In a riff about the legacy of Karl Rove, David Postman regrettably recycled an incorrect MSM narrative of the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina: that Bush won simply because of some dirty politicking in the state. That's incorrect.
Postman says "it's pretty widely known how it happened," then recounts how a supposedly infamous array of push polls, swirling rumors, and trashy hand-bills tipped the scales toward Bush. While such tactics inevitably grab media attention when discovered they hardly tell the true tale.
John McCain didn't just lose South Carolina. He suffered a decisive 11-point defeat in a primary consisting only of registered Republicans. That last point is particularly important.
It was the support of independents in New Hampshire's open primary that jump-started McCain in the 2000 race. Despite the effusive media coverage McCain rode out of the Granite State, he still - like today - had real problems with the conservative base. Such folks are not an inconsequential portion of the Republican primary electorate in South Carolina.
Washington's own 2000 Presidential Primary illustrates the point about Republicans versus independents nicely. Bush absolutely buried McCain among Washington state voters selecting the Republican ballot, while McCain ran very strong among those choosing to be "unaffiliated." Regardless of the media glow surrounding McCain after New Hampshire, he had some real hurdles with the people actually casting ballots in South Carolina.
More to Postman's point, South Carolina has a long history of dirty politics, which remains alive and well in this election cycle. Were some things done on behalf of Bush that his campaign probably didn't like? Likely so. Did his campaign also throw some punches above the belt in South Carolina? Who wouldn't in his shoes?
It's common in major campaigns to have supporters cross the line in their zeal to win. Based on the history of South Carolina politics there's little doubt things occur in many races there that would raise an eyebrow elsewhere. But to say McCain lost by 11 points because of some slimy phone calls is simply incorrect. Such tactics only move results on the margins. Important perhaps in a nail biter, but not the cause of a decisive victory.
The broader point of the Grover Norquist op-ed Postman linked to in discussing the South Carolina victory was that to leaders of the conservative movement (like Norquist), a McCain Presidency looked like a potential disaster. A theory very likely to have been put to the test had McCain won in the Palmetto State.
UPDATE: Richard Pope writes at #2 to correct me about the issue of "registered Republicans" in South Carolina. I had read such a description of the primary, which clearly is in error, and I regret the mischaracterization. That being said, it remains a Republican primary, run by the party, not the state. Moreover, the broader point that McCain ran into a conservative electorate - significantly different than New Hampshire - and lost should not be as a big of a stunner as some would like it to be...nor a loss that can simply be ascribed to dirty politics, whatever the source.
I should also note in response to some of the other comments that I worked directly with the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2000 in Washington state for several months. I don't know personally what the campaign did and didn't do in South Carolina. But the totality of my experience with the campaign organization, including national and local staff, leads me to believe they not only wouldn't have condoned the sort of dirty tricks reported in the media, they would have been particularly upset about them. It simply wasn't in their character.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 14, 2007 10:00 PM | Email ThisClip from You Tube, Celsius 41.11
And BillL, on Rove, see this cartoon. and then take a cold shower to calm down. And Rove was not the one who outed Valerie Plame, but I doubt you will bother with facts.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 14, 2007 11:47 PMDidn't happen. But I'm not going to waste my time because people like you will never be convinced of anything otherwise. Just answer - why isn't Richard Armitage in jail if a crime was committed?
And Nancy? Once you can explain why the US Senate failed to ratify Kyoto by a 98-0 vote, then you can blame global warming on the results of the South Carolina primary. Until then, shut up.
Posted by: jimg on August 15, 2007 07:55 AMSo, Nance. I guess this snark ^^^ is your idea of a scientific point of view?
Just what is the point in your post? Keep in mind, the subject is the South Carolina primary.
Posted by: jimg on August 15, 2007 09:24 AMTrue, but W certainly benefited from it. Push polling costs money and somebody who knew SC was a must win state for Bush fronted the money for the operation. I doubt the Bush campaign was directly involved but they certainly had the most to gain via this backhanded type of campaigning.
Not directly relevant to the SC primary, but indirectly in the sense that Bush's breakthrough there led to an administration that, while many times admitting the validity of the science of global warming, has ignored the problem. And, I'm not just talking about Kyoto. It would have been fine to abandon Kyoto if the Bush administration had shown leadership to take action here at home while bringing the world together behind a better, longer term approach to the problem. Instead, they just let the problem get worse, which, like the deficit and the war in Iraq, will only make it more difficult for future presidents to dig us out of the hole. Yet again, another moral failing of the Bush presidency. (BTW, all of these situations would have been much better under a McCain presidency, as he has shown leadership on climate and spending issues and, surely, would have been more rational on foreign policy. So, it's not an even a partisan issue. )
Posted by: BillL on August 15, 2007 10:27 AMEvery well-funded campaign in the last 20 years has used push polling, so to argue Rove wasn't aware of it, or other below the belt operations, in SC is ludicrous. Bush arguably didn't know about the details, but he's still responsible for it, so it's irrelevant.
Posted by: Nancy on August 15, 2007 10:34 AMAccording to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
As far as changes in solar energy from the sun goes, ccording to PMOD/World Radiation Center (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant) there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
The Max Planck Institute has done some work to reconstruct past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available (http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/). According to their analysis there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 through the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is responsible for large portion of that trend, together with around the same portion from CO2. This chart of the observed trend, the modeled trend and the variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate trends does a good job of showing the relationship between the forces of solar activity and CO2 emissions.
And, for a bigger picture review of the scientific evidence - and consensus for climate change caused by human activity, go to:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Well, considering I think the planet is 4.6 billion years old (give or take a few) I'm still not sure what your point is. You lumped people like me into your preferred, derogatory, little category, yet you know nothing about me or my views regarding global warming or any number of issues I have opinions on.
Just who do you support, Nancy? Who is your preferred candidate?
Posted by: jimg on August 15, 2007 10:50 AMIf/then. See if you can follow.
If you believe Karl Rove 'outed' Super Secret Double Naught Spy, Jethro Plame then I'm not going to put much stock into any of your other opinions.
But this statement is laughable:
On McCain: as he has shown leadership on climate and spending issues and, surely, would have been more rational on foreign policy.
What leadership on climate change?
What leadership on spending issues? That budget deficit you harp on? The one approved by the legislative branch of government?
More rational on foreign policy? Name one point in which McCain differs from Bush on foreign policy? Iraq? Nope. Afghanistan? Nope. Attacking Islamic jihadis before they attack us? Nope.
Here's the thing, Bill. Bush going to be gone shortly and you'll have a new target in which to blame all the world's ills.
Posted by: jimg on August 15, 2007 11:05 AMHaven't decided on a candidate yet. Struggling with aspects of each. I voted for McCain in 2000, for what it's worth, but would have trouble doing so now.
Posted by: Nancy on August 15, 2007 11:05 AMOn climate change, McCain was the lead sponsor of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which until this year was the strongest bill that had been proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. McCain worked it, too. He came fairly close to passing the bill in Republican controlled Senate in 2005. That's leadership. If Bush had exhibited the same, we would be on our way to tackling the problem.
On spending issues? Come on, McCain has been as much of a deficit hawk as anyone in Congress. And, yes, the legislative branch approves the budget. But, are you going seriously assert that the president doesn't have any influence over the process? If Bush had pushed for a balanced budget, especially in his first five years, he would have gotten it.
On foreign policy, yes McCain supports the war in Iraq (which is why he has no chance of getting elected in '08), do you really think he would have invaded Iraq? He would have absolutely invaded Afghanistan - as would have any of the other serious 2000 candidates after 9/11- but he would almost certainly have concentrated US resources on that fight rather than opening up a second front on a nation that posed no real threat to the US or its allies. (Now, you might have an argument about McCain and Iran).
I'm not saying that I would have voted for McCain in November 2000. But if he had been nominated, there's no doubt that he would have defeated Gore by a big margin. And there's no doubt that he would not be the complete disaster Bush has been over the last 6.5 years.
Posted by: BillL on August 15, 2007 11:28 AMThanks for your response. Seriously.
But what I get from it is: Bush = Disaster of monumental proportions, worst person in the history of the world. Nothing else will convince 'me' otherwise.
Which puts you squarely in the camp of a lot of people, granted. People I got tired of trying to reason with a long time ago.
Posted by: jimg on August 15, 2007 02:07 PM