From Jonathan Martin:
Jim Martin, who for months had served as Sen. John McCain’s New Hampshire state director, has left the campaign “effective immediately,” according to an email sent to campaign staffers from Rob Jesmer, McCain’s National Political Director, this afternoon.
Asked why Martin was departing, McCain communications director Brian Jones said that, “in order for the campaign to be successful in the state we thought it was necessary to move in a different direction.”
Jones added that Martin had “done a good job setting up the campaign” in New Hampshire, “but in order to be more effective” they needed somebody else.
A veteran of the NRCC and NRSC, Jim Martin served as deputy director of New Hampshire in 2000 when McCain scored his triumphal victory there. The man who led McCain’s team in the Granite State that year, MIke Dennehy, had been serving as the Arizonan’s National Political Director up until Monday when he announced that, because of family reasons, he’d be moving back home to Concord to serve as a consultant.
According to the email announcing Martin’s departure, McCain’s Regional Political Director for New England, Jim Barnett, will take state director responsibilities. Barnett is based in Boston right now and will move up to New Hampshire in the days ahead, Jones said.
With Barnett and Dennehy in the first-in-the-nation state, Jones argued that a “strong team” would be “even stronger.”
According to most polling, McCain continues to lead in the state where he defeated President Bush by 18 points in the 2000 primary. But former Gov. Mitt Romney and ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani have both rivaled McCain in the surveys and the senator drew only average crowds to his national announcement speech in New Hampshire last month.
The news of Martin’s departure comes after a string of recent staff departures. In addition to Dennehy, McCain has replaced his finance director, Carla Eudy, lost former Straight Talk America executive director, Craig Goldman, and seen one of his top liaisons to Christian Conservatives, Marlene Elwell, cut ties with the campaign.
Given the importance of the Granite State and the connection McCain established with voters in 2000, it’s paramount that he continue to do well in advance of 2008. The comment by Brian Jones definitely makes it sound as if the McCain campaign was not satisfied with the performance of Jim Martin.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Nice scoop. Who is going to stop the bleeding before the McCain campaign implodes?
As for Jonathan Martin’s claim that McCain has still been leading in most state polls, that is overstating it just a bit. He is in a statistical tie with Romney.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
How many campaign officials is McCain planning to go through?
May 11th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I guess this is what McCain does in when he looses the lead in NH to Romney. It will be interesting to see what he does in MI.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
What a complete fiasco. Let’s review the collapse of the McCain campaign in New Hampshire.
Earlier this year McCain originally had Jim Martin as the NH campaign director and Christian Winthrop as the deputy campaign director with Mike Dennehy the national political director. Jim Barnett was New England regional director and Sarah Crawford deputy New England Director.
First, Christian Winthrop was fired after the Providence Journal Bulletin broke news about him embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from a PAC he was running. Sarah Crawford was then moved over to take his place as deputy campaign director of New Hampshire.
Next, Mike Dennehy resigns as national political director.
Now, Jim Martin is fired as NH director and Jim Barnett takes over? Essentially the NH campaign has being decapitated. Jim Barnett has absolutely no experience running campaigns at this level and being from Vermont knows nothing about New Hampshire.
By the way who is now running New England? Or at this point is the campaign pretty much throwing in the towel on all New England since Mitt Romney has jumped into the lead in New Hampshire?
You would think given the fact the campaign had six years to prepare for another campaign someone would know what the hell they were doing
May 11th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
More often than not, the problem is with the candidate rather than the staff.
Of course if the candidate and a staffer are not getting along, obviously the staffer must go.
But high campaign staff turnover is never a good sign.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:16 am
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/156054.aspx
May 12th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Jake,
Just because the site isn’t very active today doesn’t mean you need to post your link on every thread. Also try giving us an explanation about it. I would guess people are more likely to check it out if you sell them on why it is worth it.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Dskinner I take it you’re not familiar with Christian Broadcasting Network. It looks like a video of Rudy giving some liberal talking points on abortion.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:24 am
I am familiar with it. I had already watched the video twice today at the same link. I was just pointing out that Jake didn’t need to post it on multiple threads and that more people would watch the video if he talked it up.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Yeah you’d think Jake would sell it a bit. The uniformed might think it was a pron link.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:46 am
That was a reasonable explanation of his abortion position. I think he’s going to shatter the Republican Party and the pro-life movement, but Rudy finally seems to have gotten a bit of clue on the issue. I only felt like smacking him a few times in that video.
May 12th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Dskinner,
Stop bullying Jake…maybe you need some sleep.
May 12th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Who’s bullying? I was offering some friendly advice.
May 12th, 2007 at 9:52 am
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6498291&nav=0RaPVhOi
New South Carolina Poll
McCain 25%
Giuliani 20%
F. Thompson 16%
Gingrich 12%
Romney 8%
May 12th, 2007 at 9:53 am
New South Carolina Poll out
McCain 25%
Giuliani 20%
F. Thompson 16%
Gingrich 12%
Romney 8%
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6498291&nav=0RaPVhOi
May 12th, 2007 at 9:56 am
My question is…. who was the brain surgeon that conducted that poll yesterday?
May 12th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Tommy, that poll looks much closer to what is really happening on the ground in South Carolina…. of course Tuesday will change things up….
Romney has to be mad that he is polling behind two guys not even in the race…. This won’t help either…
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P2DJV81&show_article=1
May 12th, 2007 at 10:09 am
The entire Rudy video from Houston….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsqvUkzpjC4
May 12th, 2007 at 10:15 am
This is probably closer to reality, but because it is a local poll it has the chance to be either very wrong or very right. My experience with local polls in AZ is that many can’t be trusted. You should be excited for FDT since this is easily the best he has polled in SC.
Since the Reagan debate didn’t touch poll numbers, it will be interesting to see if the SC debate moves poll numbers in SC where a much higher % of the primary voters will be watching.
FDT has a chance to move up quite a bit as does Romney because significant percentages don’t know either well enough yet. As a Romneybot, I would be remiss not to point the one positive for Romney, which is that Romney is getting attacked in SC but he still has very low negatives which certainly bodes well for his potential there.
As for the Insider’s poll, I doubt it is accurate, but you should checkout what Gamecock has to say about it over at fRedstate. He has an intersting take on it.
It is almost at the bottom of the thread.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/may/12/why_gamecock_is_certain_gop_will_win_in_2008
May 12th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Jake,
I think that Romney’s wealth is already generally known by people in SC familiar with him. Maybe people didn’t know he was that rich, but I don’t he will lose any support from someone realizing Romney isn’t the common man. This success is one of Romney’s selling points. I am certain the Romney campaign would love it if his opponents bring this up. It is a weak negative and it is too easy to pivot that into Romney’s greatest strenght.
He made all that money turning around companies that were in trouble. He saved and created 1000s of jobs. He is an outsider from the private sector. He knows how to get results he also knows how to work in the public sector. He saved the Olympics from a financial and public relations crisis and led a 400 million dollar turnaround. He oversaw the increased security after 9/11. He saved the liberals up in Mass. by turning a 3 billion dollar deficit into a 1 billion dollar surplus all without raising taxes.
See that is too easy. Romney is praying to get tossed softball attacks like that which will only make his opponents look petty and jealous.
May 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I read that the insider poll was a push poll done by Gingrich’s aide. I don’t put a lot of weight in any poll done by a campaign. Romney’s not dead in SC, but he has been hit so hard the last few days, I think it will be interesting to see what kind of reaction people have. This is really unprecedented, so there’s really nothing to fall back on and make an accurate prediction.
I doubt the debates in SC will go over that well considering we will have all 10 announced candidates (minus John Cox) there. Hopefully for everyone’s sake it will go over better than the last one, but I’m not expecting any miracles at this point since it’s going to be overcrowded and I also feel that there will be a large amount of time spent on Giuliani and the other candidates trying to put him on the defensive. Everyone smells blood right now, and he is vulnerable from all the controversy, so I have a feeling that the rest will be trying to outline their differences with his campaign. I also think that the lower tier candidates are going to go after Romney to some extent. I don’t know whether this will work though, because he is support is not seen as being weak at this point. I can’t predict what McCain will do yet. It should be interesting.
I could be wrong though.
May 12th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Actually Dskinner, I haven’t considered you a Romneybot at all. You have a candidate you’re supporting, but you have kept an open mind, and that’s the best way to go right now.
May 12th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Jake- 250 million? uhhhhhh….. that’s a lot of money!
May 12th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I don’t think the money will hurt him, but I don’t think it’s going to help him either. One of the books I’m reading right now is ‘Reagan’s Revolution’ by Craig Shirley about the 1976 campaign. It goes into detail about the reasons the party almost split in the early seventies. He probably needs to play down that aspect, only to use it as a sign of his success, but not focus on the exact wealth, because that could be alienating.
Below I will quote a passage that he should be mindful of…
May 12th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Talking about the establishment GOP in the early 1970′s:
“Some conservatives had resented the powers-that-be inside the GOP for many years for political and cultural reasons. They weren’t members of the GOP’s “club.” They were blue collar, and they had clear, ideological motives that were unencumbered by the political debate and compromise that represented the shriveled GOP at the time.”
- Shirley p. 35, Reagan’s Revolution
Romney’s strength from here is that he isn’t really a longtime member of the NE establishment that many on the right and on the ground have come to despise. However, he cannot let himself be painted as one because of his vast wealth.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Tommy,
People thought Romney was actually alot richer then that. Many estimated he was worth between 500 million and a billion. I have no idea what these clearly lower figure suggest, but it’s possible he’s been a philanphropist of some level? Not sure. But, before this disclosure, the vast majority of estimates of his wealth I’ve seen were significantly high then this. We’ll find out I guess.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:29 am
His kids have a trust of 100 million and I am sure there is other money out there either in trusts or that he has donated. When Hugh Hewitt researched his book, Hugh became really convinced that Romney was worth 1 billion. I don’t know where he got that idea, but it came from somewhere.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Since when has the GOP been an advocate of class warfare? I don’t understand why Romney’s wealth will hurt him. Someone is going to ask him about CEO pay in the debates, I’m sure, but besides that, this is just another example of the opportunity provided by America. I think you’ll find that Giuliani’s a millionaire, FDT’s a millionaire, and McCain might be as well, so an attack on Romney’s wealth could viciously backfire.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I don’t think an attack will come from the rival campaigns. However, he will need to keep this from being a focus. We are not a party of class welfare, but that doesn’t mean that there is no resentment of the wealthy on the ground. Remember, those without can be very suspicious of those with, that’s human nature.
It’s not a weakness, but I wouldn’t let others make it an issue either, because it seperates the fundemental cultures that shape everyone’s beliefs and political thoughts. People don’t like to be reminded of how much better off others are, and people will become suspicious of how he could understand their values and their problems with everyday life that are quite different from somebody with substantial wealth.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:59 am
McCain is worth about 20 million, mostly from his wife’s inheritance.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Tommy, perhaps. But now with Dskinner’s help, we can conclude that Giuliani, FDT, McCain, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Gore are all multi-millionaires. Where are the attacks going to come from without a boomerang effect? And while it may be human nature to be jealous, one thing that separates the US from the rest of the industrialized countries is that we tend to protect the wealthy a bit more because we all aspire to be wealthy. That’s why we don’t have Scandinavian-style 80% top marginal tax rates. I just don’t see this as being an issue. When’s the last time a millionaire candidate (and there have been many in the last few election cycles) have been attacked because of his wealth?
I think the concern over this is more hypothetical than actual.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I meant to say in #29, the Dems are especially vulnerable to attacks because of their preference for class warfare rhetoric. The GOP is not.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I don’t have any idea how much Thompson is worth. I know that he started out with nothing, but have never seen any figures to suggest how much he is worth now. I’m sure he’s quite wealthy. .
May 12th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Indeed, after all those years making movies and Law & Order, it would be safe to conclude that he’s a member in good standing of the millionaire’s club.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I don’t doubt that in the least.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Bush was attacked in 2000 for his family wealth. Here in Tennessee, Corker’s wealth was a major issue because it gave the appearence in the GOP primaries that he bought all his support. I think it has to do with the opportunities that one has when they are born into successful families, and had a better chance to succeed. For example, how many times have we been reminded of Bush 41 pulling strings to get W. into college, the national guard, and everything else? This is where Romney would need to be careful, so that he could not be painted in that same way.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Tommy, perhaps.. but it didn’t prevent Bush 43 from becoming President. Also, it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that it would have been necessary for Romney’s parents to pull strings to get him into the joint JD/MBA program at Harvard, and yet Romney still went on to work at Bain & Co. and then found Bain Capital. Contrast with Bush 43′s serial failures in Arbusto Energy, Spectrum 7, and Harken Energy, and the comparison starts to fall apart.
As long as Romney doesn’t resort to self-funding in his campaign, he can’t be plausibly charged with purchasing support (not sure about Corker’s situation). I just find it bizarre that suddenly we have to walk on eggshells about wealth. I always thought that wealth was something to be proud of, as long as it was honorably earned. Perhaps this is another cultural difference along the lines you were talking about before.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m saying that he needs to avoid being painted in the same light as Bush.
I do think it is cultural too, to some extent. I come from a rural area, and Republican rural support in the south is very populist, within the rank and file.