Mark Shields has a good op-ed piece which expresses what I was trying to say in a previous post about senators making poor presidential candidates, and Brownback being exhibit A. He eloquently sums up the point by saying "Senators make speeches. Governors make decisions." Here's some more:
Why are voters willing to trust the presidency to governors and not to senators? For one thing, governors (and mayors, as well) actually do something. They are accountable. Accountable for collecting taxes and for spending public money, for determining through whose property a new highway will go or whether it — or a new hospital or a new campus — will be built.
Voters seem to understand that senators are only one of 100, with totally shared responsibility and limited accountability except for their own individual voting records. A senator is free to fly to San Francisco for a speech to the World Affairs Council, and on to Aspen for a seminar on global warming, before returning to Washington in time to do a Sunday network talk show.
In contrast, most governors live with a statehouse press corps that insists on knowing where the governor is and what he, or she, is doing and with whom. If the governor does leave the state, there better be a plausible, public legitimacy for the trip.
Showing posts with label Brownback. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brownback. Show all posts
10/22/07
Republican field
I watched Sam Brownback's press conference explaining why he dropped out, and he summed it up in 4 words "We're out of money." He chalked this up to finishing third in the Iowa straw poll making it difficult to raise funds, and if he had gotten second he could have gotten the bounce that he needed.
The NY Times review of the Republican debate last night didn't mention the Huckster, but the radio commentary I heard played a long sound bite and mentioned the values-vote success. It's been a good weekend news cycle for him.
The NY Times review of the Republican debate last night didn't mention the Huckster, but the radio commentary I heard played a long sound bite and mentioned the values-vote success. It's been a good weekend news cycle for him.
10/18/07
Brownback out
Sam Brownback is dropping out of the Presidential race. I'm guessing that he'll endorse the Huckster.
His candidacy never caught on because he lacked executive leadership potential. It's another example of the differences between legislators and senators. Legislators have to make compromises. They delve into the details of policy and make long-winded speeches explaining it. They are forced to take positions on hard issues day after day. They cannot possibly understand every issue they vote on. They have to support things they do not especially like in order to get something that they really want. They are part of an institution that is fragmented and heavily criticized even by its own members. One former legislator in a South African provincial parliament related to me an instance where he was told he had to meet with a group of farmers on farm policy in ninety minutes, when he didn't know anything about it. It was not a fun thing to do.
Executive leadership involves the opposite of this in that it emphasizes personality and high politics more than issues and details. Senators have a very difficult time getting elected President--JFK was the last one to go from the Senate to the White House. The other JFK, in 2004, showed limitations on the campaign trail that directly flowed from his being a senator, the most famous of which was defending his Iraq-funding vote.
Next year we could easily see a sitting Senator elected President. Hillary is possibly able to do it in part because she had the strategy of running for President from the get go. Still, she voted for the Iraq war, and nothing has hounded her like that.
Brownback made a poor candidate, and exemplifies the trouble that legislators have in running for executive office. He was the first on the floor of the Senate to praise and vote for immigration reform, but then when it became clear that it did not have support, he slunk into the Senate at the end and changed his vote. Hence the main pitfall of legislative life--you are forced to take public positions when you lack complete information. An executive, on the other hand, has to be the master of calculated ambiguity. "Je vous ai compris"--de Gaulle's phrase is the model.
His candidacy never caught on because he lacked executive leadership potential. It's another example of the differences between legislators and senators. Legislators have to make compromises. They delve into the details of policy and make long-winded speeches explaining it. They are forced to take positions on hard issues day after day. They cannot possibly understand every issue they vote on. They have to support things they do not especially like in order to get something that they really want. They are part of an institution that is fragmented and heavily criticized even by its own members. One former legislator in a South African provincial parliament related to me an instance where he was told he had to meet with a group of farmers on farm policy in ninety minutes, when he didn't know anything about it. It was not a fun thing to do.
Executive leadership involves the opposite of this in that it emphasizes personality and high politics more than issues and details. Senators have a very difficult time getting elected President--JFK was the last one to go from the Senate to the White House. The other JFK, in 2004, showed limitations on the campaign trail that directly flowed from his being a senator, the most famous of which was defending his Iraq-funding vote.
Next year we could easily see a sitting Senator elected President. Hillary is possibly able to do it in part because she had the strategy of running for President from the get go. Still, she voted for the Iraq war, and nothing has hounded her like that.
Brownback made a poor candidate, and exemplifies the trouble that legislators have in running for executive office. He was the first on the floor of the Senate to praise and vote for immigration reform, but then when it became clear that it did not have support, he slunk into the Senate at the end and changed his vote. Hence the main pitfall of legislative life--you are forced to take public positions when you lack complete information. An executive, on the other hand, has to be the master of calculated ambiguity. "Je vous ai compris"--de Gaulle's phrase is the model.
9/28/07
Republican debate reflections
The PBS Republican debate moderated by Tavis Smiley at Morgan State University failed to include four of the top five candidates, namely Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain. A "slap in the face" to the black community, to be sure, but there's not an incentive to talk about the issues of that community when they are not a powerful constituency in Republican primary elections.
There's a great account of the debate here, and I agree with the comments offered, notably the assessment Huckabee was given a good grade but "lacks the gravitas to be president."
It was interesting that Ron Paul got loud ovations, when he didn't pander like the other candidates (Huckabee, Brownback).
Mark Shields and David Brooks on PBS tonight agreed that it is a stain on the Republican party. That's true in particular because four of the top candidates weren't there. But would it have been true if only one hadn't? Or two? The decisions by candidates of both parties to skip other debates (such as the values debate or the health care debate) was not considered a slap in the face of anyone. What we have here is a case of the tragedy of the commons. The stain is on the Republican image, not any single candidate, as Brooks and Shields agreed. What incentive does an individual candidate have to bolster the brand image of the party? They're running hard for themselves, their individual campaigns. They are all going to be judged by the money they raise, and that is their consuming obsession. The media is obsessed with getting a story and the tarnished image of the party was the story, but the candidates have other priorities.
There's a great account of the debate here, and I agree with the comments offered, notably the assessment Huckabee was given a good grade but "lacks the gravitas to be president."
It was interesting that Ron Paul got loud ovations, when he didn't pander like the other candidates (Huckabee, Brownback).
Mark Shields and David Brooks on PBS tonight agreed that it is a stain on the Republican party. That's true in particular because four of the top candidates weren't there. But would it have been true if only one hadn't? Or two? The decisions by candidates of both parties to skip other debates (such as the values debate or the health care debate) was not considered a slap in the face of anyone. What we have here is a case of the tragedy of the commons. The stain is on the Republican image, not any single candidate, as Brooks and Shields agreed. What incentive does an individual candidate have to bolster the brand image of the party? They're running hard for themselves, their individual campaigns. They are all going to be judged by the money they raise, and that is their consuming obsession. The media is obsessed with getting a story and the tarnished image of the party was the story, but the candidates have other priorities.
9/9/07
Huckabee a contender?
A piece from Campaigns & Elections magazine asks the question whether the Huckster's good couple weeks could translate into primary votes. Here's a quote from the article by Dean Spiliotes, a New Hampshire political analyst:
"It's not really translating into anything. ... Nationally, he seems to be in this kind of purgatory between to two tiers," said Spiliotes. What Huckabee has done, he added, is eliminate Brownback as a competitor for the social conservative vote. "I think, for now, Huckabee is clearly ahead of Brownback. ... I just think Brownback has had trouble being pigeonholed as just this conservative candidate in New Hampshire."
This is absolutely right. Brownback has been called upon by National Review to drop out of the race and support Huckabee. It's only a matter of time before Brownback does drop out and his support moves to Huckabee, endorsement or no. And when Thompson starts his decline (it's perhaps already started) Huckabee will gain those votes too.
The Huckster's weak spot is that he's too Pollyanna-ish. I heard this complaint from a friend who watched the debate. The same person also labeled Romney as the fake candidate. Both of these assessments are right on, in my opinion.
"It's not really translating into anything. ... Nationally, he seems to be in this kind of purgatory between to two tiers," said Spiliotes. What Huckabee has done, he added, is eliminate Brownback as a competitor for the social conservative vote. "I think, for now, Huckabee is clearly ahead of Brownback. ... I just think Brownback has had trouble being pigeonholed as just this conservative candidate in New Hampshire."
This is absolutely right. Brownback has been called upon by National Review to drop out of the race and support Huckabee. It's only a matter of time before Brownback does drop out and his support moves to Huckabee, endorsement or no. And when Thompson starts his decline (it's perhaps already started) Huckabee will gain those votes too.
The Huckster's weak spot is that he's too Pollyanna-ish. I heard this complaint from a friend who watched the debate. The same person also labeled Romney as the fake candidate. Both of these assessments are right on, in my opinion.
9/5/07
Republican debate third-segment reflections
A hypothetical question about Iran become bellicose. Giuliani has a solid answer--this is his strong suit, a muscular foreign posture. Romney looks too smooth here perhaps. The Huckster's answer is revealing. As with any candidate, his strength is also his weakness. His appeal to character and heart pushes patented Huckabee positive-think generalities. This becomes a weakness, however, if the question is asked by Republican primary voters, "Do you know enough to be president?" Or put another way, "Can you stand up to Hillary in a debate." Is Huckabee a general-election winner, does he have the substance and knowledge of the nitty-gritty to at least seem presidential? This is the strong point of Giuliani and McCain, but the Huckster's weakness. It was also Candidate W. Bush's weakness. But Bush could project a toughness that Huckabee lacks.
Bob Cusack of The Hill said Romney was on the defensive all night, and that's clear. Both he and David Drucker picked Giuliani to win this debate and that's probably right too.
Bob Cusack of The Hill said Romney was on the defensive all night, and that's clear. Both he and David Drucker picked Giuliani to win this debate and that's probably right too.
Republican debate second-segment reflections
McCain has a strong answer on foreign policy leadership, but gets somewhat tepid applause. Giuliani praises McCain--the surest sign that McCain's so dead he poses no threat to the very candidate whose support he would take away if he started to rise in the polls. During the Iraq debate, the Huckster also praises McCain--says he "understands honor." More praise showing how little anybody feels McCain is a threat.
The colloquy of the debate so far is Ron Paul and the Huckster. both get huge, boisterous responses from the crowd. The Huckster is able to face down Paul purely with rhetoric ("We have to be one America." "Honor is more important than the Republican party.") It's all general with the Huckster. Not a bad strategy at all--once you go to specifics his trademark optimism has to go down the drain.
Duncan Hunter has a strong answer on Guantanamo, gets a little applause. Brownback uses the word "complementarity" to describe the Pres-Veep relationship.
Americans for Tax Reform's pledge not to raise taxes was not signed by McCain and Giuliani. A nifty tactic to make them look presidential--they're above puny pledges; they have records that "speak for themselves." A harsh question on this topic to Romney again by Chris Wallace. He handles it well and gets some applause-lines in, including a dig at Edward's haircut. Fair tax question to the Huckster. It sounds great in 30 seconds. That's the advantage of only having 30 seconds--there should have been a follow-up on that one.
Amazing non sequitur from Giuliani answering a question about his private life, but he connects the dots at the end: "My private life does not affect my public life." Good answer in the sense of turning the issue to his record. But this is such a liability with Republican voters, and Giuliani's query, "I assume this question is for me," shows how little he wanted to answer it.
The colloquy of the debate so far is Ron Paul and the Huckster. both get huge, boisterous responses from the crowd. The Huckster is able to face down Paul purely with rhetoric ("We have to be one America." "Honor is more important than the Republican party.") It's all general with the Huckster. Not a bad strategy at all--once you go to specifics his trademark optimism has to go down the drain.
Duncan Hunter has a strong answer on Guantanamo, gets a little applause. Brownback uses the word "complementarity" to describe the Pres-Veep relationship.
Americans for Tax Reform's pledge not to raise taxes was not signed by McCain and Giuliani. A nifty tactic to make them look presidential--they're above puny pledges; they have records that "speak for themselves." A harsh question on this topic to Romney again by Chris Wallace. He handles it well and gets some applause-lines in, including a dig at Edward's haircut. Fair tax question to the Huckster. It sounds great in 30 seconds. That's the advantage of only having 30 seconds--there should have been a follow-up on that one.
Amazing non sequitur from Giuliani answering a question about his private life, but he connects the dots at the end: "My private life does not affect my public life." Good answer in the sense of turning the issue to his record. But this is such a liability with Republican voters, and Giuliani's query, "I assume this question is for me," shows how little he wanted to answer it.
Republican debate's first segment reflections
Huckabee had a good joke about Thompson. McCain's joke gets a laugh as well, as does Giuliani's. McCain then ruined it by telling a "joke" that no one laughed at and that he had to tell the crowd was funny. Huckabee had the advantage of going first, but he also has great delivery about "no-show Thompson." Giuliani's joke is perhaps more memorable--Thompson did a good job of playing my job on TV. That's a more memorable line than the Huckster's, though less well-delivered.
Immigration is the first substantive topic. Romney gives a very smooth answer to a very tough question. Hunter gives a smooth response as well. The Huckster continues the strategy of his whole campaign of a kind of David Cameron conservatism--conservative policies combined with sunny, relentlessly positive rhetoric. Tancredo's impassioned response hurts Giuliani and McCain, but the contrast with Huckabee plays into the hands of the Huckster.
Hunter has an applause-line on scandals and the Democrats. He looks comfortable and presidential. Giuliani has a solid response to a gun-control question. It's right down his alley. Ron Paul gets applause for his first substantive answer, a libertarian proposal to get the government out of airport security. Brownback gets to answer two questions on family values, right down his alley.
Immigration is the first substantive topic. Romney gives a very smooth answer to a very tough question. Hunter gives a smooth response as well. The Huckster continues the strategy of his whole campaign of a kind of David Cameron conservatism--conservative policies combined with sunny, relentlessly positive rhetoric. Tancredo's impassioned response hurts Giuliani and McCain, but the contrast with Huckabee plays into the hands of the Huckster.
Hunter has an applause-line on scandals and the Democrats. He looks comfortable and presidential. Giuliani has a solid response to a gun-control question. It's right down his alley. Ron Paul gets applause for his first substantive answer, a libertarian proposal to get the government out of airport security. Brownback gets to answer two questions on family values, right down his alley.
8/13/07
Huckabee the real winner of the Iowa straw poll
Here's the roundup:
Attendance: 30,000-33,000
Total Voters: 14,302
Romney 4,516 votes (31.5%)
Huckabee 2,587 votes (18.1%)
Brownback 2,192 votes (15.3%)
Tancredo 1,961 votes (13.7%)
Paul 1,305 (9.1%)
T. Thompson 1,039 (7.3%)
F. Thompson 203 (1.4%)
Giuliani 183 (1.2%)
Hunter 174 votes (1.2%)
McCain 101 votes (0.7%)
Cox 41 votes (0.2%)
The poor showing by Tommy Thompson resulted in him dropping out of the race.
CNS News reports on Huckabee's "likeableness." Newt Gingrich had this quote: "Mike Huckabee is not a second tier candidate. He deserves, by anyone’s qualifications, to be considered a first tier." He spent less than $200,000 on the event. Romney by contrast spent over $1 million.
Ron Paul beat expectations. Apparently he had a very visible presence, even beyond his voting numbers, as a lot of his supporters came in from out of state and could not vote.
In 1999, there were 23,685 voters. The drop-off shows the waning of enthusiasm in the Republican ranks that has been prevalent in fund-raising numbers (with Republicans behind Democrats by $100 Million so far). It is also due to McCain and Giuliani passing on the event, and Fred Thompson as having yet to enter the race, as the Des Moines Register points out.
Historically, the straw poll is not so far off in predicting the winner. Bush 43 won it in 1999, Dole tied with Phil Gramm in 1995, and Bush 41 came in third in 1987 to Dole and Pat Robertson.
Attendance: 30,000-33,000
Total Voters: 14,302
Romney 4,516 votes (31.5%)
Huckabee 2,587 votes (18.1%)
Brownback 2,192 votes (15.3%)
Tancredo 1,961 votes (13.7%)
Paul 1,305 (9.1%)
T. Thompson 1,039 (7.3%)
F. Thompson 203 (1.4%)
Giuliani 183 (1.2%)
Hunter 174 votes (1.2%)
McCain 101 votes (0.7%)
Cox 41 votes (0.2%)
The poor showing by Tommy Thompson resulted in him dropping out of the race.
CNS News reports on Huckabee's "likeableness." Newt Gingrich had this quote: "Mike Huckabee is not a second tier candidate. He deserves, by anyone’s qualifications, to be considered a first tier." He spent less than $200,000 on the event. Romney by contrast spent over $1 million.
Ron Paul beat expectations. Apparently he had a very visible presence, even beyond his voting numbers, as a lot of his supporters came in from out of state and could not vote.
In 1999, there were 23,685 voters. The drop-off shows the waning of enthusiasm in the Republican ranks that has been prevalent in fund-raising numbers (with Republicans behind Democrats by $100 Million so far). It is also due to McCain and Giuliani passing on the event, and Fred Thompson as having yet to enter the race, as the Des Moines Register points out.
Historically, the straw poll is not so far off in predicting the winner. Bush 43 won it in 1999, Dole tied with Phil Gramm in 1995, and Bush 41 came in third in 1987 to Dole and Pat Robertson.
7/16/07
Iran and the General Election
Iran is an issue that might well come to the forefront in the general election...
In discussions with a friend recently we mused about the possibility of a US strike on Iran at the end of George W. Bush's term as president. It seems likely that this is being pushed by the Vice President's office right now, and the question is whether President Bush will decide to take action before his term expires. An invasion seems out of the question, with the strain Iraq is already putting on the armed forces. But air strikes are another matter. The temptation to escalate the conflict we are engaged in in the Middle East could be very great. The rally-around-the-flag effect would still be in operation, even with war fatigue. Americans still prefer their own country and its leadership to another country halfway around the world. Escalating would almost force those against the war to back the president and the military against their will. For a president with nothing to loose, and who really seems to believe in the necessity of "winning" in Iraq, the attraction to a very rash course of action is understandable.
The candidates should be planning for this now. As far as the Republicans go, their nominee would certainly support this action. Giuliani has pledged not to let Iran go nuclear, as has McCain. Fred Thompson, Brownback and Romney have taken a muscular posture. Joe Biden has criticized the latter for it, and as for the rest of the Democrats, they would face a tougher tightrope. Many liberals in their base would be appalled. Hillary and Richardson have said that they want more talks. But I'm not convinced that they wouldn't support the troops when the bombs start falling.
In discussions with a friend recently we mused about the possibility of a US strike on Iran at the end of George W. Bush's term as president. It seems likely that this is being pushed by the Vice President's office right now, and the question is whether President Bush will decide to take action before his term expires. An invasion seems out of the question, with the strain Iraq is already putting on the armed forces. But air strikes are another matter. The temptation to escalate the conflict we are engaged in in the Middle East could be very great. The rally-around-the-flag effect would still be in operation, even with war fatigue. Americans still prefer their own country and its leadership to another country halfway around the world. Escalating would almost force those against the war to back the president and the military against their will. For a president with nothing to loose, and who really seems to believe in the necessity of "winning" in Iraq, the attraction to a very rash course of action is understandable.
The candidates should be planning for this now. As far as the Republicans go, their nominee would certainly support this action. Giuliani has pledged not to let Iran go nuclear, as has McCain. Fred Thompson, Brownback and Romney have taken a muscular posture. Joe Biden has criticized the latter for it, and as for the rest of the Democrats, they would face a tougher tightrope. Many liberals in their base would be appalled. Hillary and Richardson have said that they want more talks. But I'm not convinced that they wouldn't support the troops when the bombs start falling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
