Show me the Money! Romney vs. McCain in the "Big Fish" Race

Elect Romney in 2008 ^ | 7/8/06 | Jeff Fuller

[Jeff Fuller]

So, is anyone else baffled by the fact that John McCain is listed as the "strong frontrunner" among GOP 2008 presidential hopefuls? The political pundits all have him as the head honcho (usually followed by Romney and Allen) as evidenced here, here, here, here) and in the most recent National Journal 2008 Republican Insiders Poll.

This was not always so . . . just a few months ago to a year ago Allen was leading in that Insiders Poll (actually, you can look at the figures and find that Romney has been gaining the most, percentage-wise, of any candidate.)

However, most self-proclaimed conservatives have major reservations about McCain. McCain does much better in cold-call phone polls than he does in Convention or Online strawpolls. His recent positions on the wrong side of the immigration bill and Marriage Protection Ammendment will give GOP primaries pause. I feel that McCain looks so strong now because of four things: 1) great name recognition 2) his great relationship with the mainstream media (MSM) 3) his strong polling against Hillary 4) a promise from GW Bush that if McCain sat out in 2004 and campaigned for W, that the favor would be returned in 2008 (Oh, THAT IS WHY HE KEPT CHENEY ON AS VP!) Bush may not be many things, but he is a man of his word.

Many have speculated on this fourth claim before . . . but two recent pieces seem to be putting the picture together pretty clearly now. First, a piece in the Washington Times called "McCain sitting pretty for 2008 race" starts out:

Some top Republicans at odds with Sen. John McCain on core conservative issues say privately that the party's 2008 presidential nomination is "his to lose." They cite the Arizona senator's head start in fundraising, a primary calendar that is shaping up in his favor and a growing belief that he enjoys the tacit support of President Bush.

It then goes on to discuss former TEXAS Senator Phill Graham's support for McCain, despite not agreeing with him on some issues.

"There are plenty of things I don't agree with John on, but I don't think they are important, compared to things I do agree with him on," the former Texas A&M University economics professor said.

Later . . .

"What I've heard seems plausible to me -- that a deal was cut that if McCain supported Bush in 2004, the Bush team would get behind McCain for 2008," Republican media consultant Tom Edmonds says. Among those who have signed on with Mr. McCain are Mark McKinnon, Mr. Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaign media strategist, and Terry Nelson, Mr. Bush's 2004 national political director. A senior Republican senator from a Western state who opposes Mr. McCain says privately, "Look at who he's got in his camp and look at him in the polls -- I'm telling you there's no one out there strong enough to beat him. It's his to lose."

Sounds like a challenge to me!

Further information confirming the McCain-Bush alliance comes from a recent piece titled "Landing Big Campaign Finance Fish" found at Chris Cillizza's Political Blog "The Fix" hosted by the Washington Post.

Bush asked affluent individuals not simply to donate to the campaign but also to round up thousands of dollars in contributions from friends and colleagues. A tiered system was created to reward the most effective of this lot; "Pioneers" raised $100,000, "Rangers" $200,000, and "Super Rangers" $300,000.

It lists who McCain has signed up already from this group of Bush donors:

Wayne Berman, lobbyist (D.C.) RANGER Fred Malek, Thayer Capital Partners (D.C.) Carter Pate, PricewaterhouseCoopers (D.C./Texas) RANGER Bob Mosbacher, Mosbacher Energy Co. (Texas) Tom Loeffler, lobbyist (Texas) RANGER

Notice anything interesting? They are all from D.C. and/or Texas! The Bush team is obviously strongest in D.C. and Texas. I do not see this as coincidental since, although McCain is oft called a "Maverick", his political record puts him more in line with a northeastern GOP Senator than a Texas-styled GOP Senator.

What is even more interesting is that Romney has already signed on 12 (count them, TWELVE) of these major Bush donors. This group is the largest and most geographically diverse of all, thusfar:

Peter Karmanos, Compuware Corp. (Mich.) David Fischer, Suburban Collection (Mich.) PIONEER John Rakolta, Walbridge Aldinger (Mich.) RANGER Dave Phillips, Phillips Industries (N.C.) RANGER Tom Tellefsen, Tellefsen Investments (Calif.) PIONEER Anne Dunsmore, Capital Campaigns (Calif.) RANGER Hadi Makarechian, Capital Pacific Holdings (Calif.) Herb Collins, Boston Capital Partners (Mass.) PIONEER Jim Sims (MA) GEN3Partners (Mass.) Joe O'Donnell (MA), Boston Culinary Group (Mass.) RANGER Tom Foley, NTC Corp. (Conn.) PIONEER Eric Tanenblatt, McKenna Long Aldridge (Ga.) RANGER

Frist has a strong team at 7, but it says:

We hear that Virginia Sen. George Allen and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani are huddling regularly with the whales but have yet to sign any of them up.

So, going back to my list above of the four things that makes McCain the frontrunner now:

1) This will become a non-factor as the campaign wears on 2) Romney's charisma, great interviewing skills/telegenicity, and the controversial Mormon issue may turn him into a favorite among many in the media . . . though the MSM "powers that be" will untimately look to destroy a true conservative like Romney. 3) There are a lot of options to beat Hillary . . . McCain is not the only choice . . . Giuliani and Romney would be able to do this hands down. 4) Although Bush seems to have pointed the closest in his political machine in McCain's direction, it looks like the financial donors are thinking more independently.

This Bush-McCain "back-room deal" of trading support will not sit well with the media or the GOP electorate . . . it may just turn out to be McCain's "back-fire deal."

[rhinohunter]

(my Grandfather thought that Kennedy was going to take orders from the Pope)

LOL!!!

Most Catholics won't even listen to the Pope, let alone take orders from him.

[justiceseeker93]

Thanks for the info on Gov. Romney, but you and SDGOP (please see post # 40) seem to have your differences of opinion.

[Fiji Hill]

Oscar Brand was a "folkie," and I'm pretty sure his politics were on the left, as was the case with most "folkies." There were a few exceptions to this trend, suich as The New Breed, who sang "John Birch, American" (Impact Records, 1963). Nonetheless, Brand may have included some presidential campaign songs in his repertoire.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

If you think Oscar Brand was a leftie, you are wrong.
He was the best folk singer ever and his Vietnam records were pro troop.

He was crude in a lot of his records.

[justiceseeker93]

Really regret that the political song as a uniquely(?) American genre of music seems to have become nearly extinct, with the prominent exception of the parodies by Paul Shanklin played on Rush Limbaugh's show.

Seems to me that with the correct promotional approach, "conservative" political songs should sell a heck of a lot better than they have both in the distant and more recent past.

Thanks for your informative capsule review of the history of political music. I was completely unaware of the Goldwater era songs, thinking (erroneously, I suppose) that the political music of the 60s was basically all left all the time.

[Fiji Hill]

Campaign songs seem to have pretty much fallen off after 1964. In 1968, Connie Francis recorded a song for the Nixon campaign, but it was a far cry from her great hits such as "Stupid Cupid" or "I Want to be Wanted," and Nixon's official campaign song--I think it was called "Nixon's the One"--was downright insipid. However, the George Wallace campaign generated some good campaign songs, incouding "The Wallace Cannonball" (to the tune of "The Wabash Cannonball") and "The Wallace Victory Wagon" (to the tune of "The New Secession Wagon," a Confederate song from the Civil War).

I also have some Wallace songs from the 1972 campaign, but I think they date from 1971, before Wallace decided to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. That campaign also produced "We Need to be Governed by McGovern," a good soul song, as well as "Come Home, America" by Johnny Rivers--the "B" side of his hit "Rockin' Pneumonia"--which was probably inspired by McGovern's campaign slogan.

In 1976, Mike Curb composed "Our Man Is Coming to Kansas City" for Ronald Reagan, and in 1980, he penned another tune for the Gipper--I believe it was entitles "United," but these were rather slick and had the ring of advertising jingles. I don't know of any Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, or Bush songs, although in 2000, Hugh Hewitt made a recording entitled "Gorelero," in which he recited Al Gore's prevarications as Maurice Ravel's 1928 opus "Bolero" played in the background.

However, I'm afraid that political songs in the tradition of "Adams and Liberty," "The Hero of Tippecanoe," "Lincoln and Liberty," "Keep Cool, and Keep Coolidge," "Hoover, Our Preesident," "The Sunshine of Your Smile" (Eisenhower), and "High Hopes" (Kennedy) are probably a thing of the past.

[Neoabolitionist]

Does anyone on this listserv know where I can get a recording and/or a copy of the lyrics for "Folk songs for Conservatives" by Noel X and His Unbleached Muslims?

[edsheppa]

Bush may not be many things, but he is a man of his word.

I see the Romney people don't like W. That tells me plenty.

[Fiji Hill]

I have Fold Songs For Conservatives on a vinyl LP, as well as a songbook with the same title. The song book, which was published in 1964, about a year after the LP, doesn't contain the words to all of the songs on the LP, but it does have others that are not on the recording.

Below is the refrain of "Cool Goldwater," a spoof of "Cool Water," The Sons of the Pioneers' 1941 hit, which is found in the song book but not the LP:

Democrats are hacks, they will always show their backs.
They're too chicken to attack,
And they'll never counteract Goldwater.
Man, can't you see, since '33, this tax and spending spree's
Been killing off both me and you.