Thune is a Go pt. 2

Nobody is reading Steve Hayes' piece on John Thune as anything other than an announcement. Senator Thune is running for President. Well, it's only been a few days, but the Senator is already beginning to look a lot more interesting.

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post's The Fix informs us that Senator Thune is the Republican Barack Obama, except for being White and all.

Thune, obviously, would benefit if the party's voters -- and strategists -- believed that the path to the presidency lay in nominating a candidate that mirrored Obama's skill set: charismatic and handsome but with a fundamentally different approach to government's role in peoples' lives. (Thune allies note that he has a longer and deeper resume -- three terms in the House, a full Senate term -- than Obama did when he ran for president in 2008.)

Thune's political style also resembles that of Obama -- able to ride above the daily who's up, who's down to navigate a political course that has risen almost without hiccup since the 1990s.

This isn't completely silly. Yes, Thune is charismatic. As for handsome, I confess I always thought the Senator looked a bit gaunt. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

As for the skill set and "style" thing, the stuff in parenthesis looks more important than the stuff outside and almost as important as the stuff that gets left out. Barack Obama began running for President almost as soon as he left the Illinois state legislature. Thune has not only served three terms in the House and one in the Senate, he also defeated the Senate Democratic Leader to get his Senate seat and has risen up the ranks of leadership in the upper house. Compared to Thune, Obama had no resume. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Of course, Obama's lack of any significant history, legislative or otherwise, was one of his main advantages. The other was his race, which for historical reasons gave him a national wedge to use against Senator Clinton. She of course had her own wedges: the Clinton co-presidency and her status as the first woman in serious contention for the White House.

I admire John Thune, and I like him. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on several occasions and he has the remarkable ability not only to remember who I am but to remember what we talked about when last we met. I find that astonishing. I note happily that if you were stuck in an elevator with John, Tim Johnson, and Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, you would be among pleasant company.

Senator Thune is demonstrably a nationally ranked talent. That said, I have yet to guess what his wedge is. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have the most obvious one among Republicans: they are recent contenders. Thune can present himself as an untarnished and fresh alternative. In that case, he competes with Governor Tim Pawlenty. If Sarah Palin turns out to be a serious contender (color me doubtful), he can offer himself as a genuine conservative with a chance at actually being elected.

Thune's most likely route to serious contention would be as a running mate to some other candidate with a significant wedge, but perhaps some baggage. The model would be Al Gore in 1992. If Thune does make it onto a national ticket, in either position, he stands a serious chance of being President.

As I said in my last post on this subject, I picked a good state to teach political science in. In California, I would have stood a better chance of lunch with Jay Leno than a few words with Barbara Boxer or Governor Schwarzenegger. In South Dakota I got to chat with Tom Daschle on the eve of the 1994 election. What a hoot! God bless South Dakota.

Comments

[Bill Fleming]

KB, I'm having a little chuckle over here listing to you say that
Obama's being black gives him advantage over other candidates.

Did you really write that? Really?

[Bill Fleming]

(...sorry, that was a terrible typing job. I probably need to laugh less and proofread more.)

[KB]

Bill: not only did I write it but it is obviously true. Obama would never have been a contender for the Presidency in 2008 had he not been African American. Apart from a smooth voice, what else did he have? From the start he was the potential first Black President. That's a wedge. To be sure, some Americans would not vote for him because of that, but every candidate has large groups of Americans who are a lost cause. That Obama was in fact elected proves that racism was not a deciding factor.

Moreover, Obama could pry away Black voters from the Clintons, to whom they had hitherto been very loyal. Obama would likely not have won the nomination had he not received almost a hundred percent of the Black vote in Southern primaries.

[Bill Fleming]

So is THAT also why he beat John McCain, KB?

I just think your argument is goofy.

Obama won because he ran the best campaigns, both primary and general.

Period.

Let's try this:

Did YOU vote for him? Was it because you are prejudiced against black people?
If the answers are "no" and "no," I rest my case.

(...still chuckling, closes folder, jumps off soapbox, wipes tears from eyes.)

[KB]

Bill: I did not say nor do I believe that Barack Obama won the election because he was Black. I just said what is obvious to any reasonable person: that Obama's race was, on balance, an asset. If you argued that it wasn't that important in the general election, you might have a point.

When you deny that it played any role at all, you have taken leave of your senses. Obama did run a good campaign in both the primary and the general. Maybe that would have been enough had he not been Black. We would never have known because he never would have made it into contention. After Iowa, the Black vote swung heavily in favor of Obama. As I noted, that Demographic had previously been very loyal to the Clintons. It made a great deal of difference in Southern Primaries.

Are you really denying that his race had nothing to do that? I am sorry my friend, that just seems idiotic to me. His status as African American had everything to do with that, and it mattered deeply in the primaries. This isn't rocket science. It's just what happened.

I am not sure how to interpret your last question. The answers are indeed no and no. But surely there are some who would and yes. That makes race a factor. Do African Americans tend to favor African American candidates? Demonstrably. Do some White voters vote for African American candidates in order to feel better about themselves? Yes. Did Obama's racial status make him more inviting to younger voters? Yes. There is nothing wrong with this and it doesn't take anything away from the fact that Obama ran a masterful campaign.

Hillary Clinton would not have gotten as far as she did had she not been Bill Clinton's wife. She ran a dreadful campaign. The two facts are independent of one another.

[Anthony D. Renli]

Ken – It is my opinion that Senator Thune, has one fairly large stumbling block to the presidency. In general, he’s from the Midwest, in particular, he’s from South Dakota (i.e. a small, non-battleground, late primary Midwestern state). We haven’t elected Midwestern presidents since Eisenhower (Kansas) and Truman(Missouri) – and they were in one case a popular general and in the other the vice president of a popular president who died in office.
While he is very charismatic (heck, I disagree with him on just about everything politically, but you just can’t help but like the guy if you meet him) I don’t see that as something that will turn geographic disadvantages around. If South Dakota had an earlier primary it would help him build some momentum. If we had more people, thus more delegates, it would help him. If people on the coasts/in the south could FIND South Dakota on a map, it would help him…but none of these are the case.

My prediction – John Thune is running to be Vice President. Trying to build up his name recognition/credibility outside of the region. He also knows that if he is the vice presidential candidate and they win, he will be the presumptive nominee 8 years thereafter(no matter how many terms his running mate wins). If they lose, he will be able to run again in 2016 with a lot more name recognition, a bigger war chest, and without the stink of failure on him.

[Bill Fleming]

Ken, I will concede that "blackness" was a factor if, and only if you
concede that race has always been a factor in presidential races.

In which case his candidacy in both the primary and the general
is certainly not extraordinary, other than perhaps the fact that he won.

THAT was the extraordinary part, and THAT was due to the fact that
he was an extraordinary candidate who ran an extraordinary campaign.

(By the way, he's only half black. His mom is as "white" as you and I are.)

[Bill Fleming]

KB, if you really feel that what you're saying is seriously worthy of consideration, then please explain to us why none of these people become President? Certainly they had all the "racial advantages" Obama had:

http://politics.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/02/15/a-look-at-other-black-presidential-candidates-before-obama.html

[Bill Fleming]

Finally, KB, if John Thune is fortunate enough to get the nod from the GOP,
ends up running against Obama, and loses, will you maintain that JT lost
because he wasn't black?

[Donald Pay]

Thune, of course, is a Muslim, or whatever brand of extremist religious perversion is practiced at the C-Street mosque. And he did run the socialist railroad, which makes him a pinko. I've never seen his birth certificate, have you? He threatened to vote against kook John Bolton not out of priniciple, but to extort federal pork. Clearly he's not American.

[KB]

Bill: again I have to say that your usual common sense seems to have abandoned you. I made it clear that I didn't think that Obama's race was a deciding factor nor am I denying that Obama won largely because he ran a better campaign than McCain. I only pointed out two facts, one of which is undeniable. Obama had the overwhelming support of the African American community. That was only one of the advantages he had in the primary, but it was certainly a powerful advantage. Would he have won the nomination without that? Maybe. Maybe not. Senator Clinton was never very far behind in total votes.

I also think that his race was a major factor in his rise from obscurity. He was articulate and handsome, but so are a lot of other contenders. It wasn't his message or his program that propelled him to national attention. It was Obama himself. The excitement of the first African American candidate with a serious chance was a great asset. This is no criticism of Obama. Ms. Clinton used her name recognition and her sex as wedges. McCain used his war-hero status. That's what politics is like.

Jesse Jackson's race was a powerful asset when he sought the nomination. Why did Obama win where Jackson didn't? Jackson had a lot of baggage, and a powerful and abrasive personality. He was perceived as a Black candidate, for better or worse. Obama was perceived as a candidate who was Black. That is another kettle of fish. Obama was able to do what Jackson could not: present himself as a representative of America. Whatever one thinks about Obama's presidency, his win was an historic achievement and one that all Americans can take some pride in.

You say that Obama is only "half-Black". Let's get real for a moment. Race isn't real. It is entirely a social construct. We are all mongrels. Because of the history of race in America, any recognized African American blood usually means that the person is designated as Black. Ask Charlie Mingus or Tiger Woods. Obama's upbringing is one of the reasons he could easily speak to and build a coalition among White Americans.

Now for your imaginative thought problems. What if John Thune were Black? Everything else being equal, he would sail to the nomination! Republicans would love nothing more than a Black candidate who shares their culture and political values, and his handsome and articulate to boot. The GOP was begging Colin Powell to run last time for exactly that reason.

Without his racial designation, Obama would never have risen above the sea of the ambitious. With that wedge, he opened his way. The rest of his victory is all to his credit.

Donald: adjust the medication.

[Miranda Flint]

Jerry Doyle claims that the reason John McCain won the Republican Nomination instead of Mitt Romney was that Romney was a Mormon. Meanwhile, one thing that turned some voters away from Huckabee was the fact that he used to be a minister. If Doyle is right (and I'm not entirely sure he is) and if Huckabee's past employment is what sunk him, then Thune's "wedge" might be his mainstreamness.

Unless, of course, Donald is right!

[Bill Fleming]

Okay, KB, every time you pass over the argument, you dilute your main point a little. A couple of more times through the strainer and I might even start agreeing with you. Obama's blackness maybe had a little bit to do with it. Not much, but a little. If that's where you're ultimately headed, I wouldn't vigorously argue with that.

But to imply that there were lots of white "Obamas" around who were just as gifted, but Barack got the nod just because he was black is, in my opinion patently false. If there were such candidates, I don't have the slightest idea who they might have been. Do you?

[Bill Fleming]

Wait, I just thought of one.

John Kennedy Jr.

If he were still alive, he may well have been in the
primary opposite Hillary and Barack.

He would have been 1 year older than Obama.

Who do you think might have won the Dem primary then, KB?

And what role would race have had to play in it?

[KB]

Bill: now we are getting somewhere. What evidence is there that Obama is gifted? He ran a good campaign and gives a good speech. George W. did the one in 2004, and Bill Clinton can do the other. As a politician, Clinton was much more talented. Obama had the courage and vision to realize his moment, which is more than a lot of people ever have. But since he took office, he has mishandled one situation after another. Nor do I see anything in his resume before 2008 that would have set him apart. This may be our real disagreement.

[Bill Fleming]

Yes, thank you, KB. Now that I've peeled myself off the ceiling, I'll give your observations some thought and get back to with a (hopefully) more well reasoned reply. For now, lets just say that I think Obama has delivered on a lot of his promises, and yes there has been some fumbling.

More than I would have expected actually, but perhaps my expectations were too high. Perhaps everyone's were. As a lifelong advertising guy, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen such a thing happen— often in spite of the fact that the clients are real geniuses. I'm thinking of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates here.

[Bill Fleming]

Okay, Ken, let me test the water here and see how our perceptions line up.

First to George Bush vs Bill Clinton. I don't think GWB had much to do with
his own presidency actually. I think his was a presidency of handlers starring Karl Rove,
Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and a host of others.

Bill Clinton, by contrast was, and still is a true charismatic genius. Unstoppable.

The problem is, he knows it, and other people sometimes want (and need) to shine
their own light rather than just bask in his. That includes his wife and Barack Obama.

The rest of what I have to say is based on all of that. But first, we probably have to
agree on some standards. I am a progressive (aka liberal Democrat) so what I consider
"accomplishments," you may not.

With that proviso, Obama has been able to accomplish some things Bill Clinton,
for all his charisma, never did. Even so, if Barack could see fit to let Bill Clinton
become more of a trusted advisor, he could probably get even more done.

In stereotype, the two are kind of like Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. One feeler, one thinker.

Okay, I think that's probably a loaded enough scenario to make the handoff to you on a silver platter, KB.

If you can't wring something funny out of that set up, I give up being your straight man. ;^)

[KB]

Bill: you have made this a great thread. Yes, Obama did things that Bill Clinton never managed, like a major healthcare bill. Was that because Obama was something special, or because of a very unusual set of circumstances, including a veto-proof majority in the Senate courtesy of a party switch and a wide-spread misunderstanding of the 1994 election? I vote b.

I think Obama had a real opportunity. If he was really what his worshipers believed he was, he would have stepped back to take a fresh look at the health care question. Once he had a good look a the problem, he would have looked for solutions. Instead, he encouraged Congress to do what they have been wanting to do for decades and have not thought about since 1967. He promised America that he would reduce healthcare costs nationally, not raise individual costs, and cover lots of new people. Oh, and nobody would have to give up their current healthcare insurance.

The result of that is a bill that no one understands, including its authors, and a populous that an electorate that wouldn't trust Obama to tell them the time of day.

You continue to think that Barack Obama was something special. I think he was altogether ordinary.

[Bill Fleming]

Perhaps, KB. But you might want to be careful about referring to Obama in the past tense.

There are still more episodes to come, you know? Places "to boldly go...etc."

I agree with you about the Health Care thing.

That bill could have been one sentence long:

"Extend Medicare to all Americans."