The Wall Street Journal-20080201-The McCain Calculus
Return to: The_Wall_Street_Journal-20080201
The McCain Calculus
Full Text (1060 words)John McCain's 96-year-old mother gave the press corps a laugh when she told Republican voters they should just "hold their noses" and vote for her son. Give Mama McCain credit for some straight talk.
When voters turn out on Tuesday, they'll likely end the long Republican primary. Taxes, health care, values, terrorism -- all these will play a role in the relative McCain and Romney votes. But for those who choose purely on electability, Roberta McCain has a point.
You don't have to spend much time on the trail to pick up the deep disregard certain Republicans have for Mr. McCain. It isn't just his heresies on climate change or campaign finance; it's his attitude. His righteousness gets under the skin. Some could never bring themselves to vote for him, even with a gas mask.
And yet, looking at this from the stratosphere, the operative word for any McCain nomination is still "potential." For all his flaws, many top Republicans are concluding the Arizonan has the best shot of winning a Presidential election that many had figured was doomed. Their calculation goes like this:
In a race that will be fought on national security, Mr. McCain is one of the few public figures with the potential to convince Americans to stick with Iraq, and in turn neutralize the war. This would also boost congressional Republicans. On the broader question of security, he'd cut Hillary Clinton's "experience" down to size. He'd arguably run national security rings around the Illinois rookie, and that's before Barack Obama got a chance to make another foreign policy gaffe.
Mr. McCain has the potential to swing critical independents. This would matter against any Democrat, but in particular against Mr. Obama. New Hampshire Independents got to choose their primary last month, and the early betting was that they'd flock to the Democrats and Mr. Obama. In fact, they made up a greater share of the Republican primary vote than they did in 2000, drawn by Mr. McCain.
A related point: Mr. McCain's independent support is in part a function of his ability to manage the Bush question. As Mr. Romney has walked a tightrope, unsure whether to embrace or decry an unpopular president, Mr. McCain has simply pointed to his own record. Voters loyal to President Bush see in Mr. McCain a man who stood firm on the Iraq war. Voters who dislike Mr. Bush see a man who criticized the president on the conduct of that war. This is useful.
He also has the potential to stem the flood of Hispanics from the GOP. His new immigration strategy was on display in this week's debate: He'll talk about the importance of securing the border, and say no more. With this he hopes to mollify conservatives, and will leave it to others to remind Hispanics of his record. Florida was a useful test case, with Mr. McCain winning more than half the Hispanic vote. Another quarter went to Rudy Giuliani, who has since thrown in with Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney got 14%.
Mr. McCain has a better opportunity to make a Clinton competition about character and believability. He's no flip-flopper, and his duty- honor-loyalty persona would stand in stark contrast to both Clintons. He has a better opportunity to make an Obama race about core beliefs. Like or dislike Mr. McCain's views, Americans know what they are. Mr. Obama has been a cipher.
Most important, Mr. McCain retains the potential to make inroads with those who've had to hold their noses just to read this far. He does have a real problem with the GOP base. The key difference between Mr. McCain in 2000 and 2008 is that he knows it, and appears intent on making amends. Watch for him to be as pure as the New Hampshire snow on the two core issues of taxes and judges. His campaign has thrown its all into collecting establishment endorsements who will make his case with their state faithful. Supply-side icons such as Jack Kemp and Phil Gramm will try to soothe the feistier organizations in the GOP camp.
Mr. McCain obviously also has plenty of potential to blow it. He can no longer afford to allow his advisers to goad him into fights with fellow Republicans. He's going to have to learn to talk economics in an election where it will vie with national security for importance. Right now he looks about as easy talking taxes or health-care costs as he does sitting on a cactus.
This is where Mr. Romney would have the advantage. Economics is his lifeblood. The debates have shown him gifted at explaining complicated issues. Why will free-market health care reforms lower prices? Mitt can tell you. What are the day-to-day costs of a climate program? Mitt can explain. He has a knack, too, for relating these policies back to core principles.
The problem is many voters doubt he himself believes in those principles. On paper, in a debate, Mr. Romney is perfecto. He's tapped into the exact mood of the GOP on every issue (he could probably tell you boxers versus briefs). This, paradoxically, is his problem. Voters have memories. They know today's perfect Mr. Romney is different from yesterday's flawed Massachusetts governor.
As a nominee, Mr. Romney would also have to develop a compelling narrative. George W. Bush brought compassionate conservatism and a big tax cut. Mr. McCain's promise is security in a time of global threat. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will both claim to be the tonic for Republican fatigue. After Iowa, the Romney campaign recalibrated to "Washington is broken; it's time for change." But what change, and how? Barack Obama has been successful because implicit in his change message (whether you buy it or not) is transformational politics, a new era of bipartisan cooperation. Mr. Romney is simply promising he'll do better at pushing conservative ideas through a Congress that is even more hostile than the one that stoppered Mr. Bush. This is a tough sell.
Both Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain would undoubtedly benefit from a Hillary Clinton candidacy, as Republicans rallied against a Billary return. But foolish is any Republican who thinks he can win on the strength of animus toward Mrs. Clinton alone. Elections are won on turnout, and that's a function of enthusiasm for a nominee. Whoever wins on Tuesday has hard work to do.
