THE GOP RACE AFTER NEW HAMPSHIRE

As I edited this column while watching the South Carolina debate last night (1/10), I was struck by the sparse coverage of President Bush traveling abroad.   It is surreal that an American President can visit Israel and coverage is relegated beyond the first page. 

Yet if we can escape a recession, foreign policy and defense could be back in the national debate.  Regardless, we remain in a situation where results in states like Iowa and New Hampshire set in motion events that can profoundly affect Super Tuesday (2/5). 

This is such a volatile year that the unthinkable could happen:  a virtual two-way race among Democrats could end up divisively, and a multi-candidate Republican primary could end up unified.

In my last column two weeks ago, The GOP Race One Week Before Iowa, I explained why a win by Huckabee in Iowa would help assure, via downward momentum for Romney,  a McCain victory in New Hampshire. 

Further, I predicted the media spin off New Hampshire would enable McCain to pass Rudy in the national polls, and I still feel that way.  Let's quickly summarize the candidates, from the beginning to now.

Ron Paul.  If this were a campaign entirely centered around economic policy, Ron Paul would not be a distraction. He would have morphed into Superman. 

Alas, we live in a predatory world, unsafe for naïve and simplistic Clark Kents.  Unfortunately and in addition, besides lots of bright and good people, Paul attracts more than a few kooks, plus that great, amorphous "pissed off" vote that went in the past to figures as varied as George Wallace and Ross Perot. 

These voters have not heard of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, or Friedrich Hayek.  But they are disproportionately conspiracy theorists who have heard of the Iluminati, the Military-Industrial Complex, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Zionists plots, neo-conservatives, NAFTA, etc. 

Like Murray Rothbard and others who expropriated the word "libertarian" nearly a generation ago, who believed the U.S., and not the Soviets, was the enemy in the Cold War, many Paul supporters, like leftists, view the U.S. as the enemy today. 

Paul has raised more than $20 million, mainly on the Internet.  That's impressive.   Fortunately for the other candidates, Paul and his campaign did not know how to deploy it.  Nonetheless, he had a nice showing in New Hampshire. 

Yet having no chance to win the GOP nomination has given rise to speculation that he will run as a third party independent.  If so, it is unclear who he would hurt. 

When I elected Bob Dornan years ago in a Congressional district that included Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda and the People's Republic of Santa Monica, there was a third party libertarian candidate.  But, that year (1976), I soon surmised the libertarian would draw the free love vote, not the free market vote.  His effect was marginal, but he hurt the Democrat slightly.  

Mike Huckabee.   I stick with my prediction that the Huckabee campaign has peaked.  He is a superior campaigner, a superb communicator who should be center-stage who nonetheless will continue to face distractions by his publicity-seeking campaign chairman, whose off-message quote became an issue in the South Carolina debate.    .   

But the roots of the Huckabee peak are more than a campaign that will be torn by a schism between the supposed campaign professionals and the grassroots. Rather, it is in the restlessness among mainstream conservatives who want a man of faith, but not one who wears religion on his sleeve.  The appealing Huckabee would use his religion to rationalize spending legislation that many Republicans would find objectionable. 

It is true that Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are, as of now, the premier communicators – Huckabee with his folksy glibness and Obama with his JFK staccato polemics.  Huckabee and Romney do not like each other.  Down the long road, if Huckabee exits the race and he follows his own counsel, rather than lets his support be brokered by those close to him who would seek employment in another campaign, Huck is most likely to endorse Thompson or McCain. And if Thompson's out, then McCain.

Regardless, if Huckabee stays in but his support erodes by February 5, where will those religious evangelical voters go?  Thompson, or even McCain. Not Romney.

Mitt Romney.   The truly unreported story is that Romney lost Iowa due to religious prejudice.  When Huckabee ran television spots as a "Christian leader," these were code words to exploit evangelical discomfort with the theology of the Church of Latter Day Saints. 

The press gave Huckabee a free pass for these reasons: (a) Romney did not make an issue of it ( because he would seem like a bad sport); (b) liberal reporters want Huckabee to be nominated (because they believe he would not play well in November); and (c) the press never understood the Mormon factor (but, for that matter, neither did the candidate, who gave his church-and-state speech at least six months too late). 

More than a year ago, I heard Romney speak at a dinner in Washington, and I saw him up close at a reception at a neighbor's home, here in Southern California.   I was impressed.  But then his gratuitous policy reversals compounded, and he became increasingly implausible.  Thus Romney ended up spending the first three or four months of his campaign generating much negative press. 

That's because he followed the conventional wisdom of first consolidating a base, in this case, conservative, but he did so clumsily.  Now, with a loss in Iowa, where he invested so much time and money, and a loss in New Hampshire, which should have been won, given the impact of the Boston (read:  Massachusetts, where he was governor) media market, Romney has eliminated his media buy everywhere except in Michigan, where he hopes his roots will trump his downward momentum. 

Romney would like to be in play for Super Tuesday/February 5, because he has deep pockets to play the California card, where each Congressional district has a delegate.  So many people are watching the race now that Romney's paid ads may be unable to overcome the effect of free media about other candidates.

Fred Thompson.   Thompson considered becoming a commercial spokesman while continuing his lucrative "Law and Order" sinecure, until Tennessee Republicans launched his Presidential boomlet.  He is a good man, a solid conservative and represents the heart and soul of the Republican party, but he started as a reluctant candidate, and that posture framed the ensuing lost months. 

Some of my old friends were his early supporters, but at the outset adopted a beltway-bunker mentality.  Meanwhile, Thompson hired and fired three campaign staffs and dissipated scarce campaign dollars.   He finally, belatedly or should I say elatedly declared, then was sparsely scheduled, and, more recently, has been trying to make up for lost time.  Just before Iowa, he switched from a virtual 2012 campaign timetable to a real 2008 campaign.    

Thompson did relatively well in Iowa, given that he waited so long to campaign there, but he needed second place, or a much stronger third place.  Now, with the New Hampshire results, he can only hope for a revival in South Carolina.  Thompson will be under pressure from supporters to gut McCain, but he'll feel more comfortable taking on Romney.   Unless Thompson somehow thinks it will be a brokered convention, if he loses South Carolina, he probably will endorse McCain.

The Fox News focus groups showed Thompson winning the South Carolina debate hands-down.  But, remember, the Fox focus groups showed Romney overwhelmingly winning the election-eve New Hampshire debate.  The only clear winner is Frank Luntz, who is hyped, regardless of the volatility and reliability of his panels.

Rudy Giuliani.  Rudy has placed his chips on Florida, and his assumption is that the other contenders will cancel each other out, he'll win Florida and then leverage that momentum to wins in big delegate states, especially California. 

The challenge is that Rudy did not find a way to stay in the news in December, and into early January.  A more creative campaign strategy, supported by more seasoned staffers, would have found ways for Rudy to make news, rather than be buried under it.  Worse, Rudy has been defined more recently in terms of past scandals and problems that should have been resolved before he declared, or at least resolved very early in his campaign. 

Rudy needed to make a quick sale, which he did with many key Republican money people and even some pragmatic elected officials, who remain committed to him, while his polling numbers always were soft, not enduring.  And, as I said two weeks ago, just as coverage of Huckabee's rise in Iowa spiked his national polling numbers, so coverage of McCain's comeback in New Hampshire will affect his national numbers, at the expense of Rudy.  The winner in Michigan will cut further into Rudy's national polling numbers. 

Sure, Rudy will have the resources for Super Tuesday, and if he wins that day, he wins the nomination, and his campaign will properly be considered brilliant, even if it assumed Romney's ascent and McCain's demise.   But he needs at least one win before then, which means Florida. 

And his 5-point lead there only holds if he spends money, and Michigan and South Carolina are each won by different people.  It's true Rudy needs only a plurality in Florida, but so does McCain, who probably can't win Florida without winning Michigan or South Carolina first. 

Even if Rudy has no campaign in South Carolina, it was imperative he participate in the debate there last night — and he did, but not impressively.  He should realize that what happens in each debate, and in each primary, will affect Super Tuesday February 5.  So there was something odd about Rudy talking about a 50-state campaign when he essentially skipped campaigning in several early primary states.   Rudy says his strategy is not "risky" but "unconventional."

John McCain.  The leaders of the conservative movement have been down on McCain for years.  But the hyper-activists misjudge rank-and-file voters, many of whom remain old-style (Ev Dirksen/Charlie Halleck) "fiscal conservatives," by which I mean budget hawks.   
They have not heard of Grover Norquist or the Club for Growth.  These voters are more interested in opposing tax hikes than in proposing tax cuts. 

McCain's passion against entitlements can resonate.  McCain's most profound error and political miscalculation in the early-campaign was his embrace of so-called immigration reform, without first insisting on secure borders. 

Then, we have McCain-Feingold.  I disagree with McCain on this legislation, but it probably registers zip on the radar screen of most conservative Republican voters. 

McCain has recalibrated on immigration. He says he now would have supported the tax cuts an impetus for economic growth.  He performed well in the New Hampshire debate carried nationally by ABC.  The candidates ganged up on Romney, because each had his own reason for trying to bring closure on Romney.  But the beneficiary, at least for the short-term, remains John McCain.

One final note.  One key reason Obama lost New Hampshire is hubris.  Obama let his Iowa win go to his head and became cocky. His now familiar, "When I am President, I will" does not play well, and will not in a general election, compared to, say, McCain's humbling style. 

If McCain resolves the age issue, he defeats Obama in the general election.  The good news for Republicans is that the surprise Hillary win in New Hampshire virtually assures that Hillary and Barack will tear each other down, because Obama probably still wins South Carolina. And both sides will claim the other fired the first shot.

Arnold Steinberg is a political strategist, analyst, and expert on American politics.  For media interviews, he can be contacted at [email protected].  No personal communications please.