The current field

Some general thoughts on the shape of the presidential campaign...

First, the GOP has been energized by front-runner status of Hillary Clinton. The refrain I find online and in conversation with conservative friends is "Hillary must be stopped." About a month ago I watched Sean Hannity plead with evangelical strongman Pat Dobson to get behind Giuliani. In between obsequiously stating "how much he respected" Dobson, Mr. Hannity pointed to some shared interests and, of course, the all-important issue of who will nominate acceptable judges. Dobson stuck to his guns, letting his dissatisfaction with the former mayor be known unequivocally. Whether the evangelical wing of the GOP and independents will stay clear of Giuliani is unclear (as of this writing, Pat Robertson has come out in support of the former mayor as the best chance to beat Clinton.)

I find the enthusiasm for Giuliani confusing. The narrative is supposed to be that he was an effective mayor of New York city and did a good job immediately after 9/11. I, on the other hand, remember a guy who was crassly authoritarian, and so offended such a large portion of New York that he was practically ridden out of town. The issues often raised -- multiple marriages/divorces, insufficiently pro-life, too left on gun-control, not anti-gay enough, etc. -- are less troubling to me than his poor judgment in appointees, Bernard Kerik only being the most prominent. Still, one can imagine that Giuliani, who seems like a neocon/conservative Dem, would have a hard time sustaining enthusiasm from the GOP base.

And this would probably hold true, were it not for the perceived inevitability of Hillary Clinton's nomination for the Dems. This also seems odd to me: why such enthusiasm for an evasive hawk, especially when the Dem base desperately wants the US out of Iraq. Ms. Clinton has been at least evasive (Clintonian?) about this issue. But even putting this aside, why nominate the one candidate that energizes the opposition? Well, no one ever accused the Dems of being electoral wizards.

Mitt Romney currently has his shorts in a bunch because he was caught saying he would not have a Muslim in his cabinent. Much chatter will go to whether Mr. Romney is a racist. Cenk Uygur comments on Huffington Post that he, for one, does not believe Mr. Romney to be an actual racist; rather, "... he just plays one on TV." This is not conclusive evidence that Romney hates Muslims; rather "it means Republican primary voters hate Muslims." He goes on to say

"Mitt Romney is the greasiest man in America. He is so greasy, he shines. And in that shine
you can see the reflection of his audience.

Romney is desperate to please. He will say or do anything to win the crowd, whichever crowd he is trying to win over at the time. When it was a more liberal audience in Massachusetts, he loved gay rights, respected a woman's right to choose, was ambivalent about Reagan and was more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Now that it is a Republican primary audience, he is for doubling Guantanamo, enhanced interrogation techniques, more unnecessary wars and yes, hating Muslims."

The left blogosphere is in a tizzy because Governor Huckabee is making headway in the polls. Iowa, where he is in a statistical deadheat with Mr. Romney is perhaps not too surprising, as nearly a third of those polled are evangelical Christians. But the good governor has even surged to second place in Florida! Goodness, gracious, what to make of it?

Part of the surprise, I believe comes from the fact that so many liberal bloggers literally live in a different world than evangelicals. This goes far beyond the coast/elitist aspect. This does not, however, mean they do not have insight on to many of the larger currents at play. For example, I had often wondered why more evangelicals had not backed Huckabee right away, especially when there are obvious faults with Romney and Giuliani. Kevin Drum, at Political Animal, describes why nicely: "Christian conservatives are obviously a substantial interest group within the Republican Party, but as Jon Chait pointed out in The Big Con, that's all they are: a substantial interest group. The real bosses of the party are found among the tax jihadists and corporate interest groups who make up its economic wing," whom he refers to as the "money-cons." The result of these power-dynamics is that "in today's GOP, hating unions is more important than hating gays, and eliminating the estate tax is more important than eliminating abortion."

While the term "hating" is rather strong, I believe the crux of the statement is true, i.e. economic issues take precendence over the social issues. Indeed, Mr. Huckabee is about as populist as a Republican can get. Interesting how this drives the neocons crazy.