When a presidential candidate can’t wrap up his own party’s support (no, not that one)

There’s been quite a bit of talk the past few days about a handful of House Democrats who’ve announced that they won’t endorse Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Most notably, Rep. Dan Boren, a right-wing Dem from Oklahoma said he’ll vote for Obama in November, but he won’t endorse him beforehand, calling Obama “the most liberal senator” in Congress.

Boren’s an especially odd dissenter, given that he’s practically running unopposed and an endorsement wouldn’t cost him anything, but whatever. There are some conservative Dems in conservative districts who feel this is necessary. They’re wrong — Republicans lost three special elections in red House districts this year after desperately trying to tie the Dem candidates to Obama — but they’re not listening to reason.

Noting the phenomenon of Obama holdouts among Democratic lawmakers on the Hill, the AP said John McCain “has his own issues in his party,” but “only a handful” of GOP lawmakers have withheld their support for him.

As it turns out, though, the AP is wrong. There’s actually more than a “handful.”

At least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president, and more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator.

Many of the recalcitrant GOP members declined to detail their reasons for withholding support, but Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) expressed major concerns about McCain’s energy policies and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) cited the Iraq war.

A handful of other Republicans on Capitol Hill made the distinction between “endorsing” and “supporting,” adding that while they have not endorsed, they do support McCain.

For all the talk about Democrats having to work hard to achieve “unity” after a lengthy and contentious primary fight, it looks like Republicans are in just as awkward a spot — and McCain effectively wrapped up the GOP nomination way back in February.

Republican members who have not endorsed or publicly backed McCain include Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Reps. Jones, Peterson, John Doolittle (Calif.), Randy Forbes (Va.), Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), Virgil Goode (Va.), Tim Murphy (Pa.), Ron Paul (Texas), Ted Poe (Texas), Todd Tiahrt (Kan.), Dave Weldon (Fla.) and Frank Wolf (Va.).

Throughout his career in the House and Senate, McCain has been at odds with his party on a range of issues, including campaign finance reform, earmarks, immigration, healthcare, taxes and energy. […]

Gilchrest and Hagel, who disagree with McCain’s views on Iraq, have been mum on their endorsements. Kathy Hicks, spokeswoman for Gilchrest, said, “Since he was not reelected to public office, he’s keeping his thoughts private.” Gilchrest lost in a Republican primary earlier this year.

Jones, who has voted repeatedly with Democrats on Iraq, said he can’t back McCain until he gets “a better explanation of the plans for Iraq and more discussion on the economy.” Jones added that no one from McCain’s campaign has reached out to him.

I suppose if McCain gets really desperate, this intra-party division could be used as part of a triangulation strategy. He’d say, “Independents should feel free to vote for me — even congressional Republicans don’t like me.”

Of course, at that point, McCain would be running against his own party during the campaign. And wouldn’t that be interesting.

Is Talking With Satan Appeasement?

Wolf Blitzer: Senator McCain, now that you have selected Governor Jindal to be your running mate, what will be your administration’s policy regarding the performing of exorcism’s in the White House?

Senator McCain: Well, during my 2000 campaign I was firmly opposed to all exorcisms. However, since then, my position has evolved, and I believe that there may be, at an appropriate time and under appropriate circumstances, a place for the limited performance of exorcisms in the White House.

Blitzer: But Senator, during this campaign, you have indicated that even speaking with one’s adversaries–such as Iran–is appeasement. Are you saying then that it would be appropriate for you or a Vice President Jindal to speak with Satan?

McCain: Wolf, I’m old. I really don’t know what I’m saying.

  • It’s not Boren’s lack of endorsement that bothers me. I could live with that. It’s his repetition of baseless talking points. We all know Obama isn’t the most liberal senator. We know he’s pretty much where Hillary is in the center, and even to the right of her on some things.

    And the AP headline and Politico headline (and no I’m not surprised) both indicate that it’s Obama who has a problem coalescing support in his own party. Neither headline says nothing about McCain.

  • The Republicans are in the process of self-destructing, but IMHO this is almost entirely due to the fact that they don’t have their favorite bogeywoman to run against. If Hillary had shot herself in the foot a few less times, the Republicans would now be solidly backing McCain, and of course then she would be “the most liberal senator”.

  • Given that we’re going to pick up somwhere betweemn 35-50 seats in the House, let’s let the thugs have these traitors. Better an actual, known enemy in sight in front of you, than a traitor with knife in hand behind you. It’s time for a little housecleaning.

  • First candidates had to figure out how to distance themselves from Bush, now it appears they’ll have to distance themselves from McCain if they’re seeking re-election or approval ratings anywhere clear of the basement. It’s a tough thing politically when survival means running from leadership and a huge black hole in place of somewhere to run to.

  • Stevio said:
    Yeah, but can Jindel spell potato?

    Yeah but can you spell Jindal? Sorry, couldn’t resist.

    I would like to see the stats but it seems to me that whenever someone criticizes another person’s spelling they include a typo in that critique. I know I dew.

  • With apologies in advance to the people at Sara Lee….

    Everybody needs to like something,
    But nobody seems to like John McC!

    Sorry—but it does seem appropriate for the thread….

  • The problem for John McCain is that the ‘base’ still thinks Bush is doing a ‘heckuva’ job. If he criticizes Bush too much he risks alienating them and they stay home. But in order to get independents he has to distance himself from Bush.

    Complicating his problem is Obama’s current strategy of challenging McCain in all 50 states and going hard after traditional Republican strongholds and McCain is in a serious box. Forcing McCain to play to base to and play defense, thus further distancing himself from independents.

    Its going to be a fun few months.

  • “It’s time for a little housecleaning. — Tom Cleaver”

    Exhibit #3535: Yesterday’s House actions on Kucinich’s articles of impeachment. It’s all the same, whether they’re afraid to be a liberal or reinforcing Repub talking points or bending over when it’s time to stand up. Time for a big housecleaning!

  • Expect more jeering commentary from talking heads about all these renegade Democrats who are refusing to support Obama. Do not expect to hear anyone comment regarding the obvious fact that McCain is really not even that popular among Republicans in general, whether they be congressmen or voters.

    Imagine how they feel at being scolded by McCain’s mom on national television, “they’ll just have to hold their noses and vote for him.”

  • As usually happens, once the dems select a candidate, the word is spread that he is the most liberal member of the (senate, house, governors, whatever). Just another attempt to scare republicans by using the term liberal as a perjorative.

  • I saw the AP headline, Obama Campaign Suffers a Setback, about the Johnson affair. It didn’t make sense to me. A tiny problem arose, he took care of it and moved on. What setback? Not even a speed bump.

    And then they compare Obama and McCain’s lobbyist problems lke they are equal when McCain’s whole campaign is run by lobbyists and they have full expectation of getting repaid big time.

  • Yes, by the MSM standards, McCain’s campaign has yet to suffer a “setback”, remember it’s just a spectacular story of “comeback”. Also just last night I saw Charlie Gibson report the “it’s not that important” when the troops come home comment. For ABC, it was not a gaffe. Gibson carefully qualified McCain’s statement in every way he possibly could. There was not a hint of how offensive this must sound to American citizens, let alone the families of deployed soldiers.

    As long as he has NBC, ABC and CBS, McCain doesn’t need to raise money for advertising.

  • I don’t really CARE that much about John McCain’s troubles — they’re all good and the sun’s shining.

    But it really bothers me that the Democrats still have rightwingers in their ranks. Dan Boren isn’t the only one. It’s really time for voters to knock these wolves in sheep’s clothing off their boxes and out of Congress.

  • McCain’s problems with his colleagues have been known for a long time. (Even Ari Fleischer mentioned them on Super Tuesday.) I wish I remembered Thad Cochran’s comment — my browser is acting up so I don’t want to search for it. It was devastating.

    But the real news is his problems in the last 9 primaries, from Pennsylvania on. The most he got was 85-86% — in two primaries where the only choices were McCain and Paul. When another option, Huckabee or even ‘uncommitted’ he didn’t get as much as 80% — and there was no change over time, his worst two showings (70%) were in the last three primaries.

    This is not like the angry Hillary voters, arguing — as she was — that Obama was ‘unelectable.’ They’ll come back. But the anti-McCain voters had no political motive. They wouldn’t even win delegates, the nomination was sewn up, and they had to know the Republican results wouldn’t even get news coverage. And some of them didn’t even have competitive lower-race primaries to bring them out. They had to make an effort — including using $4.00 a gallon gas — to cast these votes, just to say “I don’t like McCain.”

    These people aren’t coming back, unless McCain runs so far to the right that he’ll totally alienate any ‘independent’ support.

    (As for the famous “Appalachian problem,’ well, McCain has his own. He only got 72% of the vote in KY and 76% in WV. And these were closed, Republican-only primaries. They ain’t comin’ back.)

    I repeat that Obama will win WV and at least come close (less than 5% difference) in KY. And if McConnell is in trouble, I might be underestimating KY. He’s one of the few Republicans who gives a ‘top hat.’ (That is, pushes the top ticket up a few percent — the converse of ‘coattails.’)

  • Question for Prup (aka Jim Benton)-
    How much of the opposing vote in those last nine primaries went to Ron Paul, and how much went to other candidates? In other words, is one possible interpretation of your data that the Paulites kept coming out and everyone else (including McCain voters) stayed home because the race was over? Or were they voting for Huck and Romney? It would be interesting to know.

  • The Republican answer to why it is bad to be a liberal–it is more profitable to be a conservative, rip off everyone through tax subsidies to the wealthy and about every conceivable tax break as well. Hey, in our state they have been sponsoring special initiatives sponsored by wealthy individuals and sold with half truths. You can invest a few thousand dollars and get back millions in benefits.

    The term “robber barrons” comes to mind. Why does McCain claim he is going to be tough on the “richest” and simultaneously appoint Carly Fiorina as his economic advisor. Carly was known for travelling with a hairdresser while CEO at HP before being deposed in a board of directors fight. I guess it is the old “let them eat cake” thing all over again.

  • To J Hurlbutt:

    I had some of the same questions, so I put the numbers below — I had already prepared them for a post that didn’t get used. I admitted in the original that the numbers might be skewed somewhat by the fact that McCain voters stayed home — except that some of these states, particularly NM, did have a competitive primary on a down ticket race.

    The amazing thing is how consistent the numbers are, primary or no, and the opposition wasn’t just the Paulistas — except where no other choice was offered. Huckabee consistently pulled down about 10%, usually outpolling Paul when both were on the ballot.

    So — sorry to Steve for the bandwidth this takes:

    [One point I made in the original is that the percentages in some states do not add up. My only explanation is that this was the percentage of total Republican votes in the primary and the missing numbers include people who left the line blank.]

    Here are the numbers.
    (Technical footnote: C = Closed Primary, only Republicans allowed, O = Open primary, anyone can vote, S = Semi-Open, Republicans and Independents could vote, but Democrats and registered members of other parties couldn’t. As for the votes, Mc is McCain, P is Paul, H is Huckabee, and O includes all other choices, including ‘uncommitted.’ TV is total of listed votes, the [ ] is the sum of the percentages given — with rounding unknown since I accepted CNNs math.)

    SD {6/3 C}
    TV 58,815 [97]
    Mc 42,657 (70)
    P 10,054 (17)
    H 4,322 (7)
    O 1,782 (3)

    NM {6/3 C}
    TV 108,989 [100]
    Mc 93,674 (86)
    P 15,319 (14)

    ID {5/27 O}
    TV 125,056 [100]
    Mc 87,341 (70)
    P 29,741 (24)
    O 7,974 (6)

    OR {5/20 C}
    TV 329,935 [100]
    Mc 280,030 (85)
    P 49,905 (15)

    KY {5/20 C}
    TV 183,345 [92]
    Mc 142,826 (72)
    H 16,344 (8)
    P 13,419 (7)
    O 10,756 (5)

    WV {5/13 C}
    TV 107,887 [91]
    Mc 89,782 (76)
    H 12,187 (10)
    P 5,918 (5)

    NC {5/6 S}
    TV 502,073 [97]
    Mc 381,616 (74)
    H 62,798 (12)
    P 37,132 (7)
    O 20,527 (4)

    IN {5/6 O}
    TV 392,302 [95]
    Mc 319,610 (77)
    H 41,164 (10)
    P 31,528 (8)

    PA {4/22 C}
    TV 807,123 [100]
    Mc 587,210 (73)
    P 128,483 (16)
    H 91,430 (11)

  • Comments are closed.