Well, so much for this prediction. (I suppose if there was any chance of Thompson getting Brownback’s support, it definitely went out the window with that MTP interview this week.) Brownback will apparently endorse McCain. Given the McCain campaign’s revenant-like return from the dead (he now runs in second in some national polls and still has decent numbers in the early states), it made a lot more sense for Brownback to support the candidate who has been bending over backwards in the last year to accommodate pander to religious conservatives. Once McCain appeared to be realistically competitive again, he would have been the clear choice for Brownback on account of Thompson’s underwhelming campaign style and perceived unreliability on life issues.
The Caucus has more of the inside story:
Mr. Brownback said that Mr. Giuliani made a very aggressive pitch in trying to win his support and delivered a message on abortion privately that was different from what he says publicly.
“Giuliani pitched a much more pro-life message,” he said. Mr. Giuliani emphasized his support of “strict constructionist judges,” which he does often in public. But Mr. Brownback said he was more explicit. “I come at it in a different angle but I get to the same position you do.”
In other words, he started saying whatever he thought Brownback wanted to hear. Wisely, Brownback went with someone who has actually backed up his convenient election-year rhetoric deeply-held principles with action.
Incidentally, Giuliani winning Pat Robertson’s endorsement actually seems much less electorally significant to me. (It makes for a good headline for Giuliani, and will cause a lot of pundits to declare prematurely that the “litmus test” really is as dead as some jingoes hoped it was.) The endorsements of Brownback and Robertson represent two distinct kinds of religious conservatism, one of which is, for good or ill, on the rise and the other which is in decline. Brownback, whatever else I might say about him, represents a new generation of religious conservative political leadership, and he adopts many “non-traditional” policies as part of his broader Christian reform vision. Robertson is one of the last of the old guard whose political influence has actually been on the wane for some time. The endorsement of Giuliani seems to me to be a rather sad cry for attention, a last attempt to be relevant in presidential politics by doing something “surprising.” It seems to me that the calculation of the move will undermine the symbolic value Giuliani was hoping to derive from it. Of course, any leading campaign would still want to be able to have such an endorsement, but in most of the primaries I am guessing that it isn’t as valuable as Brownback’s.
Via Ross
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 7th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Grumpy Old Man
I’ve always been skeptical of endorsements, unless they come with money, campaign workers, or a sheeplike herd of voters such as a sect of Hasidic Jews who follow a particular rebbe. Where breathes the voter with soul so dead that he exclaims, “Ah, Sam Brownback has endorsed McCain! That’s good enough for me!”
A few unions still can mobilize phone banks and donations, but they’re the exception.
A counterintuitive endorsement might make some people reconsider their aversion to a particular candidate. Perhaps Robertson will persuade a few people that his adulterer is preferable to some other one. Perhaps a Dobson could persuade a few evangelicals that Mitt Headroom, though Mormon, is preferable to some other panderer, but I doubt it.
On the other hand, Larison likes Ron Paul. Now I don’t have to follow the campaign, just find the good Congressman’s name and mark it with “X.”
November 7th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Daniel Larison
I look forward to journalists asking Giuliani, “What do you think about Robertson’s statement that the 9/11 attacks were divine punishment for homosexuality and abortion?” For the candidate who has made a large part of his campaign about his actions on 9/11, and who has expressed outrage at the mere suggestion that terrorism might be any kind of “blowback,” allying himself with one of the most prominent spokesmen of the view that our moral corruption brought about the attacks is both deeply ironic (given Giuliani’s own views on these matters) and the ultimate expression of Giuliani’s utter lack of scruples.
As for the value of the endorsements, I think Brownback’s endorsement offers more than symbolism. Brownback does have a sizeable Iowa organisation that he built up before he ran out of money. There’s no absolute guarantee that all of those people will work for McCain, but it seems likely that Brownback can bring some of those people who supported him at Ames to McCain’s side, and he will be campaigning with McCain there. McCain is already competitive in New Hampshire, and Brownback gives him some practical support in Iowa. What does Robertson have to offer? Maybe he boosts Giuliani a bit with some Christian voters in Virginia and a few of the Feb. 5 Southern states, but probably he doesn’t bring much to the campaign.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
M.Z. Forrest
I think Robertson’s endoresement is more important b/c it provides cover to an existing demo, Evangelical Rudy Supporters. Needless to say, I think McCain supporting Brownbackians are a smaller demo.