Promises Made - Promises Kept

I don't really buy into conspiracy theories, I believe secrets are too hard to keep. But I do believe in complicated political strategy, especially after reading the book "Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The Architect Of George W. Bush's Remarkable Political Triumphs ." This book tells of the political trickery that Karl Rove (and others) have used to become successful.

Over the last few weeks I have come to believe that a complicated political strategy has been in place to help Senator John McCain win the GOP nomination for President. Remember 2004, when rumors ran wild that the GOP made promises to McCain to keep him on the side of President Bush. Do you remember? Right after turning down the Kerry campaign, McCain began touring with Bush; advocating President Bush's war policy. The promise being that McCain would be heir apparent for the nomination in 2008. But, how can the GOP elite in Washington keep such a promise when the voters really decide the nominee through the state primaries and caucuses?

Understand something, us NASCAR fans watch race strategy every weekend. The same way, Rich Hendrick puts more cars in the race to help Jeff Gordon or Jimmy Johnson win the Championship I have come to wonder if someone didn't convince Thompson and Giuliani run to take votes from the other candidates. At the end of the day, Thompson (and his attack campaign) took enough votes away from Huckabee in SC to help McCain. At the end of the day, Giuliani took enough votes away from Romney to help McCain in Florida. Look at the campaigns of these two men. The were strongest before the voters got to know their record. After campaigning modestly in Iowa, Thompson came straight to South Carolina and ran his entire campaign on attacks on Governor Huckabee. After campaigining modestly in Iowa, Giuliani headed straight to Florida. Not being in Florida, I don't know if he attacked Romney the same way Thompson attacked Huckabee; but the results were the same.

This seems far fetched, doesn't it? But if you read the book, "Boy Genius" you will learn about the state wide races in TX where Karl Rove used this very tactic. Have a third candidate run as the attack dog for the "approved" candidate. Then the "right" guy comes across unharmed while the other two candidates battle it out. The "decoy" candidates are usually rewarded with a position in the winner's administration.

Take a look at this trickery and then add to that the establishment endorsements that McCain has gained in the past few weeks. McCain has been endorsed by many many in the elite, even Republicans that wouldn't have been seen with McCain this past summer.

What really amazes me about McCain's momentum is how conservatives are supporting him after all the disappointments McCain has fostered over the past 6-8 years. How quickly we forget. Our representatives in Washington count on this short term memory every time they let us down and vote against our wishes. (big spending, amnesty, etc.) Maybe we should change the Republican mascot - we sure don't have memories like elephants.

Post Debate Analysis in NH

I am blogging this as I watch the post debate analysis of the NH Fox News Presidential Candidate Forum. The first thing Fox did was cut to Frank Luntz's focus group of "undecided voters" who gave the debate victory to Mitt Romney because of his "command" of the debate. These pollsters had two criticisms of Governor Huckabee - both of which I find ironic.

While one pollster said that Romney's pro-life position was most believable, (Huckabee was never asked the question.) the other pollsters berated Huckabee for wearing his religion "on his sleeve". During the entire debate Huckabee never mentioned his religion AT ALL. Maybe the pollsters weren't so "undecided" as they claimed coming into the debate. They seemed to have decided who they weren't supporting. Some New Hampshire Republicans seem to have foibles about faith that most South Carolina Republicans don't.

Secondly, Huckabee wouldn't answer a question posed directly from Mitt Romney. While Romney admits to raising "fees" in MA he accuses Huckabee of increasing taxes. To the person paying money to the government what's the difference between a tax and a fee - nothing? The truth is that Huckabee was the first Governor in AR history to pass a broad based taxed cut. He cut taxes 94 times as Governor in AR. There were however; the legislature did pass eight different tax increases during Huckabee's tenure as Governor, seven by referendum (for conservation, roads, senior centers, etc.) and one by court order (to increase spending on education)

Another irony for me, the Luntz pollsters thought Romney would be the most capable of beating the eventual Democratic nominee in the general election. The truth is that Romney didn't even run for re-election as Governor of MA because everyone knew he couldn't win. (Their opinion may have a bit of home grown New England bias.) Huckabee has taken on the Clinton machine four times in AR and beat them every time.

Outside of New England - most Americans (especially South Carolinians) would consider Mitt Romney badgering during the debate rude. None of the other candidates chose to engage each other with their own questions during the forum and Mitt seemed out of order. It seemed to me that all the candidates were annoyed by Romney's "me next -me next - school boy approach" to the questioning and just got the point of looking past him. I thought Governor Huckabee did a remarkable job of NOT loosing control and messing up Romney's hair. (Romney made the same hair joke we've been hearing since the County Convention Straw Polls in SC last spring - of course Fred Barnes says he heard it for the first time last Thursday in Iowa).

Ha! I am typing this blog as I watch the post debate analysis on Fox News Channel. Fred Barnes just said he's an undecided voter - what a joke! Fred your bias toward Mitt Romney has been obvious for a long time. It's a funny thing when Barnes calls out the other media outlets for their bias he bashes them for NOT asking them tough questions. Chris Wallace teed up the debate from the first question for Mitt Romney. The format started with a question on Romney's attack ads on taxes where the Romney ads were played - Romney was allowed to talk for 3 minutes and each of the attacked got one minute with Romney badgering them as they did. Hardly the right approach.

I actually think Mort Kondrake just hit on a key differentiator that the other Republican candidates are missing and Mike Huckabee is not. Huckabee was the only candidate that even mentioned what Americans are talking about at the dinner table. Romney, and some of the others are using the same old conservative talking points published by the Washington think tanks. It's funny, Romney claims to be a Washington outsider but his whole platform is put together by Washington political consultants. Most Americans have never heard of most of these special interests nor do they trust their agendas. Romney did get one thing right tonight, "Washington IS broken" and while Americans are talking about $3 gas, double digit increases in health care and worrying how to send the kids to college; Romney is talking about the same stale ideas that liberals are using against us. Huckabee is the only candidate that understands whats happening on Main Street and will represent all Americans, this is what's resonating with voters.

While campaigning yesterday, I was asked how Huckabee won re-election in AR with such a larger percentage of the minority vote. (The questioner seemed to have a veiled cynicism about minorities supporting conservative candidates.) The answer to that question was and is that Huckabee understands what goes on around the dinner table, Huckabee represents all Americans; not just the special interests and the Republican elite on Wall Street. Whether one is a Republican or Democrat speaks to their approach to problem solving, it should NOT speak to who they represent as public servants.