Roger L. Simon: Does Dick Morris know?

I find Dick Morris fun to listen to - he's witty and willing to go out on a limb. But is he right when he says that John McCain's campaign has already imploded? The Arizona Senator never even made a dent on the PJM poll, but I thought that might have had to do with the fact our readership doesn't much care for McCain-Feingold. The general public, however, is unlikely to know what McCain-Feingold even is. And yet they seem to be rejecting McCain. This could be in the area of pure instinct. People react to candidates on a primitive level that transcends issues.

Also, as Morris notes, overexposure is a big danger. Even Obama may already be overexposed. The trick to winning this endless election will be not peaking too early. Either that, or getting so far ahead everybody else just gives up. These are the dual strategies in long-distance racing and seem to apply here.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

John McCain, despite his stellar Vietnam Record, lost most of us when he made that wierd yell. That said, I think his campaign has a good chance of continuing on as he is extremely media savvy and knows how to work the internet.

I am FOR Obama winning the presidency, Hillary appears too angry, Obama's values are more in line with mine, no matter what his early religious upbringing (which doesn't worry me) may have been.

Audrey, I would think that if your values are in line with Obama, that McCain would never have even had the chance to be lost.

And I guess you would rather have McCain over, oh say, Rudy since your Obama might have a slight leg up.

Maybe I'm just reading your post wrong, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Is it only me??

"I am FOR Obama winning the presidency... Obama's values are more in line with mine."

In the book, Obama acknowledges that he used cocaine as a high school student but rejected heroin. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though," he says.

IMO McCain does not understand the difference between "bigness" and "big government", and so does not understand his peril in becoming associated with "big government" solutions to domestic issues. That cost him his outsider image.

So now he is perceived as just another insider. Worse, he doesn't understand this either, and so has not taken the steps necesary to position himself as the best of the insider candidates.

The short answer is that he abandoned his old message without finding a new one.

Apart from the extra terrestial musings of Audrey from Hollywood, Morris's article rings true.
Rudi just may bridge the media-imposed suspicions about Rudi's personal life and his stance on abortion and gays. And, save us from the clutches of the wicked witch from Illinois, Little Rock and Chapaqua.

I don't always agree with Dick Morris (surprise, surprise), but I think he gets some things right:

"...But where it has counted, on the two core issues that move Republican voters these days � tax cuts and immigration � McCain is badly out of step with the GOP base."

Some things that Dick Morris laments McCain is no longer doing are actually part of McCain's problem: (emphasis mine)

"Once he led the battle against big tobacco, for corporate governance reform, in favor of campaign financing changes, and in support of action against global warming.

"campaign financing changes" AKA the BCRA, AKA McCain-Finegold. And McCain was in the (Democratic controlled) Senate when they gave the warning vote against the Kyoto Treaty, 95 against, 0 for. McCain, like many others in Congress, is just posturing, and not in a way that would appeal to American conservatives.

"Where he used to challenge the religious right, he now panders to them. " The religious right is a big fraction of the GOP base, his dissing of them back in 2000, by itself, cost him the nomination. Not that there weren't other reasons. McCain hasn't really healed that breach yet. And he isn't attending CPAC, where he could reach out to the conservative activists. He seems to think that the talk-show circuit is good enough. Which is two problems; His habit of pandering to the press, and (back to Dick Morris):

"But beyond the substantive problems with the McCain candidacy, he has simply failed to impress the American public with his performance on the television talk shows that are the core of this year's pre-primary nominating process.

He looks small, shrunken, weak, cowed, and timid. He shows all of his 70 years of age including the roughly lived period at the hands of the tender mercies of the North Vietnamese. It is hard to imagine him as a strong leader as he meekly answers questions from the likes of Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos. "

"Morris also gets 0 for 2 for failing completely to mention the "Gang of 14" and McCain's support of speedy trials in civilian courts for Gitmo terrorists."

I'll add the moral posturing that McCain did on the interrogation issue, which amounted to "I want to look good by making this illegal, but if it becomes necessary, go ahead and do it, I won't prosecute."

This discussion is also going on at Bros. Judd, they believe it comes down to 2 words "McCain-Feingold."

If Dick Morris says McCain's campaign has "imploded", I'd take it as a sign to go long McCain at TradeSports.

Roger, do you really believe that "people react to candidates on a primitive level that transcends issues"? Regardless of whether you agree with the outcome, the midterm election shows that people very care about the issues, even if in that case it was a single issue.

Well Rudy and McCain are very much like on immigration so I don't think that is a killer. In fact I am really kind of sick of the Tancredo people myself. They think the control the Republican party, but I am not sure the base is who they think it is.

I have no idea who will win the nomination, but I will say that I know a lot of people who like McCain and most of them are Republicans and they really don't care about something like campaign financing. They just think he is tough and independent and they like that.

But who knows if these people are typical? I think the whole thing started too soon and a lot of people are already sick of this. A friend told me that the never ending campgaign makes it less likely that lawmakers will get anything accomplished.

A friend told me that the never ending campgaign makes it less likely that lawmakers will get anything accomplished.

n the book, Obama acknowledges that he used cocaine as a high school student but rejected heroin. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though," he says.

Well, I don't particularly like the fellow, but "honesty" comes to mind as a value in the above quote. Also, not being in fear of the misinformed masses and their perception that pot or alcohol and cocaine cause some sort of unrepairable brain damage.

Recent studies indicate that nearly 50% of Americans have smoked pot at some point in their life. Almost 40% smoke (or smoked) it regularly. At least Obama is honest and doesn't pull with "I never inhaled" or simply ignoring the past with common recreational drugs like some seem to do.

Many politicians have honestly admitted to using drugs, Al Gore, Jesse Ventura and even our good friend Newt Gingrich. I would consider all of them to have better "values" than someone that lied, twisted the truth, or refused to answer the question with the excuse that it would set a bad example for "the children".

I agree with dclydew. Politically Obama is of no interest to me. In fact, anyone who could write a book with the banal (and inaccurate) title "The Audacity of Hope" puts me to sleep from the start. But the fact that he admits to having done coke is bloody irrelevant.

Yes but not saying "I never inhaled" being regarded as the gold standard of honesty by the Donks tells you all you need to know about the party.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last paragraph. I chose Bill Clinton's famous line because it was an obvious tie with the drug theme. Besides, most of GWB's quotes where he dances around his past drug usage are kinda dull and not well known... "I Never Inhaled" was obvious, quick and made the point.

Personally, I don't think any politican should ever have the words "gold standard" and "honesty" used near their name. However, a politican honestly stating unpopular things about their lives seems better than one hiding it... or IM'ing it to teenage kids ;-)

mccain is too old. its shows more and more - and we have two more years to go! i predict he will fade. sure: it's his turn - as it was dole's - and look where that got the gop!

mccain and rudy - and bill richardson - would make excellent nominees for the dems - the dems PRE 1972, that is. the party of jfk and lbj and scoop and fdr and truman - a party of liberal hawks.

but the party of kerry and obama, of murtha, dean, and pelosi cannot nominate classical liberals who are hawks. it'll probably be gore-richardson or gore-obama.

that really strands mccain and rudy in no man's land. for the time being. either could defeat gore (or any other dem) in the general, but maybe not win the GOP nomination.

IF there was a true conservative hawk in the race for the GOP nod, he'd run away with the nomination. which is why mitt is trying so hard to show he is a real conservative now.

Give me a presidential candidate who has excelled as an executive over one who has not every time. That means Rudi over John in my book.

Romney is a dark horse. I am not sure he's tough enough. Rudi is a proven commodity in the toughness department.

He is out there going one on one with the likes of Larry King. That is a good forum for him and he handles it well. He has the gift of self-effacing humor like Reagan and John Kennedy, and it shows.

He is out there going one on one with the likes of Larry King. That is a good forum for him and he handles it well. He has the gift of self-effacing humor like Reagan and John Kennedy, and it shows."

Exactly. He simply outclasses every other candidate in either party. He is personable and a proven effective leader. His transformation of NYC, in spite of the powerful entrenched liberal interests there, is more than impressive.

Hillary? Please. She is so transparently phony and power mad, and flat out unlikable I can't see her winning the primary, let alone the general election. I think once her veneer of invincibilty is cracked and she no longer looks like a sure thing the media wing of the Democrat party will look to someone else to support, and when they turn on her...let's just say they won't have to dig very hard to bury her in her own dirt.

Obama is a lightweight. The media is very powerful, after all they almost got the abject John Kerry elected, but not powerful enough to hide his weakness and inexperience.

The Dem nomination is Gore's for the asking, as he's the new prophet-superstar of the great cult of Gaia, which has taken the left by storm. I'd be surprised if he doesn't seek the nomination.

"The genius of impeachment lay in the fact that it could punish the man without punishing the office."

Schlesinger was quoted by the NY Times R. W. Apple Jr. on how the failed impeachment of Andrew Johnson weakened the Presidency for many years.

Foreign Affairs in July/August 1995: "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."

"Unilateral preventive war is neither legitimate nor moral. It is illegitimate and immoral. For more than 200 years we have not been that kind of country."

John McCain is far too arrogant for me. That said, I hate his politics for many of the reasons outlined above in the comments.

There are a whole slew of things I could say about McCain, but in the end--I don't trust him to act in any way that I can safely predict. Gore bothers me the same way.

It's not like I ever "trusted" Bill Clinton in the traditional sense, or thought he had much character. But I was pretty sure which way he would go on any given issue. (Though I admit with Bill, this seems to have been easier on his opponents than his friends. Some of his friends must have found him pretty unpredictable.)

In 1999, upon a TV appearance by John McCain, I told my sons "take a look at your next President"

I'm happy to have been wrong. From there to here, whenever I see John McCain I see John McKennedyfeingold, and I'm sure I'm not alone. There's no McCain left in McCain; or maybe there is, which is just as bad.

Laura Ingraham said it today...McCain's constituency is Tim Russert, Don Imus and Chris Matthews. McCain will never be President.

There are a whole slew of things I could say about McCain, but in the end--I don't trust him to act in any way that I can safely predict.

Being a 'Maverick' and breaking with the party on issues may get you favorable media, but it does not create trust.

IMO, McCain's historical ambivalence on the 2nd made me wonder how well he understood the Constitution, writing McCain-Feingold and infringing on the 1st told me that he didn't understand the Constitution at all.

McCain's assult on the 1st amendment and distain for the 2nd amendment make him toxic to the Republican rank-and-file.

McCain could do an Alben Barkley and end up on the bottom of the GOP ticket. He cannot win the Republican nomination so long as he is a darling of the liberal media. Then, if he burns his bridges with them, and gets the nomination, they will let him twist in the wind in the general election. He has twisted and turned so many times the net result is an impossible score. He could be a help to the GOP on the bottom of the ticket, however, and certainly would be seen as a credible wartime leader from there, if need be. McCain should be commended for his stand with Bush on Iraq, and excoriated for his outrageous liaison with Feingold.

February 28, 2007: Does Dick Morris know?

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post