During the homestretch of the Florida primary, Sen. John McCain has picked up the endorsements of Sen. Mel Martinez and Gov. Charlie Crist. As previously noted, some endorsements matter beyond the momentary flicker they create on television screens and computer monitors. An endorser can provide contacts, fundraising and even organization to an endorsee.
In this case, the main — and perhaps only — significant benefit these endorsements give McCain is free/earned media exposure in the final days of this primary campaign. The Crist endorsement in particular was well-timed for maximum exposure on cable news, when people interested in politics were tuning in for news on the South Carolina primary. Crist can extend that coverage by touring with McCain. But the endorsement seemingly comes too late to assist McCain in fundraising or organization, though Crist might be able to help with the latter at the margins.
The Martinez endorsement probably matters even less. Martinez was repaying a favor to Crist, who backed his senate candidacy early in 2004. McCain already had locked up all three Cuban-American members of Congress in Florida’s delegation, so the value added of Martinez seems marginal.
Indeed, the candidate hurt most by the endorsements is Rudy Giuliani, who has been courting both Frist and the Cuban-American community. Romney would have liked those endorsements, but did not need them as Giuliani did:
“It’s better to have endorsements than not to have them,” said Charlie Cook, editor and publisher of The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter. “And in a close race, little things like this can make a difference.”
But Cook added: “If I had a choice of Martinez’s endorsement or Romney’s ability to spend money in the last week, I’d rather have that money.”
The conventional wisdom that every little bit helps in a dead heat may be true here. There is, however, another hypothesis to consider.ÂÂ
The GOP race has tended to be a race of nomentum, rather than momentum. Indeed, there sometimes seems to be an almost Newtonian physics to the race. The rise of Mike Huckabee stemmed in part from the reaction of one faction of Republicans against the idea of Giuliani as the presumptive nominee. McCain probably got a boost in New Hampshire from being the candidate most likely to stop Huckabee from gaining momentum. Romney may have been helped in Michigan by voters wanting to slow McCain (including nutroots crossover votes). Maverick retook the initiative in South Carolina, after which Giuliani declined in Florida, while Romney moved up. Accordingly, it is at least possible that the last minute endorsement of McCain might cause his detractors to move from Giuliani to Romney as the candidate best positioned to slow McCain in Florida.
Update:  This morning’s New York Times has some validation for that last point regarding McCain’s endorsements in Florida and elsewhere:
One neutral state party Republican chairman, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the contest candidly, said that the endorsements might help validate Mr. McCain with some Republican voters, but they would turn off others.
“It’s a tricky double-edged sword,†the official said. “They point out all the problems conservatives have with him.â€Â
The official added: “The real problem is, where is the base? He hasn’t won anywhere with just Republican votes. California is much more conservative on the Republican side, and so is New York, and those are closed primaries and he can’t count on independent or Democratic votes.â€Â
Indeed. And a loss in winner-take-all Florida might stem the flow from the fundraising spigot before Super-Duper Tuesday as quickly as it gushed after his win in South Carolina.
I can’t tell you how happy the Guliani implosion is for me. The more we shuffle off these “unitary executive, John Yoo kooks” to the sideline, the better for all of us.
I read somewhere (Spectator.org?) that Crist and Martinez endorsed partly because the Romney camp had been too “heavy-handed” about wanting them not to endorse McCain.
From what else I’ve seen, I think that’s a load. It doesn’t sound as though Crist was ever not going to endorse McCain, and someone’s trying to turn the endorsement, which is a scant positive for McCain, into some kind of massive hit for Romney.
Also, I’ve read today that Howard Baker allegedly has been trying to make out that McCain would be the chief benefactor of Fred’s departure from the race, even though the money and numbers are favoring … wait for it … Romney.
Sounds like someone in the McCain camp is worried about somebody.
You really don’t have a clue what the unitary executive is, do you?
You could explain it, McGehee, since you have a background in Constitutional law and John Yoo is a personal friend of yous. That would be a wonderful experience…to hear from an NRA life member (your blog) why vesting increased powers in the President is a good thing. I always thought the NRA opposed tyranny.
Maybe you can explain how those two juxtapose: your membership in an anti-tyranny organization and your apparent support for a theory of the executive which vests more and more power in one individual’s hands.
I know you think I’m on the wrong team and all, but I am for the restraint of government power. It’s why I oppose Hillary. She would do nothing to roll back increased executive authority. She is a tyrant in the making, much like Rudy.
Hope springs eternal, but in the real world, Crist’s endorsement seems to have moved the needle. Rasmussen, which had Romney up by six yesterday, now sees the race dead even. And long-term, anything that hurts Giuliani probably helps McCain, since Giuliani has said all along that if he were not in the race he’d be endorsing McCain.
This is it, really. If Romney can’t take Florida, then there’s just not enough time to recover before Super Duper Tuesday.
I’d consider the Martinez endorsement as on par with the NYTimes.
Maybe first you could explain how the “unitary executive” involves vesting increased powers at all.
Seems to me all powers exercised by the executive are either established in the Constitution or delegated to executive agencies by Congress.
The concept of the unitary executive goes back to Thomas Jefferson and acts to preserve freedom.
But that would require going off the talking points.
I’m Just Saying – Idiocy is consistent, suggesting a congenital disease.
but I am for the restraint of government power.
Am I the only one that is going to call BS on this incredible piece of drivel?
The mere idea that IJS could even begin to enlighten us on these concepts is laughable.
#
Comment by Karl on 1/28 @ 10:20 pm #
The concept of the unitary executive goes back to Thomas Jefferson and acts to preserve freedom.
But that would require going off the talking points.
The concept of Americans held in bondage to other Americans or property as a qualification for suffrage also hail from Jefferson’s day. that tired bs argument is tendentious, to say the least and reeks of some sort of flyweight intellectual like Victor Davis Hanson or William Kristol.
As for McGehee, perhaps, since the Constitution is as clear as crystal spring water, we should just abolish all those courts who keep trying to figure out what it means.
You go read Scalia’s dissent from Morrison v Olson and you tell me, if the unitary executive theory is so obvious, why’d he lose that case and why do people get upset over the coronation of a king.
Frankly, I thought I’d stumbled into a nest of conservatives. I didn’t know it was a nest of Addingtons. Explains the outrage at everything. The modern world just doesn’t work like you it would, does it Karl.
Oh, well, you’re cocky and educated and you never admit a mistake, so that view of Constitutional law circa 1840 should serve you well on the internet.
No one can stop you from tilting at windmills!
flyweight intellectual like Victor Davis Hanson
Coffee all over my desk. Thanks.
why do people get upset over the coronation of a king.
Getting upset about it, venting your feelings, is what the Left does. It is who they are. Since there is no king, and no threat of a king, it is really pointless.