McCain: politician for the digital age In an Internet era, man and message beat money and machine John McCain listens to a question during a town hall meeting at the Carolina Ice Palace in North Charleston, S.C., on Wednesday. ANALYSIS By Howard Fineman SPECIAL TO MSNBC.COM COLUMBIA, S.C., Feb. 9  Im a Nethead of sorts, and Ive wondered for years how the Internet would change politics. Ive written speculative pieces for Newsweek about it, but they were just that  speculative. Now I know what politics will look like in the Internet Age. It will look like John McCains campaign. THE MCCAIN PHENOMENON isnt just about the candidate, the Republican Party or even the presidency. Its about how we conduct politics. And heres the point: Especially in the Age of the Internet, man and message beat money and machine. The operational paradigm of the new age is the bright kid with an idea and a modem  and the skill to sell the first through the second. In the digital world, the notion of organizational advantage may be an oxymoron. Instead of a preset structure, you assemble your organization on the fly, and ramp up to feed the market youve created. CRUCIAL TEST IN SOUTH CAROLINA Thats the way it seems to be working so far in the Republican presidential campaign. But the real test will come next week, in the crucial primary in South Carolina. McCains team has the nimbleness of an Internet start-up, with tight, flat decision-making authority and a CEO who knows what he wants to say minute by minute. McCains New Hampshire victory, and its aftermath, is a model for the new era. Hes raised more than $2.5 million on the Internet, and, because its mostly in small amounts, the cash will be doubled by federal matching funds. (Ironically, it was Bill Bradleys campaign that pushed through the government ruling that allowed this to happen.) McCains team also has the nimbleness of an Internet start-up, with tight, flat decision-making authority and a CEO who knows what he wants to say minute by minute. Thats important in this new age. For a candidate, media is now a 24/7, always-on presence. You need to be focused, but also have a casual, laid-back, low-key attitude toward life in the fishbowl. Candidates now are like characters on MTVs Real World, always on stage as they live their own lives. McCain, riding high on his bus, gets it  and loves it. STUCK IN AN OLDER WORLD George W. Bushs campaign, by contrast, seems stuck in an older world. The bunting-draped trappings of front-runnerhood  the endorsements, the top-heavy, top-down organization, the bulging treasury  havent helped, at least so far. They weigh him down. He has the endorsement of 25 governors and 35 senators, and a (rapidly dwindling) war chest of $70 million. Especially these days, that isnt enough. The contests for presidential nominations enter a hectic eight-week period, starting with the Iowa caucuses. Heres MSNBCs guide to the key primaries and caucuses. Parties dont control their own primaries; in South Carolina (on Feb. 19) and Michigan (on Feb. 22) independents and Democrats can vote. Gubernatorial machines arent what they used to be. Yes, fat cat money has a disproportionate influence on legislation. But in other ways politics is more democratic than ever  and the digital world makes it so. A crusading message is more crucial then ever  and it helps if it has an anti-establishment flavor. Bushs themes were crafted a year ago in Austin, based on assumptions about the market that proved to be out of date. GOP voters, it turns out, arent yearning for a huge tax cut. Bush didnt know that, and couldnt have known that. But he didnt adapt quickly to the new realities of the marketplace he found. Nor has Bush turned out to be a good candidate for the always-on TV era. He likes to give a prepared speech, no more, no less. Only now is he scrambling to put himself before audiences in informal settings, one on one sessions in towns and cities in South Carolina. CLASH BETWEEN OLD AND NEW The bunting-draped trappings of the front-runner havent helped Bush, at least so far. They weigh him down. The South Carolina primary is shaping up as a deciding clash between the old and the new. The state is noted for its royalist, top-down thinking in politics. If a GOP endorsement matters anywhere, it might matter here  where a politician like Strom Thurmond (who has endorsed Bush) is still revered. Its still a plantation state in many ways, where party leaders still count and voices of authority still matter. But the establishment is divided. Theres no GOP governor, and the state party is split between the old Republican hierarchy and a group of Young Turks. That gives McCain an opening. Well see what happens here. But if I were Bush, I wouldnt necessarily be encouraged by the results in Delaware  results that drove Steve Forbes out of the race. I was on my way to South Carolina the other day, in fact, when I got a call on my cell phone from an earnest-sounding housewife in the suburbs of Wilmington, Del. A self-appointed organizer for McCain, she wanted me to know that her man would surprise the pundits with a strong showing in the Delaware GOP primary. He hasnt campaigned here, she said, but you watch what were going to do on the fly. I did  and she was right. Bush was entitled to be relieved  at least for a few minutes  to have won 51 percent of the vote in the tiny states tiny primary. Forbes finished third, which forced him to face reality, and prepare to drop out. But the more intriguing  and, in the long run, more significant  story was McCain. He made no visits, had no ads, got no endorsements. He got 25 percent. It was good enough for second place, which is was better than expected  and precisely where John McCain wants to be heading into the big battle in South Carolina. Howard Fineman is Newsweeks chief political correspondent and an NBC News analyst.

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 09, 2000

Answers

...you gotta like the guy!!!

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 09, 2000.

--OK Vern, YOU WIN! heheheh You are the MOST partisan pol backer here, no one comes close. bestoweth oak leaves, crossed swords, and two numbered accts in lichtenstein.

--OK, what's his stand on CHEMTRAILS?? hmmmm?

; >)

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), February 09, 2000.

...lol... Hey, from what I heard... he'll sign a presidential decree ending ALL spraying immediately upon innauguration!!!

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 09, 2000.

[Fair use:  for education and research only]
 

McCain Rocks the Vote
by Christine Stone
British Helsinki Human Rights Group
Special to Antiwar.com 2/9/00

 AntiWar.com 
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/stone5.html

The astonishing rise of Senator McCain in the American presidential race has prompted the pundits to examine his life story and career. Inevitably, there is lots of stuff about the war hero, campaign finance reformer and anti-tobacco missionary. McCain is also known to be strong on foreign policy. However, a cursory look at the McCain presidential web page fails to reveal one of his most significant foreign policy roles  that of chairman of the directors of the International Republican Institute.

The IRI was founded in 1983 "to promote democracy, strengthen free markets and the rule of law [it is] a global campaign against tyranny and totalitarianism" to quote its own publicity material. Although it is not part of the Republican Party  it poses as a private, nonprofit organization, no doubt for tax purposes  its directors are all prominent Republicans. High-profile members of the board include Jeane Kirkpatrick, Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger. The Democratic Party has an equivalent body the National Democratic Institute  the NDI.

Since the collapse of communism both the IRI and NDI have become increasingly active, sending teams to far away places to train political parties, promote an independent judiciary and help in the conduct free elections. But, although their titles suggest a separate political profile they are two heads on the same body. Both are largely funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID which, in turn, receive money from the American taxpayer. Both have favoured the return to power of former high-ranking Communists which has also meant co-opting foot-soldiers from the new left who have extremely liberal ideas about drugs, sex and financial probity.

Despite its emergence in the Reagan presidency, many ordinary Republicans might raise an eyebrow at some of the activities  and activists  of the IRI. For, while the likes of 'Queen' Jeane Kirkpatrick are put on the writing paper as a nod in the direction of traditional Republicanism, the worker bees in the background are anything but traditional. In a classic example of entryism someone hired by the IRI, say, in Moscow or Zagreb is more likely to be a shaven-headed, left-wing apparatchik than a collar and tie wearing member of the bourgeoisie.

THE IRI AT WORK

Since the collapse of Communism the IRI has concentrated its activities in the former Soviet bloc, and on elections in particular. Senator McCain himself has often been there, right at the coal-face.

In December 1993 he led a mission of 25 IRI observers to Russia's first post-Soviet parliamentary election. The Institute's report published afterwards make no mention of the brutal assault on the Russian parliament the previous October. Instead the rapporteurs concentrate exclusively on the conduct of the poll  and their response to it is nothing short of ecstatic. They found "the emergence of a multiparty system within two years of the collapse of the Communist's single-party monopoly to be a truly remarkable development."

The poll also sought approval for the country's first post-Communist constitution which was passed by a small margin. Despite strong suspicions at the time that the vote had been fiddled, the IRI was unperturbed: "The Russian people also deserve recognition for their endorsement of a post-communist constitutional order providing a clear division of power"

In a statement issued the following April even the head of of Russia's Central Election Commission admitted that votes in the constitutional ballot had been augmented as a result of election fraud. But the IRI and Senator McCain had moved on and there was no apology from them for their failure to note any such problems.

Such insouciance is not without interest. One of McCain's election promises is to put a stop to the funding of corrupt Russian mafia and business activities. But , the people most implicated in bleeding Russia dry over the past decade have been the 'democrats' supported by the IRI, their task made all the easier by the by the 1993 constitution which concentrated power, almost exclusively, into the hands of the president.

A glance at some of the grateful recipients of IRI assistance in Central and Eastern Europe is also revealing.

Skender Gjinushi, speaker of the Albanian parliament , thanks the IRI for its assistance in drafting the Albanian constitution in 1998. What the IRI does not say is that Gjinushi was a member of the brutal Stalinist Politburo of Enver Hoxha's Communist Party until 1990 and one of the main organizers of the unrest that led to the fall of the Democratic Party government in 1997 and the death of over 2000 people.

President Stoyanov of Bulgaria drools: "Without IRI's support we could not have come so far so fast." Indeed. So far did they come that Ivan Kostov (who supplies another encomium to IRI) was catapulted from his job teaching Marxism-Leninism at Sofia University to being prime minister of Bulgaria and a leader of 'reform'.

In Slovakia, former Communists turned ministers in the post-1998 election government, Ludovit Cernak and Eduard Kukan, also add product endorsements. Kukan tells us that he was "an early friend in Bratislava." How early, one might ask? Was he a "friend of IRI" when he was the leader of the Communist Party's workplace organization at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs or earlier, perhaps, when he was Czechoslovak ambassador to Mengistu's Ethiopia or, even when he was working for the St.B. as agent SKOPEC?

But, you might say, all politicians in this part of the world are bound to have been leading party members up to the end of the regime? The answer, I'm afraid, is not so. Governments led by people with, at most, vestigial ties to the Party and, at least, no ties at all have been elected to govern in Central and Eastern Europe. In most cases, these people have lost out  the latest being the right-wing Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ)  being replaced by former high-ranking Communists who still tried to keep the party's hold on power in the first free election in 1990.

In all cases the IRI has played a leading part in bringing these changes about. Its methods are questionable but it is the results that should cause dismay.

Consider Albania. During the mid-nineties leftist human rights groups joined the Clinton administration in criticizing Sali Berisha's Democratic Party for its perceived totalitarian policies. Despite early support for the Albanian Democrats from George Bush's administration there was no support from the Republicans in the US when attempts were made to destabilize the government in Tirana.

In fact, the IRI, which had an office in the Albanian capital, parroted all the accusations against Berisha's party. An IRI official in Washington went as far as to call the hero of the anti-Communist forces, Azem Haijdari, "a pig" in an interview in 1998 while supporting the bona fides of the ex-Communist Socialist Party of Albania. European right-wing parties also have their own 'trade-union', the European Democratic Union, and although it was less than combative, the EDU made some attempts to understand the problems faced by Berisha's party and put its case in international forums.

Haijdari was murdered in September 1998, but only after the country had been plunged into lawlessness during widespread unrest the previous year. A new Socialist government made up of former Communists has not improved the situation one jot. Albania is now recognized as a Mafia state where the collapse of law and order has led to widespread smuggling of drugs and people to Western Europe. Is this the kind of regime ordinary Republican voters want to promote?

In the last few years both the IRI and NDI have expanded their involvement in the election processes of certain countries. Whereas they began by simply monitoring the conduct of the polls they soon extended their activities by opening local offices from where they offered assistance to political parties while monitoring the overall 'democratic process'. In many areas the IRI has been even more active than its sister organization.

Providing the expertise for improved polling practices is one of its specialties. On the surface this looks innocent enough but the conduct of opinion polls can also subtly affect the outcome of an election itself. Those most likely to act as pollsters are young people. During the 1998 election campaign in Slovakia (where the IRI was particularly active) it even occurred to an anti-government newspaper, The Slovak Spectator, that some people were obviously unprepared to divulge their voting intentions to their young interlocutors because they suspected them of being opposition supporters.

Also, polls which show surges of support for one party or another can affect peoples' voting intentions. An IRI-sponsored poll produced shortly before the recent Croat election showed the governing HDZ party with only 18% support. Although the party was trounced on election day itself it gained 26% of the total vote, 8% more than the IRI's pollsters predicted. The dismal showing for the party in the early IRI poll could have led many people to think a vote for the HDZ was a vote well and truly thrown away.

But any pretence of objectivity is negated by reading the IRI letter of invitation sent to prospective observers to the Croat elections. Dated 6th December 1999 and signed by Lorne Craner, the IRI's executive president and former McCain foreign policy advisor, it announces that "Croatia's brand (my itals) of government has been nationalistic and authoritarian".and that "not a single election held in Croatia since 1990 has been reported upon favourably by international observers." Not only does this statement grossly distort the facts it also raises the question of why such a pariah state should have been allowed into such international organizations as the Council of Europe which promote human rights and democracy.

In spite of its manifest bias the letter concedes that the (authoritarian) government in Zagreb will have to officially accredit foreign observers like those from the IRI. Whether it is to its credit or an example of monumental stupidity, it did so.

THE YOUTH COMPONENT

Concentration on the young has become another part of the IRI's strategy. Middle-aged and older voters in the former Soviet Bloc have shown scant enthusiasm for the kinds of reformed Communists so loved by the West. They are all too aware of the background of such people now repackaged as amazing proponents of 'reform'. The young have no such memories and, in the eyes of policy wonks from the US, want only to make money and go to rock concerts. But they tend to be apathetic. So, supply them with the money and the music and they will vote as required or, at least once registered can be voted for as "dead souls."

The IRI's first venture into serious 'youth politics' began in the winter of 1996-7 when it helped to organize the opposition protests to President Milosevic in Belgrade. People may remember the crowds with their whistles, keys and cooking pots  all rooting for change. But the protests failed and Milosevic survived. Things fared better in neighbouring Bulgaria where similar groups of angry young people forced the Socialist government from power.

For the 1998 Slovak elections the IRI imported an American ingredient to enthuse the young. Rock the Vote was set up in the US in 1991 with the aim of getting apathetic young Americans to register and vote. As its title suggests this would be achieved by providing large dollops of youth culture  rock and pop concerts as well as promotions in record stores, restaurants and clubs. Rock the Vote also proposed more substantial changes to the American political system by urging two-day voting and a proportional system  both, interestingly, available in some Central European countries where election fraud is not unknown.

In Slovakia, for example, apathy was a serious problem. In some regions less than 20% of those aged between 18-25 had voted in 1994. IRI decided this had to change if there was to be a chance of removing the Meciar government in the 1998 elections. It hired a young Slovak, Martin Kapusta, to set up the Slovak equivalent of Rock the Vote, Rock Volieb. With generous funding from IRI (among others) Rock Volieb was able to pay for the best bands and flood the media with its message. For the benefit of those who believe that foreigners should not interfere in another country's internal political affairs, IRI's Kapusta claimed that "this campaign does not promote any political party, candidates or coalitions." But even sympathizers predicted that "certain parties" would benefit from the activities of Rock Volieb more than others.

The project worked. There was a staggering 84% participation in the Slovak election and the 'reformers' won. Some Slovaks suspected that groups of young people traveled around the country voting more than once  it is possible to vote away from home in Slovakia where two days are allowed for the poll  however, no concrete evidence was produced. Anyway, the 'dictatorial' government of Vladimir Meciar seemed totally unprepared for and unaware of what was going on.

The IRI crowed over the victory, in particular, over its own contribution. "IRI polls changed the nature of the campaign" boasts its winter 1998 newsletter. Senator McCain added a special pat on the back: the result was "a victory for reformers in Slovakia it was the latest example of "men and women who a decade ago lived behind the iron curtain and are now on the leading edge of democracy's advance."

IRI AND ITS LESSONS FOR McCAIN

Perhaps presidential candidate-to-be, John McCain decided that the Rock the Vote technique might prove useful to himself at some future date. Reports from the McCain campaign stress its large youth component. Daughter Sydney McCain works in the 'music business' and her father let slip at New Hampshire meetings that his favourite band is Nine Inch Nails  a group noted for its violent, drug-inspired lyrics. He also boasted of being the only candidate to have attended the MTV awards. It might behoove his Republican opponents to study the IRI-inspired Slovak election campaign. But, then, slothful and ignorant of the real nature of what goes on in the world, they probably approved of it anyway.

Whether the young people who support McCain can bring about an extraordinary victory and contribute to his nomination as the Republican Party candidate still seems unlikely. But the IRI, in which the senator plays a leading role, will no doubt continue its meddling far away from home. In 1982 President Reagan stated that : "Freedom is not the sole prerogative of the lucky few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings." Thanks to the activities of bodies like the IRI (who cynically quote these words of a former Republican president on its web page) such high ideals have now been turned on their head. In much of post-communist Europe the IRI has helped restore ex-Marxists to their "natural" place on top of society. These people mouth the virtues of freedom, like McCain, but do they believe it? Does he?
 

-- (not@mccain.fan), February 09, 2000.

McCain - no wimp he - and the temper of the times

By Marianne Means

Washington

After all the presidential character tests imposed these past few scandal-filled years, we have come down to this: Should an explosive temper disqualify a candidate from the White House?

Or, to put it another way, would Republicans be better off picking a hothead or a suspected airhead as their party nominee?

We aren't talking alleged crimes here, or gross immorality, or even lying. We are suggesting that losing your cool is dangerous to your reputation.

Sen. John McCain was recently accused by his respected home-state newspaper, the Arizona Republic in Phoenix, of being such a crabby guy that he is unfit to lead the nation. Familiarity had bred contempt, a common problem for ambitious local public figures eager to impress a credulous national audience.

McCain's intelligence is unquestioned, in contrast to the unknown thought processes of his rival for the GOP presidential nomination, Texas Gov. George W. Bush. But McCain's alleged inability to get along with others is now the latest issue in the character wars.

Nobody, including the senator himself, denies that McCain has a hair-trigger temper. But few associates and reporters outside Arizona have seen it displayed in public. For most of the political world, it exists only in legend.

As legends go, this is about as substantive as Bush's unconfirmed youthful use of drugs. Credible people cite it authoritatively, but no proof exists for the rest of us.

McCain is widely admired as a tough man unafraid to do bruising battle. No wimp he. Yet what some see as courage and determination others see as irrational, insulting behavior.

Backing Bush are Jane Hull, Arizona's Republican governor, and some GOP senators who have complained about McCain tongue-lashings. They may prefer dealing with Bush's more controlled personality. Or they may be trying to help their candidate with a dirty-tricks campaign aimed at discrediting McCain. There's no way to know.

Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., McCain's campaign co-chairman, says wryly, "Anybody who stays around Washington very long and doesn't get angry ought to go home."

McCain's other co-chairman, former New Hampshire Sen. Warren Rudman, asks, "What do we want, Casper Milquetoast for president?"

Ah, yes. Now we get to the heart of the matter. Let anyone who has never had a fit of bad temper throw the first stone at McCain.

Every White House occupant, starting with George Washington, has been described as throwing a fit over something or other. The intense pressures of the office make constant serenity impossible.

When Bush's father was in the White House, he was so good-natured in public that he seemed a bit of a patsy. But when a conservative columnist called him a Reagan "lap dog," even Bush lost his temper and banished the columnist from his sight. "There are limits," he sputtered, to sympathetic cheers.

It seems a stretch to include an explosive temper in the pantheon of unacceptable personal characteristics in presidential candidates. There's no sin in it, certainly, unless it leads to violence, which is another subject and not at issue here.

The immediate problem for McCain is to remain calm and controlled from now on in public. Bush supporters and others will no doubt try to provoke him into an angry outburst on television that can be used to demonstrate emotional instability.

In 1972, Sen. Edmund Muskie's candidacy fell from favor in New Hampshire because he wept angrily while defending against outrageous press attack on his wife. That is the model McCain must avoid.

Yet in 1980, Reagan furiously seized the microphone during a Republican candidates' debate that was going astray, demonstrated his dominance and won the primary. Anger can help as well as it can hurt.

One complaint against McCain is that he regards politics as a contact sport  and flying off the handle as part of the game. Yet he's no different in that respect from many successful political predecessors who understood that leadership requires stepping on a few toes.

The trick is to get off the toes quickly and dance off with more promising partners.

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 09, 2000.

Hey Vern!

NWO *loves* you! Knowwhuddamean?

-- bz (beezee@statesville.net), February 09, 2000.

Come on Vern - this seminar stuff is being carried a bit too far. You think Republicans will be impressed enough with this crap the DNC put together for you to post here so the Republicans vote for McCain in the primaries. This goes hand in hand with democrat voters switching to republicans at the last minute in primaries just to vote for McCain. The strategy is to help McCain get the Republican nomination so Gore will be more apt to win the election as Gore does not stand a chance against Bush.

Lets face it Vern, you dont believe in this commie traitor anymore than the average American. Your goal is 24 years of Bill and Hillary in the Whitehouse. Eight years under Bill's name, 8 years under Al's name, and 8 years under Hillary's name. By that time America as we know it will be long gone.

The only way for America to even stand a chance of surviving is to vote BUSH. I personally dont like the guy, but he has another 16 years of Clinton beat.

-- OnToYou (DontVoteForSideShow@whitehouse.com), February 09, 2000.

CCAIN IS NOW the choice of 26 percent of such voters, up from 13 percent in early January and 18 percent in mid-January.

While thats a gain for McCain, Texas Governor George W. Bush, with support from 57 percent of likely Republican voters, continues to lead his main rival by a two-to-one ratio. And from a historical perspective, McCains 13 point bounce is actually modest: In 1984, when Gary Hart upset Democratic frontrunner Walter Mondale in the Granite State vote, his national support increased from 2 pecent to 35 pecent among likely Democratic voters, a 33 percentage point gain. GORE IMPROVES, TOO Among Democrats, Vice President Al Gore has slightly increased his lead over former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, 55 percent to 22 percent in the latest survey, up from 53 percent to 23 percent in January. The latest Newsweek poll also shows 23 percent are undecided in the Gore/Bradley race.

Newsweek.com: Campaign 2000 coverage

BUSH, GORE TIE IN A TRIAL HEAT In trial heats for the general election, it is a virtual tie between Bush (47%) and Gore (45%), the Newsweek poll shows. Bushs lead over Bradley has narrowed to 49 percent to 43 percent. With independent voters, Bradley leads Bush 47 percent to 40 percent. McCain as the GOP nominee would beat Bradley 44 percent to 42 percent, according the poll, which also shows a virtual tie between McCain (45%) and Gore (46%). Advertisement

With independent voters, McCain leads Bradley 48 percent to 36 percent and leads Gore 52 pecent to 36 percent. For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 754 registered voters on February 3 and February 4, 2000. The margin of error is plus/minus 4 percentage points for the total sample; 6 percentage points in Democratic and Republican races.

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 10, 2000.

ANALYSIS-McCain bid no longer impossible dream

By Alan Elsner, Political Correspondent REUTERS

February 9, 2000 Web posted at: 12:28 p.m. EST (1728 GMT)

WILMINGTON, Del. (Reuters) - Arizona Sen. John McCain's presidential bid is no longer a quixotic tilt at the windmills of the Republican Party establishment. Political analysts and insiders say he could win.

"I think McCain can win the Republican presidential nomination, although the money and organization are still on the side of (Texas Gov.) George W. Bush," said Mark Rozell, a political scientist at Catholic University in Washington, D.C.

"I used to think McCain had no chance. Now I think it's 60-40 for Bush, but McCain has definitely become believable," Rozell said.

McCain, campaigning on an outsider message of reforming the campaign finance system to kick big money interests out of politics, transformed the race by winning last week's New Hampshire primary, drubbing Bush by 19 points.

Bush won the second primary in Delaware Tuesday with 51 percent of the vote after visiting the state five times and running television advertisements. But McCain came in second with 25 percent without showing up once or spending a penny.

Now, the two are headed toward a big showdown in the South Carolina Republican primary Feb. 19, followed by primaries in Michigan and Arizona three days later.

MICHIGAN CLOSE TOO

Polls show a close race in South Carolina and a new Detroit Free Press/KXYZ-TV poll published Wednesday showed that race was a statistical dead heat in Michigan as well.

Bush may get an additional edge from Wednesday's decision by publisher Steve Forbes to withdraw from the race. Most of his conservative support seems likely to drift to the Texas governor. But McCain has a tidal wave of enthusiasm and media attention working for him.

"With every day that goes by, McCain's chances look better and better. It's beginning to look as if McCain is a genuine political phenomenon," said Nelson Warfield, a Republican who was a spokesman for former Sen. Bob Dole during his unsuccessful 1996 presidential campaign.

McCain campaign officials speak of people flooding election offices in California to register in time for that state's March 7 primary and vote for McCain. The Arizona senator has collected more than $2 million over the Internet since winning New Hampshire.

"I have never ever been involved with anything like this," said campaign spokesman Howard Opinsky.

But analysts agreed McCain really needs to win in South Carolina to press forward. If Bush can hold him off there, a lot of the air may go out of the Arizonan's campaign.

HISTORY AGAINST HIM

McCain has history as well as the bulk of the Republican establishment against him. Unlike the Democrats, who often flirt with and sometimes nominate underdogs for president, the Republicans almost always back the establishment choice.

But political scientist David Birdsell of Baruch College in New York sensed a revolt among some rank-and-file Republicans in the support flowing to McCain.

"It's evidence of very broad dissatisfaction among Republican voters with what the party leadership thinks they want or should want," he said.

Bush is running on a $483 billion tax cut over five years but his proposal has stirred little enthusiasm. McCain has proposed a much smaller tax cut and argues that the rest of the budget surplus should be devoted to paying off the national debt and securing the finances of important social programs.

Even if Bush wins the nomination, Birdsell said McCain's campaign would have exposed his weaknesses and left him looking "very weak and deeply out of touch with his constituency."

Duke University political scientist John Aldrich said Bush still had the upper hand against McCain because of his superior organization and the backing of nearly the entire party establishment.

Many Republican leaders seem to fear McCain. They believe his campaign finance reforms, which would end so-called "soft money" contributions -- unlimited and unregulated contributions to political parties mainly from corporations and interest groups -- would put the party at a competitive disadvantage against Democrats.

"McCain could do it but it's unlikely. I expect Bush to win in South Carolina," said Aldrich.

But if McCain won there and went on to win Michigan and Arizona? "If all that happened, Bush's credibility as a candidate could collapse," said Catholic University's Rozell.

-- John (mccain@usa.com), February 10, 2000.