Is Thompson Over?

Power Line notes that Fred Thompson is losing ground in polling in key primary states:

I think there are several reasons why Thompson’s campaign has not, so far, taken off as some expected. Thompson is a perfectly good conservative, but he lacks any particular stature as a one-and-a-half term Senator with no outstanding legislative accomplishments or policy innovations to his name. Given that he is also a quiet (some say lackluster) campaigner, it shouldn’t be surprising that so far, he hasn’t emerged as a powerhouse.

Also, Thompson’s appeal is based largely on the “none of the above” factor. He set out to appeal to the considerable segment of the Republican electorate that expressed dissatisfaction with the existing field. That was a good and potentially fertile niche, but it means that in a sense Thompson has been running against the field. To the extent that Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee have won over some previously skeptical voters, the need for a “none of the above” candidate may have diminished. And John McCain’s resurgence must have taken support away from Thompson, the candidate whose policy profile most nearly resembles McCain’s.

The appeal of Thompson’s campaign is that he’s a consistent conservative who is actually coming out with some strong policy prescriptions—especially in terms of Social Security reform. Granted, it may be a politically unwise endeavor to lead your campaign off with something so esoteric, but in a political climate devoted more to style than substance, there’s something refreshing about Thompson.

The fact that Thompson has been formally endorsed by the National Right to Life Foundation certainly helps. The fact that Mitt Romney had been lobbying for that endorsement also says something about the state of the race. Thompson is finding his niche as a consistent conservative in a race in which candidates either have great appeal to social conservatives and little to fiscal conservatives (Huckabee) or great appeal to fiscal conservatives and less to social conservatives (Giuliani) or candidates who have been accused of shifting their positions to match the prevailing political winds (Romney).

Thompson is not out—polling in these key states can be volatile, and many (including myself) figured John Kerry was dead in the water at this time four years ago. Still, Thompson is losing ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, and while he’s doing very well in South Carolina, it remains to be seen whether the winds won’t shift between the earlier states and that race.

What Thompson needs to do is start creating a grass-roots effort—and that means more time on the campaign trail. He’s got a firm grasp on the issues, in terms of fiscal issues, social issues, and national defense he’s the most consistent conservative in the race. The problem is that people don’t yet see him being able to win. To counter that perception, Thompson is going to have to get his boots on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire and start making a stronger impression with the electorate.

This race is totally up in the air. Romney and Giuliani have the inside track, but Thompson could pull ahead, especially with this key endorsement. McCain is doing better than one would expect (though not enough to win). Huckabee has been doing an excellent job of what Thompson should be doing—winning over social conservatives alienated by the top tier. There is no clear winner, and anything could change.

A Second Look At McCain

E.J. Dionne notes that John McCain is still standing, despite his campaign being seen as largely moribund. He asks if some aren’t giving McCain a second look as the rest of the field fails to show a breakout leader:

Yet there is also cold calculation on the part of Republicans who are giving McCain a second look. Their challenge is to find a candidate who can broaden the party’s currently anemic appeal while still holding it together.

Giuliani says he is that man, and he has stepped up his campaigning in a state whose libertarian streak makes his support for abortion rights less toxic. At a news conference following a speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Giuliani stressed his ability to turn the GOP into “a 50-state party” and argued that voters who didn’t like his abortion views would definitely like the judges he would appoint.

McCain, on the other hand, has always been an abortion foe. His campaign argues that he can appeal outside Republican ranks without alienating pro-life voters, as Giuliani would. Conservative voters are paying attention.

I don’t think McCain will pull ahead, but it’s a distant possibility. McCain has several advantages: he’s a die-hard fiscal conservative, he’s strong on the war, he appeals to moderates and he has the best personal story of any of the candidates. Turning the Salt Lake City Olympics around is a great achievement. Leading New York City in the aftermath of the September 11 atrocities is a great achievement. Yet when it comes down to who has done the most for his country, nothing comes close to what John McCain endured.

Despite all of the distrust conservatives feel for John McCain, he’s not out because he’s the sort of person that exemplifies key conservative ideals. He is a leader, and despite some of his policy positions, many conservatives are looking for leadership these days. Ultimately, I don’t think John McCain’s personal heroism and what conservative principles he does champion will make up for his support for campaign finance reform, his weakness on some tax issues and especially his immigration position. At the same time, the fact that he’s still competitive in key states like Iowa suggests that some of his appeal from 2000 is still there.

McCain would be competitive against Hillary. He’s principled, he stands strongly on conservative issues, and while he takes positions that are against the GOP base, he does so in a way that is based less on political expediency and more on his convictions. He’s authentic in a way that the carefully-controlled Hillary Clinton is not and never can be.

I wouldn’t be betting on McCain pulling ahead, but stranger things have happened. As the GOP field has thus far failed to see any candidate break, it’s still a wide-open game, and McCain is that game in a smart and efficient way—mainly because he has to. Don’t necessarily count on McCain, but don’t count him out either. On some of the key issues that will face this country in the next few years, the war, entitlement reform and spending, McCain is in the right place. If he can convince Republican voters that he really is serious about an enforcement-first immigration policy, he has a chance, albeit slim, to pull ahead of the pack and emerge as the underdog candidate with a viable national appeal.

UPDATE: Of course, I’d be remiss in not pointing out that former candidate Sen. Sam Brownback has endorsed McCain. That helps McCain with the social conservative vote, although probably not be a great deal. Unfortunately for McCain, Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy has stolen the thunder from the Brownback endorsement, no doubt to the great chagrin of Team McCain.

The Narrow Appeal Of Mike Huckabee

Byron Hill takes a look at why “values voters” love Mike Huckabee. He did do an amazing job at the Values Voters Summit, but ultimately the reason why Huckabee won’t win the nomination is because his appeal is largely limited to these values voters.

Huckabee’s biggest liability is that he’s not all that fiscally conservative. His record in Arkansas on taxes is mixed. His governing philosophies tend to be more about expanding the scope and reach of government rather than protecting and preserving individual rights against the state. He’s the sort of President who would be more likely to do things like regulate trans fats and other examples of nanny-state tinkering. Yes, he’s excellent on social issues, but the GOP isn’t driven entirely by social issues.

Despite Huckabee’s great performances and appeal to social conservatives, he’s still below the double digits in most polls. What that suggests is that for all the much-vaunted influence of “values voters,” they don’t have all that big an effect on Republican politics. The media loves to play up their influence because it fits with their narrative of Republicans all being closet theocrats. However, the real face of the Republican Party is much more diverse than that. Huckabee’s appeal is strong, but narrow, and ultimately that’s not enough to push him above his second-tier status.

The other issue that unites the Republican Party is the war—and Huckabee doesn’t have the foreign-policy credentials. With the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran growing more and more pressing with each passing day, the GOP is looking for someone who can lead a vigorous American foreign policy and strongly defend national interests. Mike Huckabee isn’t the sort of man who would strike fear into the heart of a madman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Republican voters are looking for a President who can.

I think a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket is entirely likely as a way of balancing out Giuliani’s northeastern squishiness with some good old-fashioned Bible belt conservatism. I do think that Mike Huckabee is a charismatic speaker, a man of deep principles, and a great asset to the Republican Party. At the same time, he’s not Presidential material. A successful candidate has to have broad appeal with fiscal and social conservatives to win the GOP nomination. The GOP is characterized as the party of “God, guns, and gays” but that stereotype has little basis in reality. Huckabee may do well with the people who would attend a summit for self-described “values voters” but religious appeal isn’t the only value that Republicans are interested in seeing.

UPDATE: Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth says that putting Huckabee in the VP slot would be a bad idea. Granted, Huckabee’s fiscal record is pretty poor—but ultimately, the job of the modern VP is to break ties in the Senate and help the top of the ticket broaden their political appeal. In terms of formulating policy, I don’t see the next Vice President doing much—certainly not after the Cheney Vice Presidency. So long as Huckabee isn’t influencing tax policy, he would still settle the nerves of conservatives who are wary of a Giuliani Administration.

Rudy’s Honesty Is The Best Policy

Daniel Henninger takes a look at whether the religious right can support a Giuliani candidacy. Last week, Mayor Giuliani gave a frank but powerful speech to the Values Voters Summit, one in which he was honest in pointing out the differences between himself and many of the attendees to the summit.

In the end, Giuliani did himself a huge service by being honest, refusing to pander, but still pointing out that a Giuliani presidency would lead to real and demonstrable progress on key social issues. A Hillary Clinton administration would lead to a federal policy of abortion on demand. A Rudy Giuliani administration would not. President Hillary Clinton would nominate judges who would find all sorts of new “penumbras” in the Constitution justifying yet more judicial overreach and yet more social experimentation being handed down by the bench. President Rudy Giuliani would appoint jurists to the bench with a greater sense of judicial restraint and more respect for constitutional strictures—judges in the vein of Samuel Alito and John Roberts.

Henninger makes a crucial point about the current tenor of some evangelicals in Republican politics:

In the ’60s, the left introduced the “non-negotiable demand” into our politics. It’s still with us. It’s political infantilism. In real life, the non-negotiable “demand” usually ends about age six.

Evangelical voters are a crucial bloc within the GOP. Yet if a handful of them think that by sitting out the election it will make them anything but pariahs, they’re wrong. American politics is driven by the center, and its the party that best captures the center that wins. Non-negotiable demands by minority groups doesn’t drive a party towards victory, and ultimately the only way you get your agenda passed is by actually winning elections.

However, Henninger also points out that Rudy has to be flexible as well:

Of necessity, Mr. Giuliani has to get voters on the right past this narrowed focus. Adult politics, though, runs in both directions. Rudy has to move toward them, too, and believably.

At the end of the day, I don’t think Rudy will have that big a problem with the evangelical votes. A handful of radicals will stick to their absolutist positions, but not enough to swing the election. (Most of them live in states that are already safely Republican territory as it is.) Most evangelicals will take a rational look at the candidates and see that a return to the Clinton years would be a disaster for the American family and the interests of people of faith. In many ways, Hillary Clinton is far more radical than even her husband was.

Rudy still needs to speak to people of faith in honest and forthright terms. Even among the relatively hostile audience at the Values Voters Summit, Rudy did that. Republican politics tends to be more adult than on the other side, and evangelical voters understand that their interests lie with a President who will not further the causes of abortion on demand, judicial activism, and radical social experimentation. Even if they hold their nose to vote for Rudy, the stakes are simply too high to stomach the likely alternative.

Thompson’s Gets Immigration Right

Fred Thompson has unveiled his immigration policy today, and many conservatives will find it to their liking. The immigration issue is what is sinking the McCain campaign, and by staking a firm position on this issue, it’s clear that Fred Thompson is looking to show his conservative credentials.

The plan rejects an amnesty approach, instead focusing on increased border patrols, a strategy of attrition in removing illegals, and streamlining the process for those who want to come to the country legally.

All in all, it’s the sort of plan one would expect from a candidate who is trying to appeal to the GOP base. What’s different about Thompson’s plan is that it specifically targets the “coyotes”—the smugglers who move illegals (and often drugs) across the border. Taking down the “coyote” system would help to reduce illegal crossings as well as fight crime in general. It’s a smart plan, and I’m quite surprised that other candidates haven’t made a bigger deal of it.

Thompson also supports making English the national language and allowing for preferential treatment for non-citizens joining the armed forces.

Will this kill Thompson’s chances with the Hispanic vote? A smart strategy for Thompson would be to embrace American Hispanics—those hard-working people who migrated here legally and are valuable contributors to the American experience. The common view of Hispanics is that they’re all unassimilated and they’re frequently mixed in with illegals. That increasing numbers of middle-class Hispanics exist and that they’re being pooled in with those who haven’t followed the rules creates an opening for a smart conservative candidate to reach out to those voters. Hispanics are generally socially conservative, they generally have a hard work ethic, and many of them are patriotic Americans. A wise Republican would speak to them without trying to pander and show them why a culture that closely matches theirs benefits them rather than the Democratic culture of dependency that has failed other minority groups in the country. Part of that is making sure that illegals don’t flood the job market and remove the entry-level opportunities that legal immigrants need to get started.

There’s a big difference between speaking to the needs of an ethic group and pandering to them. The first Republican to walk that right balance there could profoundly change the American political scene.

UPDATE: Ed Morrisey likes what he sees, with some caveats. I’m not so sure that attrition is such a bad strategy. For one, getting rid of all illegal immigrants in short order is not going to happen. Mass deportations are not practical, and they’d only inflame tensions. We have to set reasonable priorities, and a strategy of attrition is a reasonable solution to the problem of illegal immigration.

The Election Is Officially Over

Chuck Norris has endorsed Mike Huckabee. I think a Huckabee/Norris ticket would give a roundhouse kick to Clinton’s chances in 2008…

In all seriousness, Huckabee has done very well in this campaign. Not enough to necessarily challenge the front-runners, but well enough that I’d give good money that he’ll be the winner of the VP race. Especially if Giuliani were to be the nominee, he’d need someone who could appeal to a) Southern voters and b) social conservatives. Mike Huckabee is exactly the sort of person who could help him with those important Republican voting blocs.

Huckabee won’t get the nomination this year unless Giuliani, Thompson and Romney all collapse—but that doesn’t mean that he won’t be a rising star in the Republican Party for some time to come.