McCain, Romney stumble in front of a jury of their peers

February 4, 2008

Since Sam Brownback withdrew from the presidential race nearly four months ago, John McCain has been the only sitting senator in the large Republican presidential field. Given this, it stands to reason that he’d have the support of practically the entire GOP Senate caucus. After all, he’s been on the Hill for a quarter-century, and these are the Republicans who’ve worked with him, side by side, day in and day out, for years. If anyone would have a chance to see McCain’s “greatness” close up, it would be his GOP colleagues.

Except it’s not working out that way. Out of the 49 senators in the Republican caucus, 15 (about 30%) have endorsed McCain. Seven are backing Romney, but 34 — a clear majority — have so far remained neutral.

How is it the only sitting senator in the GOP field could gain such little support from the colleagues who know him best? Perhaps it’s because McCain, after 25 years in Congress, hasn’t exactly wowed his co-workers.

In a chamber once known for cordiality if not outright gentility, McCain has battled his fellow senators for more than two decades in a fashion that has been forceful and sometimes personal. Now, with the conservative maverick on the brink of securing his party’s presidential nomination, McCain’s Republican colleagues are grappling with the idea of him at the top of their ticket.

“There would be a lot of people who would have to recalibrate their attitudes toward John,” said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), a supporter of Mitt Romney’s who has clashed with McCain.

Many Senate Republicans, even those who have jousted with McCain in the past, say their reassessment is underway. Sensing the increasing likelihood that he will be the nominee, GOP senators who have publicly fought with him are emphasizing his war-hero background and playing down past confrontations. […]

But others have outright rejected the idea of a McCain nomination and presidency, warning that his tirades suggest a temperament unfit for the Oval Office.

“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine,” Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. “He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”

Oddly enough, despite his very long tenure as a Washington insider, McCain actually has fewer congressional endorsements than Mitt Romney.

Of course, there’s also a flip side — Republican lawmakers aren’t impressed with McCain, but Republican governors aren’t enamored with Romney.

Charles Mahtesian had this interesting item over the weekend.

As chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2006, Mitt Romney crisscrossed the country to elect GOP governors and broke the group’s fundraising record by hauling in $20 million.

Yet just two of the 16 governors he worked to elect then are supporting his presidential bid.

In fact, just three of the nation’s 22 Republican governors have endorsed him.

There are plenty of reasons that might explain the former Massachusetts governor’s surprisingly weak support among his former colleagues. But one of them stands out: He appears to have inadvertently alienated a good many of his fellow governors as RGA chairman.

“Right or wrong, the general impression was that he spent way too much time on himself and building his presidential organization,” said a top Republican strategist who has worked closely with the RGA in recent years. “I don’t think anyone ever questioned Romney’s commitment to the organization or the work he put in. They questioned his goals or his motives. Was it to elect Republican governors, or to tee up his presidential campaign?”

The practical consequences of this have been evident in recent weeks. Florida’s Republican governor, Charlie Crist, backed McCain before the state’s closely-watched primary. California’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, recently did the same thing. Texas’s Republican governor, Rick Perry, recently made the switch from Giuliani to McCain.

So, what are we left with? The top two Republican presidential candidates include a GOP senator who hasn’t impressed other GOP senators, and a Republican governor, who hasn’t impressed other Republican governors.

Perfect.

“You really have to get to know Dewey to dislike him.” — Robert Taft (GOP senator from Ohio, 1939-1954)

  • It’s a reflection of the larger strategic situation politically. Bush’s long period of extreme unpopularity has meant this cycle is heavily weighted against the Republican nominee. Wiser Republicans have stayed out of the race, knowing it’s likely to be a losing battle. McCain had no choice but to go now, given his age, and Romney, in a more favorable cycle, would have been a second tier candidate at best.

  • These people are SO unhappy with their choices.

    And to imagine, it was George “Macaca” Allen who they really wanted. Him or Jeb Bush.

    Is it any wonder they have to cheat to win elections?

  • Republicans haven’t been collegial towards Democrats since the 1980’s. Is it any surprise that this pattern of behavior wouldn’t become an intraparty issue?

  • Doesn’t this simply reinforce McCain’s “maverick” narrative? I’m not sure the fact that he has at times offended GOP senators with his incivility is going to be viewed as a negative by the electorate.

  • “Doesn’t this simply reinforce McCain’s “maverick” narrative? I’m not sure the fact that he has at times offended GOP senators with his incivility is going to be viewed as a negative by the electorate.”

    Yes it does.

  • The Republicans have played the “you’re either with us or you’re against us” game for so long that now, when one of their putative nominees has been notably against them on a couple of issues, their well-honed instinct to savage any opposition kicks in automatically.

    Congratulations are due Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al, for turning their party into a pack of mindless hyenas.

  • McCain had a great counter in something I saw recently, when confronted with the Cochran remark. He said, “I love Thad Cochran, but he’s an appropriator.” In other words: “he’s the self-serving careerist ass who rolls around naked in piles of your tax dollars, and he hates me because I’m trying to get your money back to you.”

    It’s a pretty solid argument in a Republican primary, and probably in the general election as well. That said, I think he’d have more trouble making that argument against Obama–who will get probably at least some nice words, if not endorsements, from Republican Senators like Lugar–than against Hillary Clinton.

  • Maybe I was left behind at some point but 15 + 7 + 34 > 49. Even with 27 undecided that is a strong statement.

  • What is disturbing is that we have an American people fairly screaming for a change in direction. We have two, at best mediocre, Republican candidates who represent more of the same sorry Bush failures: wars and tax cuts for the rich. And we have two fine, superior Democratic candidates ready to deliver popular, progressive ideals. They promise an end to the war, health care for all, vigorous alternative energy and anti global warming action, a truly fair (not flat) progressive tax system, and a foreign policy of diplomacy and engagement as opposed to belligerence and hubris.

    And yet polls show a very close election in November.

    It simply doesn’t compute. The worst president in history. Two Democrats of outstanding qualifications ready to move the country forward again after eight endless years of backwards rule. It ought to be the largest presidential landslide of all time. And yet either one will have to struggle mightily just to eke out a victory.

    What’s wrong with the American people? Something is.

  • Hark asks: “What’s wrong with the American people?”

    They don’t have a grasp of their own self-interest. A majority of Americans fall below the mean income because income and wealth are skewed to the top 1, 5 and 10% of the rich. Yet somehow the Republican’t base constantly votes for tax cuts for the rich. I think they are all delusional, and imagine that some day they are going to win the lottery, and then won’t they be upset if they have to pay 38% rather than 35% in income taxes.

    They don’t want to hear that Bushite policies are concentrating wealth. They call such talk “Class Warfare”. Warfare exists only if both sides are fighting. Right now what we have is “Class Oppression”.

  • Hark – from the 2/3/2008 NYTimes article “16 Ways of Looking at a Female Voter” :

    Of course, recent work, like that of Drew Westen, a psychologist and the author of “The Political Brain,” suggests that voters are more driven by their emotions than by any informed summing-up of their interests. (Westen’s brain studies, incidentally, were done on men.) But even if voters act, as Westen says, on their feelings toward their party and its candidate more than on their understanding of the issues, they can’t begin to form those feelings if they don’t know something about the parties, candidates and issues. As Popkin has noted, a party is really just shorthand for a series of issue positions — you love your party because it stands for what you stand for.

  • What’s wrong with the American people? Something is.

    A good place to start figuring out the answer to that troubling question is to read the free online book The Authoritarians, the inspiration for much of John Dean’s last two books. It offers a lot of insight into the 25% or so of Americans who consistently vote with stupendous illogic.

  • One can also assume that anyone who ever uses the phrase “When I win the lottery…” is going to vote like a moron. I’m told there are many Americans who do actually utter that phrase in all seriousness, though I’m happy to say I don’t personally know of any.

    • Comments are closed.