You didn’t see it on TV. Because when Mitt Romney was talking during last week’s Republican presidential debate on Fox News, the camera was on him, not John McCain. But McCain was sending a message. He looked at Romney with disdain and rolled his eyes at nearly everything Romney said. The message from McCain was that he’s a contender after all for the Republican nomination and ready to take on his opponents vigorously, Romney in particular.
McCain’s rise from his political deathbed (as a presidential candidate) was one of two events that reshaped the Republican race as it entered the serious phase, the real campaign, post-Labor Day. The other was Fred Thompson’s impressive leap into the contest after having sleepwalked through the I’m-thinking-about-it phase of his candidacy with a series of desultory speeches over the summer. As a full-blown candidate, Thompson was suddenly animated, energized, and appealing.
So here’s where the campaign stands with actual voting in Iowa, New Hampshire, and a lot of other places roughly three months away. Based on their chances of winning the nomination, I rank the candidates in this order: (1) Rudy Giuliani, (2) Romney, (3) Thompson, and (4) McCain. The top three are closely bunched, with McCain trailing.
Let’s start with Rudy. He is far and away the best campaigner in the field. His performance in the Fox debate in New Hampshire wasn’t his best, but he was still pretty good. He skillfully deflected a tough question that suggested his family values are not as strong as Romney’s. Giuliani is twice-divorced and has an uneasy relationship with his two children.
“I think someone’s private life, someone’s family life, is something that you all look into to determine how are they going to conduct themselves in public office,” he responded. “And in my case, you have 30 years, 35 years of experience to figure out how I would.” After listing a few of his achievements, Giuliani added: “Any issues in my private life do not affect my public performance.”
Giuliani’s most important feat has been to defuse the issue of his social liberalism. I’m not sure exactly how he’s done it, but he’s left the impression that while he’s pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay rights, conservatives need not worry. These are just opinions, not principles he would act on as president. At least that’s what he’s implied.
Giuliani gets credit for having, as mayor, transformed New York City, a Democratic stronghold. Romney gets far less from having been a Republican governor of a Democratic state, Massachusetts. But he has looks, money, a strong organization, and a set of conservative proposals that are well thought out. He’s formidable.
There’s something in Romney’s political persona that has kept him from gaining national support, but where it really matters–Iowa and New Hampshire, the first states to vote next January–he has double-digit leads over his rivals. His opponents argue this is just because he’s run TV ads in those states. That’s true–and the ads have obviously worked.
If Romney wins those two states, he’ll be difficult to stop. The significant thing is that he’ll have enough money to run expensive media campaigns in the subsequent primaries. So Romney shouldn’t be underestimated.
Major Garrett of Fox News distinguishes between the two Fred Thompsons. Garrett covered Thompson’s first campaign, for the Senate from Tennessee in 1994. There was the “dull and lawyerly Fred” and the “folksy and persuasive Fred.” We saw a lot of the dull Fred earlier this year. The folksy and forceful Fred emerged last week after he formally announced his candidacy.
Thompson lost nothing by delaying his announcement and skipping debates. As he told Jay Leno on the night of the New Hampshire debate, “I don’t think people are going to say, you know, ‘That guy would make a very good president, but he just didn’t get in soon enough.'” By the way, three million people watched the debate. Six million saw Thompson on Leno.
The task Thompson faces is not just to convince Republicans he’s a “consistent conservative”–that is, unlike Romney who’s not consistent and Giuliani who’s not conservative. That’s easy. Thompson has to make the case to conservatives that, like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, he wouldn’t knuckle under as president to pressure from the Washington establishment and a hostile media. That’s harder. Yet it’s the rationale for a Thompson presidency.
McCain doesn’t require a rationale. Given his experience and his national security credentials, he is the rationale. His support for the war in Iraq and the surge are the essential elements of his appeal. McCain’s best moment in the debate was when he zinged Romney for saying the surge is “apparently” working.
“Governor,” McCain said, “the surge is working. The surge is working, sir.”
“That’s just what I said,” Romney replied.
“It is working,” McCain said. “No, not ‘apparently.’ It’s working.”
McCain has a problem. If he had set out in the last few years purposely to alienate every Republican in the land, he couldn’t have done a better job than he actually has without trying. To put it mildly, he has a lot of Republican animosity to overcome. For McCain to win the nomination, a multitude of Republicans will have to change their mind about him. It’s possible, but hardly likely.
Why doesn’t Mike Huckabee belong among the top candidates? He’s likable and funny, but he has the fatal flaw of being the press’s favorite. Remember Bruce Babbitt? John Anderson? They suffered this fate. Reporters operate under the illusion that because they covered the Iowa straw poll, it and Huckabee’s second-place finish mattered. Wrong.
I haven’t a clue as to who will win the nomination. But whoever does had better get over the notion that Hillary Clinton, in the likelihood she’s the Democratic nominee, will unite Republicans and propel them to victory. She’ll help, but it will take much more to rally despondent and divided Republicans. Much, much more.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
