Friday’s political round-up

December 29, 2006

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Though the vast majority of likely candidates haven’t even officially kicked off their campaigns yet, the fight over congressional endorsements appears to have already begun. Rep. Trent Franks (R), an extremely conservative lawmaker from John McCain’s home state of Arizona, announced yesterday that he’s bucking his in-state ally and supporting Rep. Duncan Hunter’s presidential bid.

* Interest remains high in Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) future plans, but the senator has been keeping a low profile during his visit to Hawaii this week. Obama’s sister, who told The Associated Press last week that her brother would decide if he’ll run for president while on vacation in Hawaii, is now declining interviews. “The world will find out soon enough,” Maya Soetoro said. Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) appears ready to support Obama, if he runs. “He’s a new generation of hope that will have our diversity define us rather than divide us,” Abercrombie told the AP.

* The NYT had an interesting item today about the huge shift in the political culture of the Minnesota Legislature now that Democrats have regained the majority of the State House. As the Times noted, the Democrats picked up more than 350 seats in state legislatures nationwide in November, 25 of them in Minnesota, and gained control of 10 chambers, including the Minnesota House.

* GOP pollster Frank Luntz, of “Contract with America” fame, explained in an op-ed that Rudy Giuliani can most certainly win the GOP nomination because he offers “the triumvirate of results, success and solutions.” And what of McCain? Luntz said, “Though McCain may not sound like one or act like one, he’s been a Beltway Republican, part of the Washington establishment for almost two decades. Giuliani can score considerable points by acknowledging McCain’s willingness to buck the political system while subtly reminding Republicans of McCain’s participation in that very system.”

My prediction for the 2008 nominees: Obama vs. Brownback (Giuliani and McCain will both fade out).

  • If you’re right, then hello 450 EVs for the Democrats…

    I guess Giuliani has a slightly better chance of becoming president than I do, or Kucinich does. But it’s still not gonna happen. The guy’s a dick, his NYC record is middling at best, and he won’t satisfy the true-believing Christofascist crowd.

  • While I hold no brief for John McCan’t, the accusation that he’s another “Beltway Republican” just makes me laugh. He has stood against the corrupting influence Washington has had on his party (earmarks, i.e., pork; corrupting campaign contributions, etc.). Luntz’s charge is a bunch of bullshit. And Rudy has what “solutions” exactly? Keeping us IN Iraq I believe!

  • No story to connect this with, but as of a moment ago the death toll for US troops in Bush’s Iraq Quagmire reached 2,996, just 4 short of 3,000.

    The daily average death rate has been a steady 2.1 per day throughout our Crusade/Conquest, but in recent weeks that’s jumped to 3.9 per day.

    I haven’t seen word one about any of this in the MSM. Only speculation about whether we’ll “surge” 3500 more or we’ll “escalate” by tossing 30,000 more saps (Bush/Cheney’s view, not mine) into the meat grinder.

    God (if you exist) Damn the GOP!

  • Re #4.

    If we didn’t have such and uncertain number for those lost on 9/11/01, I’d say the benchmark is when those dead in Iraq (not including Afghanistan, which is totally justified) from combat related injuries matches. That should be in a month or two at this rate.

  • From my observations, and I don’t know how causal this really is, Luntz is probably right. Regarding presidential elections, recent history seems to show that the public generally likes three qualities above all others. 1) Washington outsiders, usually state governors, 2) incumbent presidents, and 3) Vice Presidents, in that order. And while I don’t pretend it’s impossible for Congressmen and Congresswomen to win a national election, they seem to have a very poor record when aspiring for the presidency. They may even be disfavored by the electorate. Rove certainly thought so about Kerry, always mentioning Kerry’s 19 years of voting in Congress to find dirt on.

    Going back:
    2004: Kerry, a senator, lost to #2,
    2000: Gore himself a #3, lost to a #1,
    1996: Dole, a senator, lost to a #2,
    1992: Bush Sr. lost to a #1 in spite of being #2,
    1988: Dukakis, himself a #1, lost to a #3, breaking the rule
    1984: Mondale was a former veep, kind of a #3, but a former congressman as well, and he lost to a #2
    1980: Carter lost to a #1
    1976: Ford, himself a #2, lost to a #1
    1972: McGovern, a senator, lost to a #2

    The rule by no means holds fast, Nixon beat Humphrey. But in general, it seems to be a good one to represent recent history. I wouldn’t use it to say we couldn’t elect Clinton or Obama or Edwards. After all, the GOP could field another senator like 1960.

  • Oops, I forgot about my original point. It strengthens the idea that Giuliani could be hard to beat. Especially if he can win the GOP nomination by running from the middle. He’s a #1, and that’s a class that includes some fairly formidable candidates, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, maybe Nixon, all reelected, and Carter too. (I’m not old enough to remember if people viewed Nixon as an outsider or an insider by 1968.)

    • Comments are closed.