Transcript of a politics chat with Renee Loth

Renee Loth, Boston Globe editorial page editor, talked with readers today about the charges against Mitt Romney's aide Senator Larry E. Craig, who has since resigned as the campaign's Idaho cochairman; where the 'swing voters' will be in 2008; and why Romney could become the GOP nominee.

Renee_Loth: Greetings, political junkies! I am here to chat about the presidential campaign from the lofty perch of the Globe's editorial page. Let's go straight to questions.....

Horation__Guest_: How is Larry Craig's um...."miscue" going to affect Romney's presidency? If this becomes a scandal, is this the type of thing that could derail the Mittster Gary Hart style?

Renee_Loth: First question about Larry Craig! Why am I not surprised? Craig is the 3rd person associated with Romney's campaign to resign under a cloud in recent weeks -- his aide and driver who had a propensity for posing as a state trooper was the first, and then a fund raiser accused of an unrelated fraud. The charges against Craig are murky, but he did plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and he has severed his ties to the Romney camp, where he was the Idaho cochairman. I think three examples of something constitutes a trend, and it is not a good trend for Romney.

al_gonz__Guest_: How will the congressional presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, etc.) approach the confirmation hearings for a new attorney general? They have to look firm against bush, yet not uphold the political process -- a tough act, no? Do you think this helps the candidacies of non-Senators like Richardson/Edwards?

Renee_Loth: Joe Biden is actually in the best position to make political hay out of any confirmation hearings into a successor to Gonzales because he is on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I am not sure any of his Democratic rivals will be eager to give him that kind of forum. Even Sen. Pat Leahy of the committee has said there is no rush to confirm a successor -- he is focusing on the ongoing probe on Gonzales and the fired US attorneys. This is a pretty good stage for Biden as well, come to think of it.

Pat__Guest_: What do you make of the concern from Democrats that Hillary is too divisive to be elected? Do you think this thinking is enough to derail her? People said the same thing of Ronald Reagan before 1980...

Renee_Loth: Hillary probably does start off with a hard core group of people who will NEVER vote for her -- maybe it's 25 percent? But how many of these would be voting for a Democrat anyway? The good news for Clinton is that her negatives are already known -- unless there is some bombshell lurking there that hasn't already been discovered, unlikely given all the scrutiny focused on her. The other candidates -- Obama, etc -- are a little bit more dangerous to party insiders because they have not been as fully vetted.

StrActingGOP: Renee, why is it that Democrats and others have not went after Mitt as a flip flopper as vociferously as they have against Democrats in the past?

Renee_Loth: Well, it's still primary season, so most of the sniping aimed at Romney would have to be within the Republican Party first. The flip flopping is a real vulnerability for Mitt. I think when someone decides to air the tape of him in debate against Kennedy in '94, saying he was indistinguishable on abortion and gay rights from Ted Kennedy -- Ted kennedy!!!! -- that will hurt him badly with conservatives.

Pat__Guest_:Would the Democratic nominee be wise to run to the DLC center ala Bill Clinton or run as more of a populist

Renee_Loth: It's been interesting on the Democratic side so far to see liberalism come roaring back , as opposed to 2004 and earlier when Clinton's ''middle way'' pushed by the DLC was all the rage. This year the Dems have been accepting debate invitations from the Human Rights Campaign (the prominent gay rights group) and the Daily Kos convention but they actually have stiffed the DLC's request for a debate. I rather think the Dems realize that the voters are ready for more prominent shift away from anything that looks too cozy with Republicans or conservatism -- at least in the primary. We'll see what happens once a nominee is chosen.

Pat__Guest_: What do you make of the strong internet buzz for Ron Paul? Is it that conservatives are tired of the direction the party has taken and there is some push to return to a more libertarian conservative philosophy? Is it just that he's the only antiwar sentiment, attracting support from right and left? Or are they just whackos who have finally found their man, as some magazine profiles have suggested?

Renee_Loth: Every campaign needs a RonPaul type -- refreshingly outspoken and not wed to his party's orthodoxy. But really, is there any chance at all that this guy will win a single delegate?

StrActingGOP__Guest_: Renee, what do you think about people ceding the flag as a symbol to conservatives? Don't we all own the flag and shouldn't liberals fight to make it available as a synmbol for all?

Renee_Loth: I actually wrote a column about this during the 2004 election . I think the flag is just a symbol and as such it can mean anything I want it to -- "For universal health care '' or '' for activist government'' And yes I think Americans have been wrong to cede the flag to mean something conservative. I'm old enough to remember when protesters flew the flag upside down to show their disapproval of the Vietnam war. But it's a big mistake to let anyone else define what the flag means, or what patriotism means, or what being "American" means. Not just for partisan political reasons but because our country has to remain open to all.

the_sweetest_taboo__Guest_: Both Democrats and Repubs need to appeal to their extremist bases to get thru the primaries, but then they need to appeal to the center to win the whole darn thing. Which side is poised to best do this?

Renee_Loth: Good question. I think it depends entirely on who the nominee is for each party. Some are better placed to slide to the middle in the final election than others. On the GOP side I think Romney would get whiplash trying to move left after feinting so far right. Guiliani, maybe can appeal more broadly but he has temperament issues that could also be a problem. McCain always had that appeal but he seems to be yesterday's news in many ways.

Pat__Guest_: Where should the line be drawn in these many early debates in terms of the "second-tier" candidates? At what point should a Mike Gravel or Duncan Hunter not be allowed in the televised debate? Or is democracy better served by as many candidates as possible, bringing new ideas to the table regardless of how much money they have or how they do in the polls?

Renee_Loth: This question bedevils every party/news organization/sponsoring group in every campaign. Generally i am in favor of full field debates, especially this early. but I don't think they should be the only format available. I think there should be debates among the top 3 candidates and then separate ones with 3 other candidates, or just randomly drawn. Debates are the only unscripted views of the candidates still available to the voters and there should be lots of them.

Renee_Loth: We heard a lot about "values voters" and security Moms in previous elections. Any predictions on what will be a particularly vital bloc in the upcoming election?

Renee_Loth: Ah, the pundit's favorite question! Right now the country is so deeply divided and polarized it's hard to see where the "swing voters" will be. Again it depends a lot on who the nominees are. Right now I'd say the strongest voice in 2008 will be the "change makers" or something -- people want change and they want it bad .

the_sweetest_taboo__Guest_: Is Fred Thompson a has-been at this point? Is he even going to run?

Renee_Loth: Thompson is betting on his name recognition to buoy him enough to give him the luxury of a late entry -- his strategy seems to be, let's wait until every other GOP candidate is tarnished in some way and then ride in as the saving white knight. But I do think there is a point at which that game plays out too long -- other candidates wrap up the money and staff. And there are serious signs of volatility in his camp. More staffers have some and gone through his campaign, suggesting people don't like working for him.

i_fear_change__Guest_: Change! What type of change do the people want??!?!?!

Renee_Loth: First, voters want Change to a government that is competent and effective, regardless of ideology. See Katrina, Iraq, etc. Then I think people want the pendulum to swing back away from laissez-faire economics and intolerant social values.

Pat__Guest_: Will the Republican nominee want Bush to campaign with him?

Renee_Loth: In some groups in some parts of the country, sure. But that would have to be some deeply micro-niched demographic marketing.

first__Guest_: Who's your favorite first lady candidate? Or in Hillary's case, first man? Or in Rudy's case, first ladies (har har har)

Renee_Loth: Hey! Is this a hidden anti-Mormon question about multiple wives?! A low blow, pal!

StrActingGOP__Guest_: It's been interesting on the Democratic side so far to see liberalism come roaring back, as opposed to 2004 and earlier when Clinton's "middle way"..." ... don't you think liberalism made a come back with Clinton and the DLC and that it is populism that is being used in the primary? I know the DLC is a centrist group, but Clinton was accused of being a liberal and as such only people who were not afraid of being called "liberal" supported Clinton. Clinton had Robert Reich and others in his cabinet who were self avowed liberals

Renee_Loth: well, recall that Reich's book was called "Locked in the Cabinet' because he felt liberalism was being stifled by the DLC crowd. And I miss Bill Clinton as much as anyone, but he executed a mentally enfeebled convict in the heat of the primary, and he initiated the absurd "don't ask don't tell" policy, (and signed the "defense of marriage act") and was a big free-trader, eliminated welfare, and even supported "regime change" in Iraq. So let's not forget just what a centrist he was.

Pat__Guest_: So far, Giuliani's moderate stance on social issues has not hurt him in the polls. Surely most voters must now be aware of where he stands. Were all the pundits wrong? Is the other shoe simply not ever going to drop? Will the GOP base sacrifice the gun control, gay rights, and abortion stances for Rudy's electability?

Renee_Loth: It's fascinating, isn't it? Even some serious conservatives are backing Guiliani. I think the memory of his response to Sept. 11 (even as that is being picked apart by critics) and his authoritarianism generally (arresting squeegee men in Manhattan!) anyway, I think that trumps his positions on the social issues as far as many conservatives are concerned. They see a strong, straight-talking "daddy" candidate in Rudy and that resonates.

globe25__Guest_: What types of things does the current administration have the potential to "clean up" before next year's election. Do you think they can/will salvage anything (i.e. Iraq) for the next administration? Or do you think they are just likely to inflict more damage

Renee_Loth: The Bush administration is really in the "unraveling" stage right now, though the departure of Rove and Rumsfeld and Gonzales -- all three unpopular lightning rods for criticism -- does give them a chance to regroup and try for a legacy accomplishment or 2. Bush had hoped immigration reform would be it for him, and incidentally wrap up Hispanic votes for the GOP in years to come, but obviously he miscalculated there. I don't think anything substantially different will happen in Iraq -- at least not of our doing -- between now and the next administration... I think Bushies will just be trying to put out fires until the clock runs out (to mix metaphors)

StrActingGOP__Guest_: Being a centrist as opposed to who? Reagan? McCarthy? Who says welfare "as we knew it" was a liberal sacred cow? We still have welfare don't we? Robert Reich, is more a progressive leftie than a liberal. Many of his supporters I know of when he ran for Governor are the same Deniacs who backed Deval and now back Obama. They have more a populist message and demand than a liberal platform. Reich, is an old school liberal as am I, but we part ways on populist boosheetism.

Renee_Loth: Agreed Reich is more of a leftie than a liberal. But "Populism" can take many different forms -- not all of it appealing to left-leaners. George Wallace was a very effective populist.

jj__Guest_: given the obsession that religion has become with regard to politics, i can't see how Mitt Romney can win. do you? and if so, why?

Renee_Loth: To paraphrase the great Tip O'Neill: All politics is relative. I think Romney will actually be the GOP nominee, regardless of his flip flopping and the wariness movement conservatives seem to have about Mormons. Why? Because all politics is relative. And relative to the rest of the field Romney looks pretty good. Who else is there? All the other candidates on the GOP side have their own serious downsides, and Mitt is rich, slick, articulate, handsome, well-known in New Hampshire -- and a new, fresh face.

Renee_Loth: Oh no! I am clean out of time, and there are still some good questions hanging out there -- even some good fodder for future editorials (keep reading!) Hope to see you all again in another chat soon. Cheers