The Tanking of Rudy

"Five days before his make-or-break primary, all that last year's national front-runner has to show for the love he's given the Sunshine State is a diminished standing." On the Times blog, Timothy Egan comments on the travails of Rudy Giuliani in Florida. An excerpt:

For 50 days, Giuliani has had the Sunshine State nearly to himself. In advance of the presidential primary on Jan. 29, he’s sucked up to the Cuban vote in Miami, pandered in Cape Canaveral about the space program, tried to scare retirees over early-bird specials in South Florida. There he is riding in a fire truck in a Miami parade, trailed by angry firefighters who blame him for multiple failures when New York was attacked. There he is in the Panhandle, the consummate Yankees fan trying to look down-home on the Redneck Riviera. And every night, his campaign phone bank reaches out to the diaspora of 1.5 million transplanted New Yorkers. Start spreading the news – quick!

Yet, the more they see of him here, the more his poll numbers tank. Even with ol’ Fred Thompson shuffling off the stage for a life of longer naps and witless homilies to more appreciative audiences, Rudy’s campaign is in a meltdown.

The Pandering of Huckabee

As the South Carolina primary has emerged as a battle between McCain, Huckabee and (to a lesser extent) Thompson, it's been interesting to see how the candidates are tailoring their messages in the final days. It appears that McCain is courting moderates and the military crowd (both demographics he should easily carry) while Huckabee and Thompson are fighting it out for the Evangelical vote.

In doing so, the religious pandering of Huckabee is reaching new lows. His tactics may pay off short-term but will only hinder his longer-term chances in both the Republican primaries and the general election. In other words, they may be effective with the Christian Conservative base of the Republican Party but they will not be effective with the majority of Americans who have moved beyond such divisiveness. The pandering of Huckabee is nothing new, as noted in an earlier post:

Sadly, to cement his base of support among Iowa Evangelicals and fend off Romney down the home stretch, he has resorted to the politicization of his faith – a disturbing and growing trend in Republican politics. Americans have almost become resigned to these tactics but we also thought Mike Huckabee was different. He was the Baptist Minister with the theology degree who relied on his faith to bring us together, not tear us apart. Now he is the candidate who plays the religion card to exploit the insecurities of those who hold prejudice against others who may or may not be “Christians.”The temptation for Huckabee to employ these tactics was inevitable but we hoped he wouldn’t take the bait. Now that he has, it has cheapened his campaign and it has cheapened the very faith he espouses.

In South Carolina, intolerance plays well with certain demographics and Huckabee has sought to exploit that as much as possible. When questioned by a religious website about how some of his beliefs could be interpreted as "radical", he responded:

"I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again."

Give me a break. It remains truly baffling that certain segments of the population (often those who preach acceptance and love for their fellow man) are so threatened by two loving adults who choose to legalize their partnership through the institution of marriage. Doing so would apparently lead to the crumbling of the foundations of "traditional marriage", demean the "sanctity" of this holy institution (with a 50 percent failure rate - an unspoken topic amongst these guardians of marriage), and ultimately lead to a windfall of benefits and privileges such as (gasp) hospital visitation rights.

Huckabee asserts that allowing two loving and consenting adults to marry could lead to government-sanctioned bestiality. Really? How utterly distasteful and offensive is that? As a serious candidate for President of the United States, he has to realize that there are serious implications to his words. The next time he panders to one crowd while demonizing another, I hope he remembers that. Preying on insecurity and bigotry for a few votes is beneath any politician, and is particularly deplorable for someone who boasts of being a "man of the cloth".

Standing on the center stage of American politics, his audience is much bigger than just those directly within the sound of his voice. Failing to appreciate that reality has led to the downfall of numerous political candidates who have sought to pander first and apologize to those offended later. It simply does not work because the American people can see right through it. In this case, Huckabee may never seek the support of the gay community, but he will undoubtedly need the support of their family members, their friends, their loved ones, and the countless Americans who find intolerance and prejudice offensive.

Nevertheless, the path Mike Huckabee has chosen is clear and he is charging full steam ahead - head down and straight back toward irrelevance.

Thompson Comes Out Swinging

As Slate reports, the most noteworthy aspect of last night's debate was that Fred Thompson finally came out swinging.

No one got teary-eyed at the Republican debate in South Carolina Thursday night, but Fred Thompson did try to make Mike Huckabee cry. Early in the 90-minute event, Thompson laid out a bill of complaints about Huckabee's heresies on tax cuts, immigration, and foreign policy. He went after him several more times during the night accusing Huckabee of political expediency and cluelessness about the Pakistani military. The governor didn't represent "the model of the Reagan coalition," said Thompson, but the "model of the Democratic Party." That crack may seem a little weak on the page, but given that Thompson normally proceeds like cold syrup, his consistently aggressive posture was as striking as if he'd broken out into jumping jacks.

In the Republican primary, the battle lines are clearly being drawn. With Romney focused on Michigan and Giuliani focused on Florida, Huckabee, McCain and Thompson are left to fight it out in South Carolina. The bad news for Huckabee is that Thompson and McCain are former colleagues and old friends. And as the futility of the Thompson campaign becomes more apparent, he'll undoubtedly throw his support to McCain in an attempt to bolster his old friend's credibility with the conservative establishment. Last night was a good indication that it may already be happening.

The Caucus Breakdown

Chuck Todd provides a thoughtful breakdown of the potential outcomes of the Iowa Caucuses and what they would mean to the various candidates.

In summary, John Edwards has to win because he has invested so much time and effort in the state over the last few years. A loss would be devastating. Because of the resources at their disposal, both Clinton and Obama need to win but could stomach a loss. Meanwhile, Richardson, Biden and Dodd are fighting for 4th place. Finshing behind the Big 3 would be considered a victory while anything less would make their campaigns more irrelevant and most likely knock them out of the race.

A win for Huckabee would obviously be huge but, considering the amount of time and money spent by Romney in Iowa, he could also declare victory with a strong 2nd place finish. A win by Romney gives him momentum going into New Hampshire while a 2nd place finish would shift that momentum over to a surging McCain (who will be rooting hard for Huckabee) in New Hampshire and South Carolina. A respectable showing by McCain ("north of 15%") would be considered a victory for a candidate who hasn't put much effort into the state. And the only thing keeping Thompson in the race would be a top 3 finish and if that doesn't happen, he will likely throw his support to McCain.

It's still muddled but I can see some possible trends developing. The significant outcome of the Democratic Caucus will be the fate of Edwards and to whom the third tier candidates will shift their support. My guess is an Obama victory in Iowa, followed closely by Edwards and Clinton in a near statistical tie. Biden comes in a strong 4th followed by Richardson and then Dodd.

On the Republican side, it seems more clear. Huckabee wins in Iowa, followed by Romney then McCain (at around 17%), Thompson, Paul then Giuliani. Thompson then drops out and endorses McCain, who then crusises to a victory over a staggered Romney in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney has to bow out and Giuliani's irrelevance in the early states prevents him from competing with a surging McCain. McCain then outlasts Huckabee, who has a more difficult time winning with less resources and in states with smaller Evangelical populations. Soon after, Huckabee bows out and is picked as a running mate by McCain who attempts to shore up support from the Republican base.

Is that Alan Keyes? Oh Dear...

Earlier this week, the American public (well, those who were watching Iowa public television in the middle of the afternoon) were all subject to what Charles Krauthammer dubbed, "the worst debate in western history, and that includes the ancient Greeks." The aftermath of the Des Moines Register-sponsored Republican presidential debate consisted mostly of head-scratching and shell-shocked pundits asking each other “what the hell just happened?”

It certainly wasn’t because of the political fireworks generated, or any raised level of discourse. It was more because of the awkwardness of it all….and because of the strange reappearance of Alan Keyes, someone we all thought (and desperately hoped) was out of our lives forever.

To me, the low and high point of the debate occured when the moderator asked for a show of hands from those who believe global climate change is a serious threat. Fred Thompson-led pandemonium quickly broke out as each candidate sheepishly tried to distance themselves from such an absurd contention. Well, all of the candidates except one. And it just happened to be the one candidate who couldn’t raise either of his hands because five years of torture in a Hanoi prison camp prevent him from even being able to comb his own hair. The statement that followed from John McCain was as articulate as it was principled, especially given the mood in that room. It was just another one of those McCain moments when so clearly transcends everything around him and wins us over.

Otherwise, yes, the moderator did look like a strange morphing of Senator Amy Klobuchar and that mean lady from the Weakest Link. And yes, the only thing reassuring about the reappearance of Keyes was that he's still as crazy as we remember. This time around, he may have failed to announce an endorsement from Jesus Christ or that all homosexuals were selfish hedonists, but he did give us a couple more special moments.

Chris Cillizza provides a good breakdown of the debate winners and losers.