Mike Huckabee continues to showcase his mean streak on the campaign trail. The target, this time, is Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, Huckabee used a toddler to try to score political points. I will be happy when he goes away.
Confronted by crying toddler on Tuesday, Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee quipped the child must be for his rival Mitt Romney.
"He's not the happiest boy today," Huckabee said, smiling for a picture with the boy and his brother and sister. "I think he must be a Romney voter. Look at him. He's so sad."
I would have had some words for Minister Huckabee had he said that to my child.
Permalink
Jonathan Cohen reports on the McCain and Romney campaigns in Michigan. Cohen focuses extensively on the theme of economic uncertainty and explains why he think the state might go for Romney. I am not a big fan of either candidate, but Cohen's article is worth a read.
Permalink
Critical realignments happen infrequently, but this does not stop Paul Starr from trying examining the road map to a progressive realignment in American politics. I do not believe a critical realignment will occur regardless of who wins the presidency. In fact, I predict the next administration will find itself in much the same environment as the last one (country split roughly 45-45, insignificant margins for the majority in Congress to accomplish much, and angry wings of the base on both the liberal and conservative sides of the aisle).
Permalink
I recently posted about the possibility of a McCain - Lieberman ticket for president, but according to Robert Novak this is not going to happen. The chances of this happening were always close to zero, but I thought it might get some play given Lieberman's standing among Republicans and the past flirtation between Kerry and McCain during the 2004 elections season.
Permalink
The op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal by Senator John McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman provides a lot of grist for a lot of mills. In my reading of it, there are two things that stand out.
First, McCain and Lieberman write:
The question we face, on the first anniversary of the surge, is no longer whether the president's decision a year ago was the right one, or if the counterinsurgency strategy developed by Gen. Petraeus is working. It is...
The war for Iraq is not over. The gains we have made can be lost. But thanks to the courage of our troops, the skill and intellect of their battlefield commander, and the steadfastness of our commander in chief, we have at last begun to see the contours of what must remain our objective in this long, hard and absolutely necessary war -- victory.
The dramatic progress in Iraq represents a remarkable success for the United States and the credit can be shared by a lot of people ranging from the President to General Petraeus, the troops in the field, and those around the country who resisted calls to bring the troops home irrespective of the consequences for the U.S. and the Iraqi people. It certainly is something Senators McCain and Lieberman can be justifiably proud of given the heat they have taken and the progress that has been made in Iraq.
Notice that I left out the problems they identify as still ongoing and also their recommendations for what should be done in Iraq. While the points they make are worthwhile and, in some cases, insightful, these are not really the focus of this post.
The simple fact that the surge has worked causes tremendous repercussions for the presidential campaigns in the United States. Obviously, it gives McCain a significant boost as he was out in front of even the president on the utility of the surge (I will give him a mulligan for some of his earlier ideas on troop numbers which struck me as quite off the mark). It also pulls almost all of the other Republican candidates (Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee say hi) into lockstep on the questions of Iraq and the broader war on terror. This hurts someone like Rudy Guiliani, who had hoped to cater to the neo-con/hawkish/unilateralist yada yada wing of the party.
The success of the surge also will help President Bush, whose poll numbers looked downright Nixonian prior to the surge. It will likely make it even more difficult than it already was going to be for the next president to move dramatically away from almost any element of the Bush Doctrine. It also has bolstered a rather skittish Republican Congress. It would not surprise me at all if Iraq has had a significant effect on the recent uptick in Republican party identification numbers.
Obviously, this is bad news for the Democrats who, barring a dramatic change, are watching foreign policy become far less of a stick to wield in the general election. In watching the Democratic debates, its been interesting how they have increasingly focused on domestic policy issues and the generic idea of "change." The more the Democratic candidates talk about health care, trade, and corporate interests the better the chances for the Republicans in 2008.
Finally, the second major point I hoped to address centered on the authorship of the op-ed piece. McCain and Lieberman. Republican and (for all intents and purposess)Democrat. Centrists. Bipartisans. Well respected by independents. Tough on national security. Doesn't this potential ticket promise something both side's candidates have been talking about? You know, change?
Permalink
