September 19, 2006
Some Expressly Straight Talk
We'll leave it for others to consider the many policy implications in the torture debate, but what leaped off the page to our eyes was something very much political: The until-now sub rosa campaign between Sen. John McCain (R) and MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has burst out into the open.
For months, the two '08 frontrunners have issued dueling press releases and offered selective press leaks touting their early "leadership teams" in such early primary states as IA, NH, SC and MI. There have also been more direct, if subtle, jabs. In July, McCain's team crowed about signing up UT Gov. Jon Huntsman (R), who hails from one of the most prominent Mormon families in America. In June, Romney spent a weekend in AZ, headlining a funder for the state party, but also keynoting an event for Maricopa Co. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whom McCain has tangled with. Arpaio, known nationally for his unique and controversial prison methods, said he was undecided about who he'd back for '08 but had nice things to say about Romney.
The clever back-and-forth came to halt Sunday, when Adam Nagourney, the NYT's chief political reporter, got Romney on the phone and on the record. “I am foursquare behind the president on this," Romney, said referring to McCain's dispute with Pres Bush over the torture issue. "I believe that we should do everything possible to support those people at the front line who are responsible for enforcing the war on terrorism." But Romney wasn't done. Asked if this was the "sharpest" area of disagreement with McCain, Romney said: " No. There are a number of things. We have different views on McCain-Feingold, differing views on immigration policy, differing views on the interrogation of terrorists." Perhaps looking to soften the blow, he then offered, "There are also many other areas where we see eye to eye."
The senator, wrote Nagourney, hit back "tartly." McCain: “He doesn’t have a vote."
You woulda thought it was September of '07, not '06.
But there is more to the WH '08 side of this story.
Today, McCain woke up to find stories in both the Post and LA Times looking at the political fallout of his battle, or "discussion" as the WH and McCain's camp would have it, with Bush. Perhaps more politically notable, a similar story ran in The State, SC's largest and most important newspaper, on Sunday. Although his fellow maverick, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) defended McCain to his home-state paper, SC GOP chair Katon Dawson was quoted as saying the state is "certainly Bush country" and while "John McCain thinks he's right" on the issue, "people on the ground think they're wrong," referring to both McCain and Graham. Or, as another SC GOP activist put it to us today, "we elected George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, NOT John McCain and Lindsey Graham."
It is far too early to hold up one issue, particularly one where McCain and Bush could still reach consensus, as being even potentially relevant in primary still well over a year away. But what is notable about this debate is what has not happened. While such staunch McCain allies as Weekly Standard editor have conceded that the issue will hurt McCain politically, we've yet to see any blind quotes coming out of the WH knocking McCain. Said one "SAO" in today's Post story: "There's no question of motives that there may have been a couple years ago. My sense is, this is paining him and this pains us. Neither of us wants to be in the position to have to do this and have it spill out into public."
Has the president, or a certain Dep Chief of Staff, laid down the law to such "SAOs" that there will be no negative leaks about McCain? And, if so, what does that say to those in "Bush Country" about how this admin feels about '08?
[JONATHAN MARTIN AND MARC AMBINDER]
Posted at 01:05 PM
Comments
McCain is one of the few politicians that the Republicans could nominate in 2008 that would be a near sure-fire winner. If they end up nominating Romney over McCain they've reached a level of stupidity that the Democratic party has been operating at for years.
Jim C. | 09.20.06 03:20 PM
 |
I'd rather have a Democrat in power over McCain. At least with a Democrat, the Republicans could rally in the house and senate and take true conservative stances.
If McCain were in power, I'd be in the strange position of voting for House and Senate members who can affectively derail the McCain agenda.
The McCain agenda appears to be 1) ignore the border, 2) appoint moderate judges, 3) fight a war in a politically correct way. We can get that by electing Hillary.
ben | 09.21.06 01:40 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
