The estimable Hawkins will have none (or at least not much) of the proposition that national security will dominate the GOP primaries. Specifically, the RightWingNews' always-worth-reading editor is skeptical that Mitt Romney can even present himself as a national security candidate when John McCain and Duncan Hunter (and yes, even Chuck Hagel) are in the field. John's sweeping generalization:
Here's the thing: today, we have a President who has been steadfast on national security issues and not so hot on the domestic side. His combined approval rating at RealClearPolitics is 36.5% and not once this year has his approval rating gone north of 50% in any poll. So, long story short, not only are the Democrats and Independents unhappy with Bush, a significant chunk of the Republican base doesn't approve of the job he's doing either. So, if the litmus test is nothing more than a fresh face who's tough like Bush on national security, then that seems like a recipe for failure in 2008.
This morning the WaPo is peddling that Rudy cannot win either --social issues etc. Handy conservative activist/preacher quote:
"If the Republican Party wants to send the social conservatives home for good, all they have to do is nominate Rudy Giuliani," said Rick Scarborough, a Southern Baptist minister and president of Vision America. "It's an insult to the pro-Christian agenda. . . . He's going to spend a lot of money finding he can't get out of the Republican primaries.
There is an advantage in doing scores of events for radio audiences and Republican activists over the past two years: At each of them I get to conduct my straw poll. In early 2005, I offered audiences the right to vote for one of five possible nominees --Senators Allen, Frist or McCain, Mayor Giuliani, or Governor Romney.
Two years ago, Senator Allen usually won, but Mayor Giuliani was occasionally on top of the poll --the older the audience, the better he did-- though usually he came in second.
By the dismal end of the 2006 campaign season --and I have only done one large event since the election-- Rudy always wins and Romney is always second, and it is usually close. Before he dropped out Senator Frist had close to zero support, and Senator McCain usually gets about 2%.
John points to the low poll ratings of President Bush, but of course some of that low number comes from the disappointment wing of the GOP who thought the Bush Doctrine was exactly why we should have given Iran an ultimatum on nukes a year ago, and Syria a similar short note last summer. Some of that low number is also immigration driven, though not as much as a lot of the anti-immigration folks think.
But there is a near certainty that the 36% (or 40% or 45% or whatever it really is) who are still supporting Bush are not doing so because of No Child Left Behind or the prescription drug bill. No, they like his and the Vice President's commitment to waging the war, their commitment to low taxes, and their judges.
They also admire his character.
John McCain is in trouble with the base because he is not credible on judges, and not reliable on party issues that come and go. His viability is only because of his reputation as a hawk on Iraq.
Rudy has a problem with the judges issue, but it is one the primary electorate will be willing to be persuaded about. He's a hawk and a leader, so he's viable.
Romney is right on all of the big three issues, and more conservative on most of the other issues than the other two, plus he's got money and charisma, so he's viable.
Nobody else registers with the base because nobody else has the talent or the money to compete. Good men, of course, and they will get to appear on the debate platforms because of the Kucinich-Keyes Rule: No one, no matter how low their poll numbers, gets denied airtime in MSM debates if they have ever published an op-ed in any major newspaper and might possibly incite a gaffe.
Newt Gingrich understands the basic dynamic, and thus his front-porch campaign, and his telling analysis for Tim Russert:
When we were young, I think you were younger than me, but when we were young, John F. Kennedy announced on January 2nd, 1960, the year of the election. In 1975 and again in 1979, Ronald Reagan announced in November, OK? My view’s this. If—and you—and you put up the numbers. Romney’s had a good year. He’s emerging as a serious player. Giuliani is wildly popular for national security reasons. John McCain has built a base for years of hard work. If one them seals it off by Labor Day, my announcing now wouldn’t make any difference anyway. If none of the three having from now to Labor Day can seal it off, the first real vote is in 2008. And there’s plenty of time in the age of television and e-mail between Labor Day and 2008.
Of course none of them can "seal it off" by labor day because all three will have the cash and organizational muscle to hold off one of the other two from runing away with the nomination, so the Speaker is leaving the door open, but he understands the basic architecture of the race, and it isn't going to change.
For majority of the GOP primary electorate, It is the war, the war, the war (and judges). But the war is a vast issue, not just tactics in Baghdad. Which brings us to the last bit of response to John's dismissal of Romney as "an inexperienced governor with no significant foreign policy experience."
Does a spectacular career intersecting with international finance for more than a decade count as "foreign policy experience." Does the leadership of the Olympics?
Or does it mean appearances on Meet The Press to discuss foreign affairs? Chairing committee hearings at which State Department and Pentagon experts testify?
Does leadership in a crisis with no parallel in American history count as "foreign policy experience," or does one have to have been at Davos for at least four consecutive years?
Proposition: No one not currently in the executive branch has "foreign policy experience" with this enemy, or other than general knowledge about the threats we face and the responses we have been making to those threats. The best we can hope for is a relentless curiosity about the enemy and an openness to learning from experts and the intellectual capacity to see the vast nature of the struggle and its complexities.
Republican primary voters --at least the thousands I have stood in front of and taken questions from, not to mention the tens of thousands more who listen, call and e-mail-- are looking for leadership in the war and an understanding of the stakes and the nature of the country. It is true that for some of these voters Rudy's social issues, or Romney's religion, or McCain's campaign finance fiasco will be decisive.
But in 13 months when the Iowa voters go to their caucuses, the statements and arguments these three have made about the war will be most important things they have said, and the tie-breakers will be their statements on judges mixed with "electability" analysis.
Proposition: After the flurry of the first quarter '07 (and perhaps even earlier) these three should arrange for at least a monthly conversation in various places with various serious center-right conservatives or new media leaders facilitating the discussion. (If another candidate appears with a significant organization who has raised, say, $10 million under the rules, invite them as well.)
No "gotcha" questions. No free passes for second tier candidates who need the airtime to raise bucks. And definitely no grandstanding MSMers using the conversations to push Beltway-Manhattan media elite memes, but extended, 90 minute-to-two-hour conversations with and among the leading candidates for the GOP nomination: A serious campaign for serious times.
If the idea appeals, perhaps NZ and John could organize bloggers in support of the idea. I'd much rather see these three responding to panels that include Byron York, Michelle Malkin, Fred Barnes, Austin Bay, Glenn Reynolds, Claudia Rosett, the Powerline gents, Geraghty the Indispensable, Michael Medved etc than Jim please-not-again Lehrer.
So too, I suspect, would GOP primary voters.
UPDATE: Here's an article detailing just how far ahead the big three are in the money primary.
McCain's PAC raised $5.8 million since launching in July of 2005; Romney's PACs have brought in $8.5 million; and Giuliani's $2 million.