THE GOP RACE ONE WEEK BEFORE IOWA

[We welcome legendary political strategist Arnie Steinberg to TTP, whom we hope to have as a regular columnist advising us throughout the 2008 campaign. I have known Arnie since 1966 when he helped me lead Youth for Reagan  during Ronald Reagan's triumphant campaign for governor.

Arnie has created or advised hundreds of political campaigns at all levels, written two graduate texts on politics and media, and is an expert in every phase of campaigns, especially free/earned and paid/advertising media. 

He has produced, written and directed television and radio commercials for many candidates, ballot measures and issues.  He has conducted more than 1700 surveys and focus groups.  I asked him to set the Republican parameters as we go into Iowa and New Hampshire.  We are privileged to have him be a part of To The Point.  —JW]

Once the Republican nominee is chosen, we will be told what the turning point was in his campaign.  And history then will be rewritten about how inspired it was.  The reality is there are few brilliant campaigns; typically, the winning campaign  is the least bumbling. 

As we handicap the GOP aspirants prior to Iowa, consider the second tier candidates already gone by the wayside in this messy process.  One learns early in political life that hardly anything is zero probability. 

That said, the virtually no-chance candidates, whose maneuvering helped set the stage for an eventual Fred Thompson entry, included the admirable Duncan Hunter, the persistent Tom Tancredo, the reliable Tommy Thompson, the sincere Sam Brownback and the traditional Jim Gilmore.  Which leaves two originally single-digit  candidates – Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee – who are still around. 

Ron Paul.  Paul reminds me of self-styled libertarian anarchist Murray Rothbard, who opposed every effort of America to fight the Cold War.  Simply put, if we had President Ron Paul instead of President Ron Reagan, the Soviet Union would still be around.

On foreign policy, Ron Paul is not a strategic thinker because, quite simply, Ron Paul has no strategy.   Just as Rothbard thought the US, not the Soviets, was the problem, Ron Paul also believes the US, not the Islamofascist terrorists, is the problem. 

Despite his buzz and dollars on the Internet (raised mostly from the anti-war radical left), Paul will remain a marginal candidate.  He'll hang in the race to the bitter end because of all the attention, but voters en masse are simply not going to be attracted to a candidate who has voted No on every single defense appropriation bill in 11 years in Congress.

Mike Huckabee.  The American people like an underdog.  The press wants news.  Liberal reporters promote Huckabee because they know he would lose in November.  

Huckabee's modest campaign has really hit a nerve in Iowa, even against the high-spending Romney, whose attempted leveraged buy-out of the Iowa electorate was irksome to many.  The good-humored, pleasant Huckabee rose in national polls as Iowa was covered, well, nationally. 

But Huckabee has effectively peaked.   The tip-off is that Ed Rollins has come aboard.  This means Huckabee will go the distance if he listens to Rollins. And he will tank if he doesn't listen to Rollins.  If you doubt this, you can, in a few months, if not weeks, ask, well… Ed Rollins.

Huckabee has taken a good thing – his authentic appeal to Christian evangelicals – and overplayed it.   He did not need his birth-of-Christ television spot.  He needed to establish his credentials as a serious candidate, especially on foreign policy.  Americans want a man of faith.  But they do not want a preacher.

The expectations for Huckabee now outpace the reality.  Even if he wins in Iowa, it will not be by a commanding margin.   He already has damaged Romney by forcing him to go negative. But if Huckabee actually wins Iowa because Romney's attacks backfire, the downward effect on Romney's momentum will virtually assure McCain a victory in New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney.  The fact is, if Romney had given his religious speech six months ago, Huckabee would have been history.  But Romney followed classic, rather than outside-the-box, political strategy. 

He thought what some called "the Mormon thing" (which is, after all, his religious faith) would go away as an issue, when, in fact, he needed  to exploit this negative by turning into a positive.  Americans really don't want religion in campaigns, and – to their credit – they find religious prejudice not only politically incorrect but repugnant.  Romney needed to get past this religious bigotry early and turn it to his advantage.

This is the same Romney who, on some issues, needlessly seemed to turn on a dime; thus, much of his initial exposure to Americans was as someone who seemingly flip-flopped. Instead, he could have evolved his positions.

Romney is a very bright and highly focused candidate who brings real executive ability to the table, but he lacks seasoned political counsel.  From the outset, he has had to run interference between the usual-suspect Beltway vendors and his brighter, more loyal, younger and less experienced (often Mormon) brain trust. 

The result was more disarray than synergy.  Otherwise, he would have his lines straight, and not let his emotions push him into unnecessary misstatements, like his father marching with Martin Luther King, Jr., that further impair his credibility.

Romney did not concern himself with national polls showing Rudy ahead, because Romney's strategy is momentum – that an Iowa win would establish him early, and the media spin would affect national numbers.  In New Hampshire, the former Massachusetts governor had a natural following, due to the state's inclusion in  the Boston media market. 

With the collapse earlier this year of John McCain, New Hampshire looked like a sure winner, boosting momentum further, to the probable detriment of Rudy's national numbers. Now he's forced to go negative, against Huckabee in Iowa, and McCain in New Hampshire.  Yet, symptomatic of his campaign's strategic miscalculations, he may not have enough credibility to sponsor attack ads.

But it's way to early to rule out Romney's nomination.

Rudy Guiliani.  This campaign has had symbolic blunders and missed opportunities.     Remember Rudy taking his wife's cell telephone call while he spoke to the NRA?  Was there no one among his advisers to veto his stupid idea?  As for the Bernie Kerik problem, Rudy failed to take pre-emptive action early in the campaign cycle to cut his losses.  

Rudy remains credible, in part because, at least in campaign Q&As, he typically does achieve closure, with deposition-like responses.  While Rudy's soft support has eroded, he is a national phenomenon, and can easily survive losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, going on to easily win the nomination.

But can he survive endless and, in many cases, foreseeable questions about his baggage, luggage that he could have checked or discarded a year ago or more?  Like Romney and Thompson, Guiliani remains uniquely impressive.  It's too bad all three candidates could not be combined into a virtual candidate.

Fred Thompson.  Fred Thompson, a one time supporter of John McCain, did what McCain did – squandered his money.  Thompson had triple staff turnover – before he even declared his candidacy. He waited too long, did not even use that time to get up to speed, and then, once a candidate, was conspicuously under-scheduled; and, where he appeared, he underwhelmed.

While the sometimes refreshing Thompson is closer to the Republican center of gravity, and therefore remains viable, his prospects continue to decline amid his incredibly unrealized potential.  Like Rudy, Thompson has seen his national numbers fall, as part of the momentum play, especially Huckabee's rise. 

This means as the press covers other candidates who are supposedly moving in early primary states, the candidates with the most name ID start to lose points in national polls.  If Thompson does not finish in at least third place in several primaries, look for him to endorse McCain IF McCain is back in the game.

McCain.  If we judged a presidency by a campaign, McCain would not even be considered.   He allowed cronies to run his campaign into the ground, and only recently did he clearly state that securing the borders must come before immigration reform.  

But McCain has never been a quitter, and he could well be the Republican nominee, mainly if Huckabee wins Iowa or Romney wins only narrowly,  and McCain runs third there ahead of Thompson. 

Regardless, McCain needs a New Hampshire win, however narrow.  While some party insiders remain deeply opposed to McCain, he looks better to voters as other candidates look worse. 

My hunch is that a portion of the national Republican electorate does not even know McCain was a POW, and few voters know it was six years.   Once McCain's full story gets out, he could, if he wins New Hampshire have his own surge.  Romney's attacks on McCain in New Hampshire work only if Romney wins in Iowa.  Otherwise, New Hampshire voters could care less than McCain opposed Bush tax cuts. 

If Huckabee wins in Iowa, and McCain wins in New Hampshire, and McCain acts younger than he looks, then McCain  soon will run ahead of Rudy in national polls. 

In that case, just as primary results in Iowa and New Hampshire affected national numbers, the national numbers will affect results in subsequent primaries.

In other words, Huckabee's most likely history after Iowa, for even if he wins it's hard to see him going the distance.  Thus New Hampshire may determine if the race is a duke-out between Rudy and Romney or Rudy and McCain.  Or possibly a divisive fight between all three.

In that case, Republican voters might turn to McCain – or even more entertainingly, no one with a majority of delegates.  If we do end up with a brokered convention, you might bet on Fred Thompson.  A sure bet is that this will be an exciting race all the way to the finish.