does that debacle justice in today’s editorial while getting in their usual pot-shots:

When not fielding questions from Democratic moles at last week’s GOP Presidential debate, Anderson Cooper and CNN had a grand time portraying Republican voters as Bible-thumping, gun-wielding Confederacy hold-outs. On immigration, however, the candidates didn’t need any media help as they continued their descent into self-parody.

Mitt Romney persisted in attacking Rudy Giuliani for turning New York into a “sanctuary city,” an accusation that even the restrictionist editors at National Review have come around to dismissing as “spurious.” Mr. Giuliani shot back that Mr. Romney ran a “sanctuary mansion” as Governor of Massachusetts, because the landscaping company that maintained the grounds of his home employed illegals. Mr. Romney replied that he couldn’t be expected to verify the immigration status of everyone with a “funny accent.” Normally, you’d have to seek out a high school cafeteria to hear such repartee. Well done, gentlemen.

The GOP exception continues to be John McCain, who is calling for reform that balances stepped up border enforcement with a guest worker program for future labor flows. And Mike Huckabee, who’s been rising in the polls, at least tried to explain to Mr. Romney why it’s inhumane to punish the children of illegal immigrants “for what their parents did.”

Interestingly enough, Mr. Huckabee appears to be the only candidate not going after his opponents. He passed up taking down Rudy for the Hampton Fling Security Detail scandal and didn’t battle back against Romney (who said Huckabee lacked vital private-sector experience) in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC Sunday. However, he did a nice job of subtly attacking Mormons, gays, and women when talking about Romney, Giuliani, and Clinton respectively. Huckabee will charm the pants off of an influential minority of this country and it’s comical that these folks think he is fit to lead the US in the global arena.

 Finally, living within broadcast range of New Hampshire, I can assure you the campaign ads are cranking right now - you can get a good wrap-up and review of most of them at Slate’s Damned Spot. Slate’s review of Joe Biden’s latest campaign is favorable, though it took them long enough - it was apparent from the first debate that this should have been Biden’s strategy all along:

joe-is-right.jpg


It Doesn’t Matter What You’re Selling

November 12, 2007

The Sunday campaign chatter this week definitely settles around Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. This has commentators talking in circles because Rudy Giuliani is a pro-choice cross-dresser and every one knows conservative Christians don’t themselves cross-dress or let their daughters have abortions. Hmmm…so why on earth would Reverend Pat Robertson do Rudy?

Well, it’s not because there’s not a suitable candidate for Robertson and the folks he supposedly represents (notice all of these stereotypes and affiliations are media-driven) - on paper, Mike Huckabee would be a tough candidate to argue with. Not a likely winner you say? Well what about Mitt? As family values as they come and marginally better when it comes to abortion…but to answer Mitt’s own question: yes, apparently the Mormon thing is a big deal.

And to answer the question the media has been asking all weekend: the only value that matters is that of having a Republican in the White House. In 2000, Republicans realized the power of playing to family-values oriented Evangelicals, but in 2008, it appears as if the Evangelicals are looking to play to the homeland-security oriented moderates. Perhaps there’s a new driver behind the wheel and that’s what has everyone confused.

If that’s too much of a stretch, try this explanation from The Atlantic’s Hanna Rosin:

Forget about abortion and gay rights for a moment…it doesn’t matter what you’re selling; it matters who you are, and how you sell. It matters that people believe you, trust in you. Giuliani “is like Reagan, only more results- oriented,” says the Republican pollster Frank Luntz. “And people are willing to vote for people they don’t agree with if they see character. They are so desperate for someone to lift their spirits.”


“A Noun, a Verb, and 9/11″

November 3, 2007

Completely sunk in work this week, I missed the debate and a lot of the coverage. Trying to catch up today and most of what’s worth reading is coming out of London. The Financial Times [might need a subscription...] provides excellent commentary and is sure to throw in the above Biden gem:

…it is historically the case that candidates run to their party’s activist extremes to secure a nomination and then run back to the middle to win a general election, so the GOP establishment may be taking the long view that Mr Romney will come to his senses eventually, if he can find them.

Mr Giuliani’s affinity with the neocons makes more transparent sense. They talk the sort of tough game that is the basis of the candidacy of the man saved from political oblivion, the fate of most New York mayors, before the events of September 11 2001 transformed him into a national figure. As Mr Biden neatly put it in the Democratic debate this week, a Giuliani stump speech consists of three elements – a noun, a verb and 9/11.

I’ll post a longer chunck of that article below - an excellent look at how choosing advisers during the primaries is a lot like choosing a jacket for the debate. But first, more from Britain - The Economist has some numbers and says it will continue to poll thoughout the campaign [click to enlarge]:

economist-you-gov-poll.gif…and the commentary does well to pick-up on the real story from the Republican side:

This makes the race for the Republican nomination extremely hard to predict. As the primaries draw near, will voters learn more about Mr Giuliani and reject him?

And The Guardian delivers a nice scare for Democrats on Halloween:

The Christian right has shown that there is sufficient democratic space for movements to play a role in shaping the political narrative, regardless of who the electoral protagonists are, so long as those movements can prove their clout and exercise their independence.

“Some might compare the religious right to a snake,” a Wichita evangelist, Terry Fox, told the New York Times. “We may be in our hole right now, but we can come out and bite you at any time.” It’s time for progressives to get out of their hole and find some teeth.

As I type, an infomercial for Open the Eyes of My Heart blasts in the background…

Ok, with Halloween over, here’s hoping value voters won’t be scaring me again any time soon - and more from that great FT article:

On economic policy, Mr Giuliani is listening to the siren voices of another group whose time seemed to have passed. They are led by Steve Forbes, unable to parlay his advocacy of flat taxes into the Republican nomination back in 1996, and the like-minded Bill Simon, who lost a California governor’s race to an unpopular incumbent in 1998. At least he is more of a born populist than them.

Comfortably the best assessment of the old Giuliani was provided by Calvin Trillin in his wickedly funny novel, Tepper Isn’t Going Out, about a New Yorker whose avocation is to sit in his car in scarce legal parking spaces, thus driving the city bananas. This was due to be released in the autumn of 2001 but publication was delayed for a year because it was considered too irreverent for those traumatic times.

In it, the mayor of New York has an Italian name (Ducatelli) and very authoritarian tendencies. He wants to be known as Duke (after John Wayne) but the local media insists on christening him Il Duce (after Mussolini). I think the Trillin book should be reissued now as a political tract.

Other pretenders have also attracted some high-profile advisers. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who ran Jimmy Carter’s national security council and has been an effective critic of neo-conservatism, is in the Obama corner, though he is probably a bit long in the tooth to get back into government. An adviser of longer standing, the very smart Samantha Power, now at Harvard, would surely feature prominently in an Obama administration.

John McCain, by no means out of the Republican race, still marches mostly to his own drum, which serves him best. Mike Huckabee does not appear to have anybody notable on board but if he continues to move up in the field he will not lack for foreign policy tutors.

In ancient times, once a nominee was chosen the respective parties would impose policy advisers on him, squeezing out the primary gurus. But the parties themselves are now so sundered that it is up to the candidate to pick a team. Dick Holbrooke knows that better than anyone.


Values Voters in Compromising Positions

October 22, 2007

The weekend’s campaign trope: values voters, do they still matter? Of course, the media aren’t ready to say no, but the question should really be of whether values voters are willing to compromise and cast a vote for Giuliani, McCain, or Romney (in descending order of compromise?). If Mike Huckabee manages to survive the first couple weeks of the primaries then I may be eating my words, but I really don’t think 2008’s Republican candidate will be even close to the Bushian ideal for a values voter.

The Christian Science Monitor nicely approaches this more realistic frame of conservative compromise:

The bad news is that the strongest Republican in national polls, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, is not with them on those issues. And if religious conservatives fail to coalesce around one of the “anti-Giulianis,” his chances of getting the nomination rise dramatically – and their issues, they fear, will be off the table. With the next president likely to replace two or more Supreme Court justices, including some who support abortion rights, the opportunity of a generation to overturn the nationwide right to abortion, established in Roe v. Wade, could be lost.

The next dilemma comes if Mr. Giuliani does get the nomination. Do they vote for him or even help his campaign anyway?

And the dilemma for Mr. Giuliani? Perhaps it’s very similar: how much is he willing to compromise his more liberal social views? I think he answered ‘a little here, a little there’ with a surprisingly eloquent and unifying speech at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit:

And like many of you, I think that we’ve got to find a way to be more inclusive. Christians and Christianity is all about inclusiveness. It’s built around the most profound act of love in human history isn’t it? It grew from a persecuted few people in the Roman Empire to the most widespread religion in the world by spreading a message of love, of hope, of faith, profound optimism, and with its hands out to everyone. They followed Christ’s commandment to administer to the sick and the needy. They reached out to the doubters and the non-believers, to the sinners. It was the love those early Christians displayed that drew first thousands and then millions to Christianity. Non-believers saw the display of love of Christians and said I want to be part of that. It must be a miracle behind that that people can love each other so much and care about each other so much. They can love each other so much that they can even forgive the people who persecuted them. This is a religion of inclusion. They were always looking for people to bring into the fold. They were truly defined by what they were for, not what they were against.

It’s a very good speech. And according to the polls, it better be, because Giuliani is not doing well with these voters. Of course, there’s always the problematic of who values voters are and the fact that white evangelical Christians have a monopoly on American values should be debunked quickly. Giuliani’s speech actually manages to make inroads in these directions as well. He probably won’t make it to the ends of those roads, but that doesn’t really matter, because fortunately the values of those dubbed ‘values voters’ will have to be compromised in this election and for elections to come.


The Christian Left

October 4, 2007

Not exactly the usual line on religion and politics:

 The Democrats, for their part, have smartened up considerably. When it comes to religious voters they are no longer Goofus to Karl Rove’s Gallant (”Gallant establishes a grassroots network of Conservative Christian volunteers numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Goofus has his candidate deliver his first real Faith and Values speech a week and a half before the election.”). For the first time in recent memory each of their three front-runners in the primaries can do convincing God Talk (need I mention the names of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale in order to demonstrate the eclipse-like infrequency of this phenomenon?).

And here’s a good question that ties in to what I suppose I’ve been obsessed with all week, where are the votes the Republicans should be chasing:

Which leads me to ask: why are Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain all trying so hard to appeal to the same voting block, and a fractured one at that?

That’s from the On Faith/Georgetown blog available at washingtonpost.com 


On Faith

June 14, 2007

The WaPo has been steadily growing an extremely interactive site on faith which often delves into the intersection of religion and politics. If you haven’t had a chance to check it out, find a recent article by Barack Obama here. Be sure to check out the comments at the bottom of each post; they really set the site apart from others. Additionally, surf to the main page for panel discussions, guest bloggers (Dalai Lama included!) and other timely articles across a wide spectrum of opinions.