January 6, 2008 10:08

McCain's Lost Weekend

Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (45) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

Manchester

The polls still have John McCain comfortably ahead of Mitt Romney in the New Hampshire primary, but I don't believe them. For one thing, McCain has just dragged himself through two of his worst debate performances ever. For another, Mitt Romney--even though under assault constantly in Saturday night's debate--has had two of his best debate performances yet.

On Saturday night, McCain went from weird to ugly. The weird part was the first twenty minutes of the debate, the foreign policy section, which should be McCain's kitchen--he legitimately knows more about this stuff than anyone in the Republican field--but he was dead silent. And then, in the emotional heart of the debate--the illegal immigration section--Mitt Romney, loathsome as always on this issue, had both McCain and Giuliani totally on the defensive about the definition of amnesty. Romney's argument that a $500 fine wasn't amnesty is ridiculous. What sort of hoops does he want the illegals to jump? Does he want all 12 million in prison? Does he want to deport them--and, if so, how? (Hillary Clinton had an extensive answer on the number of buses and law enforcement officials--tens of thousands--who would be needed to get the job done at one of her rallies today.) But McCain--nor Giuliani--had the skill to wrap that whopper around Romney's neck. McCain's other mistake was the unconvincing way he went negative on Romney--"You could spend your entire fortune on those ads and it wouldn't make them true." Why were they false? Explain, please. Then he started an assault, "You're the real candidate of change..." but seemed to realize it was too ad hominem and didn't finish the statement. "You've changed your position on every major issue."

The futility of the various attacks on Romney was apparent in tonight's debate: none of the Republicans chose to go after him, except Fred Thompson, who seems to be campaigning from a hammock even when he's sitting upright...and whose toughest barbs (Ted Kennedy endorsed Romney's Massachusetts health care plan) float across the stage like soap bubbles. That meant each of the candidates had been told by their staffs that Saturday night's assaults hadn't worked.

I watched tonight's debate with the Frank Luntz focus group at the famed Merrimack Diner, while about 50 Ron Paul supporters--angry that their guy hadn't been included--ranted and raved outside. I"m not sure this was a representative group of Republicans. They seemed pretty conservative. And they...Just. Loved. Romney. Most of those who came in undecided had switched to Mitt by the end of the show. They just adored his position on illegal immigration (their dials plummeted when McCain said we had to be "humane.") They loved his explanation of why he had switched his position on abortion. They loved it when he nailed Huckabee as a tax raiser...in fact, Huckabee's failure to acknowledge that he was a net raiser of taxes ended his credibility with the audience (which, since this is New Hampshire, had been wary of his flagrant religiosity from the start).

Meanwhile, McCain was nowhere. His answers lacked zing. He seemed tired. He was unable to make a vigorous case for himself as a leader--even his references back to his days in the military didn't cut it with this Republican audience. McCain won here in 2000 because independent voters found him far more compelling than the independent alternative on the Democratic side, Bill Bradley. This time, he's competing with Barack Obama for independents in a state decidedly more blue than it was in 2000...He may still have enough heft to win this thing. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the race tighten or swing toward Romney over the next few days.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (45)

Jim, Foolish Literalist:

as a Democrat, I hope you're right.

How ironic that on the few areas where McCain shows some character and humanity, like immigration, he loses support, but his brain-dead "bomb'em all" foreign policy is probably his greatest strength with the yahoos in his party's base.

Joe, since you and I are pals, could you do me a favor: Next time you're gathered around Johnny Mac's aura, gazing at his awesomeness, could you ask him about vowing to sacrifice his presidential hopes to blocking the MCA, and then voting for it?

Thanks
Jim, FL

Posted by Jim, Foolish Literalist | January 6, 2008 10:44 PM

HH:

"I watched tonight's debate with the Frank Luntz focus group"

Chutzpah Joe is taking no chances here. A real professional focus group is validating his musings about McCain and Romney. Meanwhile a war criminal and torturer sits in the White House, immune to impeachment, and three billion dollars a week are pissed into the sands of Iraq.

Chutzpah Joe has neither the time nor the interest to write about important matters. He is trying to find out if a war monger or a fraudulent technocrat will gather more sympathy in the New Hampshire primary.

McCain wants America to stay in Iraq for 100 years, and Romney wants whatever the corporations want (maybe only 99 years, with a lease renewal option). But these are the "serious" candidates who are "electable," not like Ron Paul, who is out of the "mainstream." Chutzpah Joe gets to define the mainstream for us.

Posted by HH | January 6, 2008 10:46 PM

Asp

I agree that McCain was weak and that his attacks seemed petty, much as Romney deserves them. But about that focus group: Joe, I recall your alarming account of a similar focus group a couple of weeks ago, in which all the dials plummeted when Huckabee defended his refusal to bar the children of undocumented aliens from eligibility for state merit scholarships. Then Huckabee won Iowa...maybe those focus groupies don't represent the Republican party today.

Posted by Asp | January 6, 2008 11:08 PM

mediasux:

leave it to Klein to make the facts fit his hypothesis.

Everyone else has been saying how badly Romney came off last night compared to the other candidates. All the polls are showing that Romney is fading fast in NH, while McCain gains... but the reason that the other candidates didn't attack Romney today ISN'T because it was unnecessary and a waste of time..... no, Joe has decided its because the attacks were "ineffective".

.... and maybe rather than going to a Frank Luntz focus group, you could go to a bar, and tell the patrons you want to turn off the football game, and watch the GOP debates. Of course, you'd (only) get laughed at (if you were lucky), but at least it would give you some idea exactly how 'representative' a Frank Luntz focus group is -- the downside is that the bar would make you pay for your drinks with cash, rather than words that treat Luntz like he's actually respectable and credible.

Posted by mediasux | January 6, 2008 11:10 PM

Malcolm:

Joe thinks Romney will come back? Looks like it's time to short some more Romney NH futures on Intrade.

Posted by Malcolm | January 6, 2008 11:16 PM

NoMoreBlatherDotCom

I probably don't need to remind everyone that Joe Klein has a habit of lying. Nor do I need to remind everyone that Klein has explictly come out in support of illegal immigration.

Thus, no one is probably surprised that he'd call Romney - someone who supports legal immigration and who at least pretends to want to enforce our laws - "loathsome" because, unlike Klein, he actually supports our laws.

As for Klein's point, such as it is, what McCain pushed was clearly amnesty, no matter what he called it. That was obvious because of how it would be perceived by millions upon millions of prospective illegal aliens. They'd come to take part in that amnesty (through fraud) or in future amnesties (brought about by giving those who oppose our laws even more power).

And, apparently Klein's reading abilities on are par with his abilities with the truth. Romney has at least implied that, like Thompson, he supports enforcing our laws in order to cause many illegal aliens to go home. Thus, Klein can put his fevered imagination to rest knowing that he doesn't want to put millions of people in prison, nor does he want mass deportations.

Klein should have known that, or at least pretended that he didn't know that.

There appear to be a couple more whoppers in the rest, but, come on, doesn't anyone at Time realize how badly Klein is damaging what little reputation they had to begin with?

Posted by NoMoreBlatherDotCom | January 6, 2008 11:21 PM

Amit:

I hate Romney for his shameless flip-flopping and negative attacks. But, I kind of felt sorry for him when all other candidates jumped on him in the debate.

McCain and Huckabee should leave Romney alone. Most people are wise enough to see through his hypocrisy. What we don't want is people to somehow view him as being targeted and victimized by "establishment" candidates. Like "establishment" candidates trying to prevent "change".

"Underdog" is a great adjective in this election. Its ironical that by collectively attacking him, other candidates may make him seem as an underdog or an "anti-establishment" candidate.

Posted by Amit | January 6, 2008 11:36 PM

Savagemouse:

I don't think the debates make a lick of difference. Well, maybe a tiny lick, but not much more than that.

Posted by Savagemouse | January 6, 2008 11:40 PM

stuart_zechman:

Why don't you run for office yourself, Joe?

You obviously have all of the good ideas, the know-how, the policy expertise, the charisma. You can apparently run and manage a campaign better than any living human being--and you know exactly what everybody involved should or shouldn't have said or done at every event.
Go on Joe--throw your hat in the ring. It's pretty clear to anybody who reads these pieces that you're just dying to get down in there and show the DC world how right you are about everything, and how if people would only listen to you, they'd be successful in politics and government beyond their wildest dreams.
Really, what are you doing wasting your god-given talent and intellect posting silly alcohol-fueled toss-offs for the dubious benefit of nobodies like us, Joe, when there's a whole world out there for you to conquer?

So get in the game, big guy. You'll be President of the United States before you finish that drink, I'm sure of it.

Just do it.

Posted by stuart_zechman | January 7, 2008 12:24 AM

TomT:

You've gone too far. It's admirable that you've stopped fluffing McCain but I don't see how you can say Mitt was good in the first debate.

Like the title -- Billy Wilder is the man. It's worth checking out that bar where it takes place, P.J. Clarke's on 3rd Ave.

Posted by TomT | January 7, 2008 12:39 AM

thepoliticalpost

Wow...McCain has really pulled ahead in almost every NH poll in the last few days.

If McCain tops Romney on Tuesday, he will be the nominee. The 80-100 million dollar Romney guy will have burned out and the "Christian Leader" will not play well in the Super Tuesday states.

Just look at the RCP averages...

thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2008/01/06/new-hampshire-republican-primary-rcp-averages/

Posted by thepoliticalpost | January 7, 2008 2:34 AM

CMike:

NoMoreBlather has the right of this - but don't get too cocky, you're only correcting Joe Klein.

************
Klein wrote:

Romney's argument that a $500 fine wasn't amnesty is ridiculous.
************

I'm not clear on what this sentence means. For starters there's a typo, the proposed fine is for $5000 not $500. Romney's argument was that, though not technically amnesty, McCain-Kennedy offers amnesty. Thompson ended up interrupting Giuliani to ask(4:37) "are you rewarded in any way for your illegal behavoir? If the answer is yes, it's amnesty."

A playback is available on YouTube and starting here @3:24 and continues here.

But let's move to an instance of meta-journalism.

*************
Joe Klein writes:

Then he [McCain] started an assault, "You're the real candidate of change..." but seemed to realize it was too ad hominem and didn't finish the statement. "You've changed your position on every major issue."
**************

Joe, I know you're a pundit who is in the habit of making it up as you go along. That's fine for the dead tree edition of Time and the Chris Matthews show. But this is a blog so forget about getting by with your petty smears here without getting called on them.

The question being addressed when McCain made his comment was first posed to Gov. Romney @1:53 here. The question was, given that Barack Obama had won the Iowa caucus and might end up being the Democratic nominee, why should the public not vote for him and give specifics in your answer.

Romney went on a riff about how Obama had tapped into the country's desire for change and had beaten long serving senators because the public thought the system in Washington was broken. Then Romney made the case that he, himself, would be an agent of change. Romney said, "and when we sit down to talk about change, Barack Obama and myself, in that final debate as you're positing I can say not only can I talk change with you I've lived it..."

When McCain's turn came he immediately launched into his joke, not an attack that he thought better of and broke off to finish as a joke. It's real clear beginning @ 5:23 what McCain set out to do. "I just want to say to Gov. Romney, we disagree on a lot of issues but I agree, you are the candidate of change -- ha, ha...look, the difference I would have with Barack Obama has to do with national security..."

By the way Joe, what do you use quotation marks for? You might think you're referring to McCain's joke following Thomson's question @ 1:45 here during the immigration discussion. Who knows?

Posted by CMike | January 7, 2008 3:53 AM

caraprado:

I just love this line:

"(T)heir dials plummeted when McCain said we had to be "humane."

It really reveals a significant part of the reason why there is a now soaring movement for change.

Posted by caraprado | January 7, 2008 6:26 AM

flounder:

The Republicans showed the biggest response when the rhetoric wasn't hateful enough. That is all you need to know about this election and the Republican Party, yet Klein takes the most hateful Republicans like Pete Hoekstra at their word.

Posted by flounder | January 7, 2008 9:10 AM

flounder:

So according to this video, Frank Luntz is using professional actors in theses focus groups.
See the evidence here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3BDvfAf2c4

The same man shows up in his focus group four months apart and in twp different states. Joe got played by Republicans again.

Posted by flounder | January 7, 2008 9:43 AM

smedley:

Since no one has pointed it out on this thread, yet: Frank Luntz has been caught red-handed using the same "independent voter" in different states. He has falsified his data. And, of course, he will get a pass. Just as Charlie Gibson will get a pass on calling "married college professors making over $200,000 'middle-class.'"

Posted by smedley | January 7, 2008 9:47 AM

smedley:

Aw-you beat me, flounder

Posted by smedley | January 7, 2008 9:48 AM

QUESTION HILLARY tm

2008 will be the grand bogus media year that someone that "has covered the Bush 43 White House and Congress since the DeLay era" is given equal footing with actual voters and candidates in the marketplace of meaningful ideas (or the search for meaningful ideas).

The pop-up blog cadre of retro-communist, McGovern suckled dolts feigning as "reporters" for Time (same lefty rag that put Putin on the annual cover boy issue instead of Dave Petraeus) simply seals the case, against 24 Hour press narcissism, useless intellectual pinhead overreaching, live group buzzard yapping, and rank collectivist journalism stupidity.

CNN party hats for Hillary's Swift Boat People rule!

Posted by QUESTION HILLARY tm | January 7, 2008 9:52 AM

Terrapinion:

Joe Klein - Seriously, respond to comments!

You spent the evening with a Frank Luntz focus group. Again. How many of these things have you attended in your life?

Did you ever think that your massive misreading of the shifts in the Democratic electorate might be caused because you spent so much of your time believing everything that Luntz and Hoekstra tell you while at the same time disparaging the Progressive Netroots that have been as explicit as humanly possible about the issues? All you saw was unpolished passion which you labelled as anger and then used that label to ignore everything that was said.

So now Clinton's strategy of taking lukewarm positions in an attempt to deny the GOP any ammunition against her has resulted in her rejection by the most involved voters in the nation. The GOP will never tolerate her and the Dems were not inspired - that is what 'centrism' has achieved.

There is a reason why the electorate is not interested in Republican-Lite:

"I'm not sure this was a representative group of Republicans. They seemed pretty conservative. ... (their dials plummeted when McCain said we had to be "humane.")"

Seems like a representative sample of Republicans to me.

Posted by Terrapinion | January 7, 2008 9:52 AM

QUESTION HILLARY tm

What he meant to Say Joe was...

"Obama will go down to McCain in November faster than Monica on a Hyannisport political dinosaur freebie No Hillary In Sight weekend."

Do the electoral maff, demwits:

YOU LOSE.

Next!

Posted by QUESTION HILLARY tm | January 7, 2008 10:05 AM

Terrapinion:

What does one have to do to get QH banned from this thread?

Although I suppose he serves the purpose of feeding the alienation that reasonable people feel for the GOP. After all, who in their right mind would want to be associated with the GOP if that guy is the representative of their views?

Posted by Terrapinion | January 7, 2008 10:14 AM

smedley:

I wonder what "Question Hillary" will do when Hillary is not the nominee. Oh, I see. He/she/it will call our war heroes, like George McGovern, "retro-communist."

Posted by smedley | January 7, 2008 10:20 AM

Joe Klein's guilty conscience

So Joe has jumped off the McCain fluffing bandwagon? Interesting!!

Posted by Joe Klein's guilty conscience | January 7, 2008 10:42 AM

stuart_zechman:

I don't think that QH should be banned.

I think that would be horrifyingly misplaced, given the Democratic primary campaign sock puppetry going on here (much less the actual spam posts).

Klein's comments, OTOH...

Posted by stuart_zechman | January 7, 2008 10:46 AM

smedley:

I hope nobody is holding their breath waiting for Joe to respond to the commenters here. Joe does not respond to us little people. It has been shown time and again. He will only respond to his blogging cohorts. One more reason Joe has no business being a part of this so-called "blog."

Posted by smedley | January 7, 2008 11:11 AM

smedley:

Maybe Karen or Ana will answer this, since Joe has neither the time nor...: How did Joe get roped into this gig? I mean, he clearly does not appreciate the idea of an actual dialogue with his commenters. I bet he considers himself a latter-day Murrow, sending dispatches from London, answerable to no one, because he's JOE KLEIN.

Posted by smedley | January 7, 2008 11:30 AM

53_2:

smedley:

Don't worry! Question Hillary is one of those core Republican subscribers to the "angry white male" persona (now rechristened "Southern Strategy"). In short, QH is a racist.

He hates Hillary, but it won't be hard for QH to shift his popgun-sights to Obama.

Unlike the rest of us, he only thinks what Rush Limpdick tells him to think...

Notice that his nimbleness on the mental front is indicative of his lightweight mental status!

Posted by 53_2 | January 7, 2008 11:57 AM

smedley:

For more Luntz chicanery, check out Firedoglake. Luntz apparently slammed Paul at the focus group. A Paul supporter says he has it on tape.

Posted by smedley | January 7, 2008 12:24 PM

Todd and in Charge:

Seriously Joe, are you the only one in politics who does not know that Luntz' focus groups are rigged?

They always say the same thing -- Hillary no, Romney yes.

Posted by Todd and in Charge | January 7, 2008 2:31 PM

jskdn:

This was a typical rant from a card-carrying member of the open-borders elite media. I hope Romney further refines his message to target the real enemy of decent law-abiding citizens: the elites in the media.

In case anyone failed to notice, Romney did more journalism around the illegal immigration debate this weekend than a year of what so-call journalists produced. He succinctly clarified the crucial differences in what had been an endless debate over the meaning of the term "amnesty." He acknowledged the strict semantic argument that conditions attached might make the term inapplicable to some people. But he correctly noted that many if not most people would consider it as such because it was close enough for their reckoning. And he then elaborated the crucial differences between McCain's and his positions that related to the use of the term.

I suspect the reason that the audience reacted the way it did to the McCain's "humane" argument is that they are becoming wise to unstated but implicit argument within that argument, which is that enforcing immigration laws is inhumane.

Posted by jskdn | January 7, 2008 2:42 PM

Todd and in Charge:

Newshounds does a nice take-down of the Luntz hearts Romney lovefest that Klein so uncritically swallowed:

http://tinyurl.com/33gep6

Here's a snippet:

Back to Luntz who displayed graphs generated by his dial meters. Without showing the graphs on the other candidates, Luntz stated that Romney had “the best responses.” He showed reaction to Romney's comments about Washington needing change and noted that when Romney talked about illegal immigration, he received the highest ratings. He concluded that Romney “hit a home run.”

Comment: Short of wearing a Romney for President tee-shirt, Luntz was not very subtle in his cheerleading for Romney. In what seems to be standard Fox operating procedure, Huckabee was dissed. And in not including Ron Paul in the Fox debate (not even mentioning his and Duncan Hunter’s name) those who watched it didn’t get to hear those annoying comments about the price of the war in Iraq and other inconvenient truths which indicate some fissure in the Republican party. With the exception of some Huckabee populism (feared and loathed by the Republican “beltway”) it was all very Republican talking points. It was all very Fox.

Posted by Todd and in Charge | January 7, 2008 3:28 PM

QUESTION HILLARY tm

The librium must be flowing like Chelsea's cherished time of the month at DNC HQ today!

= TEAR JERKING ACCOMPLISHED =

Posted by QUESTION HILLARY tm | January 7, 2008 4:15 PM

Nathanb:

Uh, Joe, did you really not notice that that "focus group" was rigged?

You think that woman really blurted out that she liked Romney because "he mentioned China" out of nowhere -- you think any voter cares about that?

You didn't notice Lunz cheerleading Romney and every "focus group member" then spontaneously reciting perfect soundbites? And the reverse for Huckabee?

What a joker you are.

Posted by Nathanb | January 7, 2008 7:29 PM

goldstonesoft:

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4