Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Some More Debate Thoughts   [Rich Lowry]

My general take from last night is down here, by the way. But here are more impressions: 

Three v Two: Near the end, Romney talked about "the stool" of the Reagan coalition having three legs—national security, free-market economics, and moral issues. He's absolutely right about and it is extremely important to conservatism that that continue to be our coalition. Rudy, immediately afterward, talked about the "two big principles" that unite us, a vigorous national defense and the free market. He basically wants to cut one leg off the stool which is the greatest substantive weakness of his candidacy. Romney was smart to come back to it and highlight that difference in this interview on Fox. 

From Maverick to Senator: That, very roughly speaking, has been McCain's progression. It's not that he still doesn't hold positions that buck GOP orthodoxy, but that often he is in the position of defending messy Senate compromises. That's what he did in the Gang of 14 deal (which isn't playing much in this race), and is doing now on the immigration bill. He almost uttered the fatal words, "60 votes" last night, which is what senators always say when talking about the practicality of various proposals (e.g. Hillary and Biden a few nights ago). It's not that they're wrong, but they sound processy and they are usually defending a compromise that doesn't entirely please anyone. It's much easier for an outsider—i.e. a maverick—to denounce the whole process. That's exactly what Rudy did last night on immigration, arguing the fact that the bill is a series of compromises is part of what makes it so bad. Rudy was the maverick, McCain was the senator. 

McCain the Sincere: But let me add, it seems pretty clear—but who knows, maybe they have had sincere conversions—that Romney and Rudy have both simply found ways to get where they think they need to be politically on the bill. McCain has stuck where he is out of conviction. I'd prefer that he had moved right too, but you have to admire him for not doing so, just as a matter of political character. The down-side is that he's out of step with the party. Because there was so much immigration last night and just a brief abortion question, the general impression was the Rudy is more in step with his party than McCain—a big problem for the Arizona senator. 

The Rise of the Hyper-Neos: I thought the presidential race would produce a Derb-style "to hell with them" hawk, someone who distanced himself from the idealism of Bush's foreign policy and from the counter-insurgency war in Iraq. It hasn't. In fact, it has given us McCain and Giuliani who are like Bush but only more so, and one cranky libertarian-paleo in the form of Ron Paul, but nothing in between (Romney is basically where McCain and Giuliani are, but not quite as zealously). Rudy is especially instructive. He's the tough guy in the field, and he's very much in favor of nation-building.  

Grading Problems I: In his excellent First Read for NBC, Chuck Todd asks today, "Why does McCain score better among those of us in the media than he did in either of two focus groups we know about?" (Both that he referred to showed Rudy winning.) Clearly, because the media agrees with McCain on immigration and because it doesn't have the long-standing animosity toward McCain that a lot of Republicans do—that's the prism through which a lot of conservatives are going to view McCain. 

Grading Problem II—This one is my problem. I take it for granted Romney is going to be polished and make a good impression, so I may discount it and judge him in a more niggling way.  But most voters won't do this. This is probably why Frank Luntz's focus group thought Romney won. (Incidentally, they thought McCain lost.)

 

PS—Sorry for consistently mis-spelling lightning last night. Weirdly enough given my job, I'm an atrocious speller.

06/06 03:07 PMShare