Kristol Clear

Bill Kristol, in the NYTIMES this morning puts out an interesting piece. It is interesting because it raises the specter that while the country is clearly sick of Republican leadership, McCain, especially McCain when juxtaposed with Obama, might be an exception to the rule on Republicans.

This is not a brilliant point, but it is one worth noting. To toot my own horn, it was something I picked up on way back in the beginning of the nominating process when the mainstream Republican media was bashing John McCain. I was thinking, out loud and to myself, that John McCain surely represents the best, if only, option for the Republicans to retain the White House. I am not suggesting that he will in fact, it is too early to prognosticate that far out, but he certainly seems better positioned to do so than anyone else in his party.

Here are some of Kristol's comments:

The Republican Party is clearly in bad shape — trailing by double digits in party preference among the electorate, very likely to lose House and Senate seats in the fall. But John McCain — despite a rather haphazard campaign so far lacking in thematic coherence — is doing pretty well. In two public tracking polls, by Gallup and Rasmussen, he’s basically even with Barack Obama; other polls have him slightly behind.

What’s more, three developments this past week were promising for McCain — or what amounts to pretty much the same thing, problematic for Obama.

1. On Tuesday night, while the G.O.P. Congressional candidate was losing in a Mississippi district George Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points, Barack Obama was being trounced in the West Virginia Democratic primary — by 41 points. I can’t find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party’s nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin. The crucial swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania (whose primaries Obama also lost to Hillary Clinton) have a fair number of West Virginia-type working-class, culturally conservative voters. The Obama campaign can’t be confident about his prospects there in the fall.

2. On Thursday, the California Supreme Court did precisely what much of the American public doesn’t want judges doing: it made social policy from the bench. With a 4-to-3 majority, the judges chose not to defer to a ballot initiative approved by 61 percent of California voters eight years ago, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage in that state, helping to highlight the issues of same-sex marriage and judicial activism for the 2004 presidential campaign. Now the California court has conveniently stepped up to the plate.

Obama’s campaign issued a statement that its candidate “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.” The McCain campaign, by contrast, said it recognized “the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution ... John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.” Since the next president will almost certainly have one Supreme Court appointment, and could have two or three, this difference on judicial philosophy could well matter to voters — and in a way that should help McCain.