What some of the Fred critics have been missing in re McCain is that Fred’s very entrance into the race was a slam at McCain, interpreted by some as a betrayal of John and an attempt to drive him out at a time when certain pundits were inviting predictions for the “dead pool.” Fred’s main issues other than war-related ones are implicit criticisms of McCain or reminders of McCain apostasies from conservative doctrines.

If Fred’s to maintain a chance in SC specifically and anywhere in the South, and in the horse race overall, restraining, reducing, and ripping off Huckabee is job #1. If Mitt stalls John’s momentum in Michigan but drops out of contention in SC, AND Fred finishes strong in SC, then Fred’s still behind, especially nationally, but he’s the only candidate with clear momentum, he’s the Huck-killer, and he’s a potentially rallying point for other conservatives as the anti-John, anti-Huck.

If you’re going to try to kill the king, be sure you succeed. Fred hasn’t been ready or able to decapitate the party front-runner. If MI exposes John, then Fred might be able to stick the knife in. He might even be able to do it without leaving fingerprints all over the hilt.

CK MacLeod on January 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

Interesting but work this in there somewhere also. Mary Matalin either said or implied (don’t have the story in front of me at the moment) that McCain’s camp was the one that fed the ‘Fred to drop out’ story in Iowa to the press.

Who knows. Certainly makes some sense: Who would be more likely to feed the idea that a candidate was going to drop out and endorse McCain than someone trying to boost McCain – especially at a time when Fred was trying to salvage his candidacy in IA even while McCain was competing for many of the same non-/anti-Mitt voters? McCain’s relatively high finish in IA with minimal campaigning was key to building his NH surge, while Fred’s biggest problems have been the mutually reinforcing issues of electability and funding. Think of the NR endorsement: The only substantive reason given for choosing Mitt over Fred was that Fred hadn’t demonstrated a willingness or ability to campaign vigorously – i.e., with a chance to win. The voters and donors have reached or intuited the same conclusion. As Patrick Ruffini likes to say, voters in primaries will generally gravitate to a candidate in their comfort zone with a chance to win.

Fred’s already shown that he’s well within the comfort zone of every main Republican constituency group. His early numbers before the long swoon that began in the Summer showed that. His main obstacle at the moment is the lost perception that he really has a chance.

CK MacLeod on January 15, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Supporting someone for President merely because they are your friend is a pretty weak reason in my view. McCain was really no more conservative in 2000 than he is today; there is just a bigger record of RINOness today.

Oh yeah – I can see the stunning revelation that Fred supported McCain in 2000 sinking a resurgent candidacy. The coup de grace will be the additional shockers that Fred also supported that amnesty maniac Bush in 2000 and 2004!

CK MacLeod on January 15, 2008 at 2:59 PM

And surprise, surprise: Fred voted in favor of that bill. No difference between Fred and McCain on this issue.

Unlike McCain, Fred has largely disavowed CFR, acknowledged that it didn’t work out as hoped, criticized the final bill as diverging from the draft he co-sponsored. Take it for what it’s worth. I don’t think Fred’s perfect, but I also think that the idea of CFR wasn’t all wrong. Anyway, in this race especially, the idea that your candidate should be perfect going back to the cradle doesn’t move me.

But this does raise an interesting question: Now that Fred is hitting McCain, how will McCain respond, if McCain does decide he needs to respond (an indication that Fred matters)? Somehow, the response seemingly favored by anti-Frederalists here – “He used to support me, wah-wah-wah!” – doesn’t strike me as very powerful.

CK MacLeod on January 15, 2008 at 3:08 PM