Britain and America

McCain tries to woo former Romneyites

Samuel Coates, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, reviews John McCain's speech following Mitt Romney's decision to stand aside.

John McCain was understandably in a good mood when he strode (at such a pace that I could only get a blurred photo!) through the entrance to the Omni Shoreham hotel this afternoon. His nomination as the Republican Presidential candidate is now assured.

His speech largely consisted of lots of references to the fact that some in the hall would have disagreed with him on things in the past, and of spelling out his "mainstream conservative record". Highlights:

• Booed when apologising for his conspicuous absence at last year's CPAC, then self-deprecatingly joked about being too busy successfully trying to rid himself of early frontrunner status.
• He paid a brief tribute to Governor Romney, although there was some laughing when he said he'd welcome him on board his campaign. Also congratulated the "great and fine man" Mike Huckabee for the success of his continuing campaign.
• Spoke of the responsiblity to unite the party, that he was acutely aware that he couldn't win without the support of the footsoldiers and that in future disagreements he would seek the counsel of fellow conservatives.
• Paid respect to the principled opposition to the stances he has taken on some issues and thanked the audience for the opportunity to make his case: "I wouldn't pretend otherwise, and you wouldn't let me forget."
• Quoted Edmund Burke: "Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe". He quoted Burke again towards the end when talking about his "deep, unwavering love of liberty" resulting in part from his time in captivity: "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts".
• In his mandatory CPAC reference to Ronald Reagan, McCain spoke of going to CPAC for the first time on the invitation of Reagan, and how he and his Shining City on a Hill speech in particular formed his early views as a young Naval officer: "I'm as proud today of that association as I was then."
• He made a few references to the divine, and also to his pro-life beliefs: "liberty is a right conferred by the creator not governments", "I believe the pursuit of happiness is God-given to all who are born... and unborn."
• Good cheer for his passage on "the long overdue counter-insurgency that spared the tragedy of losing the war". Said that no other candidate appreciated how awful war was, but that he would not let America suffer the greater losses that would result from failure and that he believed "staying on the offence" would "keep this country safe, proud, prosperous and free."
  
• A fifteen second grinning pause was required after uttering the phrase: "illegal immigration", although his emphasis on "securing our borders first" won strong applause.
• Promised a "challenging, spirited contest" in which "standing by conservative convictions" would appeal to independents and Reagan Democrats.
• Promised to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, to cut corporation tax from 35% to 25%, and to "not let the Democrat-controlled Congress to increase taxes and choke economic growth".
  

Do American political trends cross the Atlantic?

Fraser Nelson, writing for today's News of the World (not online), thinks the answer to the above question is 'yes'...

'Yes' in terms of policy ideas: "If you want to predict Britain’s political future, don’t look for a crystal ball. Just look at America. Tax credits, Sure Start nurseries, tough-love welfare reform – all ideas shamelessly nicked from the US."

'Yes' in terms of candidates: "Our great countries are cut from the same cloth, with the same hungers.  We both saw off threats Germany succumbed to. Like fascism and David Hasslehoff’s music career.  We both elected radical right-wingers in the 1980s - Thatcher and Reagan. Their resolve ended the Cold War.  And Tony Blair’s New Labour was little more than a political tribute band to Bill Clinton’s “New Democrats.”

Fraser Nelson suspects that there is bad news for Gordon Brown in Barack Obama's triumph over Hillary Clinton: Voters are rejecting Clinton's message of experience and preferring Obama's message of hope and change.

David Cameron will certainly hope that Fraser is right.

All you need to know: Morning of 4th January 2008

A big win for Barack Obama in the Democrat race:

• Barack Obama 37.6%, John Edwards 29.8%, Hillary Clinton 29.5%

A very comfortable win for Mike Huckabee in the GOP race:

• Mike Huckabee 34%, Mitt Romney 25%, Fred Thompson 13.4%, John McCain 13.2%, Paul 10%
• Rudy Giuliani (3%) effectively skipped the Iowa caucus

[For the uninitiated, the Iowa caucuses are just stage one in the presidential nomination process.  The victors of Iowa hope to receive momentum - in terms of fundraising and publicity - for the battles ahead but nothing is in the bag yet].

OUR CANDIDATE-BY-CANDIDATE GUIDE TO WHAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT...

First the Democrats...

Hillary Clinton: A short time ago her candidacy was, the pundits thought, inevitable.  No longer.  She even lost amongst Iowa's women.  She still has enormous resources at her disposal but the momentum is now with Barack Obama.

Peggy Noonan: "She had the money, she had the organization, the party's stars, she had Elvis behind her, and the Clinton name in a base that loved Bill. And she lost."

Mark Steyn gets it right: "We shouldn't take away from the Senator [Obama]'s achievement tonight. He's made history. And the problem for Hillary is that, for those Democrats who want to cast a history-making vote, he's a much more appealing figure than she is."

Graphic from RedState.

John Edwards: "He needed to win here and he was a distant second. He won't quit immediately but he faces almost impossible odds.  The next big question for him is when to pull out and to whom he should throw his valuable support." - Gerry Baker

Barack Obama: If you want to know why Obama won simply watch his victory speech.  His optimistic, let's-bring-the-nation-together message is potent (warning... it's fourteen minutes long):

"Obama is now not only the favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination, he's the candidate in either party with the best chance of becoming the next president."  Who said that?  Andrew Sullivan or some other Obama cheerleader?  No.  The Bush-supporter Fred Barnes at The Weekly Standard.  John O'Sullivan also says Obama must now be favourite.

There are also signs the Democrats are much more energised than the Republicans.  Two-thirds of the people who voted in Iowa voted for Democrat candidates.

Senators Dodd and Biden have quit the race and there will now be a scramble for their endorsement.  It can't be long before Bill Richardson calls it a day too.

AND THE REPUBLICANS...

John McCain: If you want to know if McCain is pleased at this result just look at the photograph on the right (hat tip to the Green Mountain blog).  McCain is on the phone to Mike Huckabee congratulating him on his victory in New Hampshire (corrected... Iowa!).  Romney is McCain's principal rival for the votes of New Hampshire and Romney now goes into New Hampshire a lesser figure.  McCain's latest (six day) tour of NH is reviewed here.

Mitt Romney: A big loser. If he'd won tonight (and he spent $10m of his huge personal fortune trying to do so) he would have had momentum for New Hampshire.  According to the American Spectator he spent $322.58 for every one of his projected 31,000 votes; Mike Huckabee spent $47.44 per vote for a projected 42,160 votes.  Here's why many don't like Romney:

"Mitt Romney represents everything Americans hate about politicians: the empty man hungry for power and willing to say anything to get it, the privileged man who thinks he can buy an election without actually standing for anything."

James Forsyth: "It is very hard to see how Romney now holds off a surging McCain in New Hampshire and if he loses both early states it is all over for Romney."

Rudy Giuliani: He didn't contest Iowa which many have always thought a big mistake.  He'll be glad that Romney has no momentum.  He'll hope that McCain doesn't win big in New Hampshire.

Mike Huckabee: He's still unlikely to win the Republican nomination but he's now the most important Christian conservative politician in America and may well be McCain's running mate.  He's also very likeable.  Explaining his decision to go on Leno rather than stay in Iowa he said: "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off."  And that's Mike Huckabee (and Romney is the guy that laid them off).

Watch Huckabee on Leno here.

Ron Paul: No big breakthrough for the libertarian, anti-war Republican.

Fred Thompson: He came third (just). He'll stay in the race for now.

Yesterday's All You Need To Know.

Dan Hamilton predicts victory for Huckabee or Romney in Iowa but cannot predict the outcome of the Democrats' contest

With less than a week to go until the crucial Iowa caucuses, Dan Hamilton, a Runnymede Borough Councillor,  previews the race.  His views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of BritainAndAmerica.

REPUBLICANS

For most of 2007, it appeared as if Mitt Romney was a shoo-in for victory in the Iowa caucuses.  Following an impressive victory at the influential Ames Strawpoll in the summer, many political commentators openly speculated that it may be wise for his opponents to “roll over” and concentrate their fire upon later primary states, such was the “inevitability” of an Iowa Romney victory.  With less than a week left until primary day, this is no longer the case, chiefly as a result of a late surge in support for former Arkansas Governor and Baptist Pastor Mike Huckabee.   

Huckabee’s rapid rise in the opinion polls in the six weeks leading up to polling day - he was polling an average of 9% on October 3rd, as compared to 35% on December 4th – could well, perversely, be his undoing. Despite the likelihood of Huckabee polling a greater number of votes than he or his supporters would have dreamed possible only three months ago, his recent lead in the opinion polls has led to a capabilities/ expectations gap that may well have the ability to derail his candidacy.  He simply does not possess the vast resources – human or financial – of his leading opponents, particularly Mitt Romney and must rely greatly upon the power of his message and appeal to religious voters.   

Almost as soon as he was sworn in as Governor of Massachusetts in early 2003, Mitt Romney began his campaign for the 2008 Republican nomination for President.  Long before he officially announced his intention to seek the nomination, Romney’s team had already established a strong network of ‘precinct captains’ across the state, not to mention his almost weekly appearances in the state.  In terms of the ‘money race’, at the end of the third quarter fundraising period, Romney had $9,216,517 cash on hand as compared to Huckabee’s $651,301.   

Undoubtedly, the people of Iowa know far more about Romney than they do about Mike Huckabee.  This may well be part of Romney’s problem.  You see, whilst the Mitt Romney seeking the 2008 Republican nomination has painted himself as a staunch social conservative in favour of slashing government spending, he is only a recent convert to these causes.  To offer but two examples; during his 2002 campaign for Governor of Massachusetts he described abortion rights as “non negotiable” and during his 1994 race for US Senate against Teddy Kennedy, the standard-bearer of America’s far-left, he loftily declared his opposition to the ‘Contract with America’ stating that he was an “independent voter during the time of Reagan… and didn’t want a return to Reagan/Bush”.  His opponents, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson in particular, have been relentless in highlighting his past record.  

Should I be voting for Brownback?

I'm not sure about the value of these online questionnaires that attempt to guide voting choices but I've just completed this survey and I learn that my views are most compatible with Sam Brownback and least compatible with Hillary Clinton.  I'd actually much prefer a President Clinton than a President Obama.  My instinct is that she's more hawkish in these troubled times.  What the survey does not capture is any view of character or winnability.  Like most UK conservatives I'm currently backing Giuliani but I'd like to see a social conservative like Senator Brownback as his running mate.

• Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) 86.67% match
• California Representative Duncan Hunter (R) - 73.33%
• Businessman John Cox (R) - 72.22%
• Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 68.89%
• Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) - 64.44%
• Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 64.44%
• Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (R) - 57.78%
• Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 46.67%
• Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) - 33.33%
• Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 33.33%
• New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) - 33.33%
• Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) - 28.89
• Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D) - 28.89%
• Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) - 27.78%
• New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 24.44%

The ‘Big-Mo’ is with Mitt Romney!

Tim Aker, Grassroots Co-ordinator for the British TaxPayers' Alliance, believes Romney is the man with the momentum.

If you throw enough money at something, will the problem go away?  It will if you’re Willard Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts and someone who is, clearly, the front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination.  The momentum is with Mitt Romney – and it could carry him through the primaries to the White House.

Look how far he’s come.  Romney’s campaign flagged at the outset.  His polling was risible – matched by his poor national standing.  Videos flooded YouTube with Romney’s sound-bites supporting abortion and extending gay rights.  Soon the self-appointed champion of social conservatism faced the ire of leading social conservatives horrified that he tried to out-liberal Ted Kennedy in his 1994 Senate race.  Pundits immediately coined the phrase ‘Mitt-flop’ and conservative pressure groups set out to demonize him as a liberal, a RINO (Republican in name only).

Yet after three debates, millions of dollars spent and a flood of polls, Romney is climbing.  Not only that, he has soared in the early primary states.  Recent polling in Iowa, New Hampshire, Utah and Michigan has Romney leading by 10% on average.  While his national polling may only hover above 10%, leading in the early primary states sets him up for surviving well into Super Tuesday.  Remember, most commentators say there are three tickets out of Iowa and only two out of New Hampshire.  Romney leads impressively in both.

So how has this turn around in fortunes come about?

Mayor Mike shakes up 2008 speculation

Samuel Coates writes:

"Mike" Bloomberg's announcement on Tuesday that he was ending his brief membership of the Republican Party has fuelled speculation that he will run as an independent in 2008.

He has reportedly earmarked $500m for the campaign, a fifth of his estimated wealth, greatly increasing the likelihood of the election campaigns spending over $1bn between them.

London's Daily Telegraph revealed in May that his special adviser Kevin Sheekey (who keeps insisting that Bloomberg isn't running) had three meetings with the New York Chairman of the Independence Party. Bloomberg's website was recently revamped as well, complete with Mike Updates and a red, white and blue colour scheme.

New York's 108th Mayor takes pride in his non-partisan approach, a badge that could appeal to a lot of Americans who are tired of polarised politics. Having previously been an independent and a Democrat he's now seen as a centrist in that he is fiscally conservative but socially liberal. As James Forsyth points out, a big worry for Democrats would be his pull in California and, of course, New York.

Of particular interest to this site would be his position on various foreign policy issues that he has been quite quiet about.

Comparisons are being drawn with when businessman and independent candidate Ross Perot secured Clinton's victory by getting 19% of the vote in 1992. Could Bloomberg save the Republicans in the same way? Or would it be better for him to keep his money for what aides say will really be his next career, a full-time philanthropist?

Charles Groome reviews the New Hampshire debates

I had a serious US Presidential Elections '08 research binge and watched both party debates on CNN so as to develop a firmer view of what each candidate, Democrat and Republican, has in mind for their country.

Given the unpopularity of Bush I would have thought it'd be the Republicans who'd be infighting over new directions, but it was the Democrats who starting tearing chunks out of each other. A rather rambunctious and petulant John Edwards got busy point scoring over Clinton and Obama whilst trying to make the former piggy in the middle by heaping praise on the latter whenever it suited - bait Obama happily hooked onto amidst his surprisingly lacklustre performance. Of them all the two who came across professionally were Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and of them the only one to come across Presidential was Hillary.

Not to be swayed solely by a single debate I have given more thought to the value of the return of the Clintons to the White House. So often we hear of elder statesmen flitting around the world spearheading new philanthropic initiatives, trying to spend whatever political capital they've saved in the uncomfortable knowledge their tenure didn't solve half as much as they'd promised or hoped. Well a win in 2008 would give Madame President and First Gentleman Clinton a second chance to do the business. They’d have a whole load more capital to spend and the investment knowledge to do it profitably.

Bush's successor will be America's first billion dollar president

Today's Financial Times highlights the huge increase in the importance of fundraising for next year's Presidential election.  The article notes the recent head of the Federal Election Commission's prediction that "the final two nominees will probably spend $1bn between them - we are going to have America's first billion-dollar president."  The FT's Edward Luce writes:

"Candidates from both parties together raised more than $150m (£76m, €112m) in the first quarter of 2007, six times as much as the equivalent period in 2003 and eight times as high as 1999. By the end of this year - more than 10 months before polling day - the leading candidates will have raised at least $100m apiece."

The article then identifies some of the reasons why fundraising has exploded:

• The race for the White House is the most open since 1952 - the last time no sitting President or Vice President was in the running.  This has increased the number of candidates.
• All campaigns are also beginning earlier than normal.  This partly reflects the rise of the new media.  Peggy Noonan has written about the old media's determination not be to be outdone by the new media's coverage of politics.  The political blogosphere (with nothing else more interesting to write about) started blogging the 2008 race and the mainstream media has played catch up.
• Reason three is the new timetable for primaries.  Some of America's biggest states - Texas, California, New York and Illinois - have timetabled their primaries for 5th February.  This telescoping of the process means there'll be less retail politics: "Since candidates will be unable to lavish the same kind of intimate attention on so many large states as they do on voters in the early primary states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa, they will have no choice but to reach voters through broadcast media - a much costlier option."

‘I would rather lose a campaign than a war’

Yesterday John McCain delivered a speech outlining his views on the Iraq war. The speech which was well received by the audience and sections of the press called on the American people to support General Petraeus’s plan to secure the country. His defence of the Iraq war which was described by the Wall Street Journal as ‘McCain’s finest hour’ challenged all those who voted for the war to stay the course. He argued that the most of them blame America’s failed strategy for Iraq’s problems and whilst he shared their view, a workable plan had been implemented by General Petraeus which they should support. He urged the Democrats to stop playing politics with the war and said that on his part he would rather lose the presidential elections than lose the war in Iraq. Democrat attacks on his support for George Bush’s Iraq strategy have seen him lose his front runner status in the race for the Republican nomination.