- Jan 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Feb 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–28
- Mar 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Apr 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- May 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Jun 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Jul 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Aug 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Sep 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Oct 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Nov 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Dec 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
Saturday, August 11, 2007
RE: Ames Results Are In
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 9:51PM
It's a good showing by Huckabee, who didn't make the same investment in the straw poll that other campaigns made and was being counted out by some people on the scene today. Given that I've criticized Tom Tancredo's campaign before, I think it worth noting his fourth place showing -- behind Brownback and ahead of Ron Paul.
It is also interesting to note that John McCain did the worst of the candidates to bypass the event, only finishing ahead of John Cox, and that Fred Thompson did the best. Also, am I the only one who thinks Mitt Romney's 31 percent is kind of weak given his advantages over the rest of the field?
Ames Results are In
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 9:39PM
Romney with 31%, Huckabee in second with 18.1%. The rest here.
Jim: Don't worry too much about the Florida scenario; I'm hearing from a friend in Ames that a challenge to the results is very unlikely.
RE: Ames
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 9:08PM
I can't believe I'm still waiting for these damn results.
UPDATE: For the love of God. Might Ames 2007 become Florida 2000?
Beauchamp's Silence is Self-Imposed
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 8:58PM
Bill Roggio has an official response from the Army to TNR's charges of stonewalling. Key point:
We are not preventing him from speaking to TNR or anyone. He has full access to the Morale Welfare and Recreation phones that all the other members of the unit are free to use. It is my understanding that he has been informed of the requests to speak to various members of the media, both traditional and non-traditional and has declined. That is his right.We will not nor can we force a Soldier to talk to the media or his family or anyone really for that matter in these types of issues.
RE: Ames
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 8:12PM
Most numbers I'm seeing/hearing suggest that turnout was around 14,000 -- much lower than 1999. But in '99, only John McCain (who wasn't going to compete in the caucuses) bypassed the straw poll. George W. Bush, Steve Forbes, Elizabeth Dole, Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, and former Vice President Dan Quayle were among the participants -- and even then the turnout wasn't considered earthshattering.
Without three of the four top tier candidates, this year Ames has the feel of a contest to be the least marginal also-ran. Sort of like Ramesh Ponnuru's 1999 account of the jockeying between Forbes and Gary Bauer during that cycle. (In the end, Alan Keyes outdistanced both.) Though this year's straw poll will be at least of a bit of a boost for whoever makes it into the top three with Romney.
Thompson (the one with a chance to win)
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 6:50PM
Byron York's new article in National Review(print edition) is a
balanced and interesting read on the strengths and challenges Fred
Thompson faces. He notes two key problems. First, on his Senate
career York notes : "During his years in the Senate from 1994 to
2003, it was well known that he wasn't terribly fond of the work.
He still isn't." York also notes his accomplishmenst are slight,
saying his accomplishments in working on defense and welfare reform
"are big accomplishments, [but] they are group accomplishments, and
Thompson's claim is pretty modest, at least for a presidential
candidate; 50 other Republican senators from that era could say
something similar." Second, York also explains that Thompson needs
to make the case for why he is different and better than his
competitors, saying " it's hard to claim that his positions are
terribly different from those of the other conservatives running
for the Republican presidential nomination." York does find
Thompson is working hard now, slimming down (we don't get chubby
contenders anymore apparently) and is an "impressive man, sly-smart
with varied life experiences." Less than a month from now we'll see
what Thompson adds to the mix and whether, despite his conventional
conservative message, GOP voters find him a more effective
messenger than his rivals.
Ames
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 6:10PM
Reports now suggest vote total will be much lower than in 1999 which totalled 23,685 votes. If so, the non-participants will claim the results from a low turnout straw poll are not meaningful. From folks on the ground indications are that Brownback will do well, Tommy Thompson will be heading home and the road might end for Huckabee as well. As for Romney, he's going to win and the only issue is by how much.
The Speeches Are Over
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 5:13PM
Tommy Thompson and Sam Brownback have both spoken, ending the candidates' speeches portion of the event. Brownback was well received, hitting his pro-life and pro-family points. I don't think Thompson did anything to keep his campaign alive after Ames but we'll see.
More on TNR and the Army
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 4:55PM
The New Republic issued another statement yesterday on the Beauchamp matter. In this one they come rather close to accusing the Army of a nefarious conspiracy:
Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army. Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp's article and has found it to be false, it has refused our--and others'--requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What's more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants "to protect his privacy."The leak to the Weekly Standard almost certainly came for a military source who is not authorized by his chain of command to be sharing the information that he did. It's really silly to suggest that "the military" is officially working to undermine TNR.
Further, I'm pretty sure the invocation of "privacy" isn't just a random deflection. I think it's a direct reference to one of the exemptions carved out of the Freedom of Information Act. But note:
The government cannot claim the privacy exemption to protect the privacy of people who agree to the disclosure of their records. You may want to submit statements from people who agree to waive their privacy interests along with your request. The government will honor notarized waivers. In two cases judges have ruled that waivers need not be notarized so long as they include the phrase, "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date]."It sure sounds like Beauchamp himself can free the military to release more information, should he be so inclined.
The Non-Cox Candidates
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 3:59PM
As for the Republican candidates people have actually heard of, most of them have sounded strong. (Note: These are my impressions from watching on TV and the web, I'm not live from Ames.) Mitt Romney emphasized his "three legged stool" conservatism while talking about his bipartisan record of accomplishment in Massachusetts. Tom Tancredo gave an anti-illegal immigration stemwinder and won rousing applause for saying that the Iraq rules of engagement under his administration would be "We win, you lose."
Ron Paul balanced his maverick role in the race with Republican red meat on life, small goverment, and the Second Amendment. I didn't hear it, but according to Byron York, Mike Huckabee had a weird analogy between voting for poorly funded candidates and "Never Again" regarding the Holocaust.
Key questions: How many of the Paul supporters there are eligible to vote in the straw poll? How close can Brownback & co. get to Mitt Romney?
A Morry Taylor For Our Times
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 3:41PM
John Cox has given his Ames speech. I understand why he's not taken seriously as a candidate -- I've seen this video, for example -- but I don't understand why he's not taken at least as seriously as Morry Taylor was in 1995-96.
Taylor, you might remember, was a businessman and political neophyte much like Cox who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in '96. Taylor never had much of a shot but he was included in all the early debates and most of the candidate forums. He had more money to self-finance than Cox, and -- a '92 Perot voter himself -- he might have been thought to have some ability to tap into the Perot phenomenon.
Then again, given Taylor's disastrous performances in the debates, the caucuses, and the primaries, maybe Morry Taylor is why we ignore John Cox.
Re: Early Ames
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 2:13PM
Early reports indicate a 24,000 vote total for today which would be virtually identical to the turnout in 1999 when Bush captured 7418 out of 23,685 votes. A gigantic turnout predicted by some may have been dampened by the absence of three of the top contenders.
Re: Early Ames
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 1:35PM
It goes to show how much of Ames is groundgame and retail politics. Brownback may not have impressed many in debates or as a national candidate but he has been working very hard, has spent by one count 37 days in Iowa (nearly as many as Romney's 43) and has over 10 paid staffers there. He has also been getting a lot of play with the Romney abortion issue. Does he have staying power beyond Ames? Maybe not, but coming in ahead of Huckabee and the others will thin out the field.
Early Ames
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 1:16PM
Marc Ambinder has been looking at the early Ames straw poll scene. So far he sees the biggest show of support for Mitt Romney (obviously), followed by Sam Brownback and Ron Paul. Though at this early stage, it may be hard to tell out-of-state volunteers from Iowans eligible to vote in the straw poll.
My understanding is that like Romney, Brownback, Tommy Thompson, and to a lesser extent Mike Huckabee have all made signficant investments in getting people onsite. The Paul campaign has reportedly bought just 800 tickets for its backers. We'll see.
That Reagan Cheer
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 11:12AM
Searching through some Reagan clips on Youtube, I found this appearance on the Sonny and Cher show. Pretty darn funny.
And if you need some classic Reagan moments, go here and here.
No Control
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 10:25AM
How can you not love this Reason interview with Tyler Cowen when it includes questions like this:
reason (8:32:31 AM): I've been paying my 13-year-old son all summer to cut the grass, but he hasn't been doing a very good job. what am I doing wrong?
Cowen (8:33:38 AM): Perhaps he feels you are trying to control him. If he accepts the payment for the grass, what next? You pay him to get better grades, or not to smoke pot? (Given that this is reason, perhaps you pay him to smoke pot!) He fears control, and so he rebels against that control by not cutting the grass.
Hillary Misleads
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 9:55AM
That headline is a shocker, I know. Go here for the CNN video.
First, Hillary says, "No other country has, that is an advanced country, has so many of its citizens without health care."
Is the good Senator ignorant of EMTALA, which requires any emergency room to give treatment to any person who requires it? Perhaps what she means is that people do not have health insurance, but that is different from health care. And as nations like Britain and Canada have shown, having insurance does not guarantee access to health care. As the Canadian Supreme Court said upon ruling unconstitutional a law that banned private health care, "access to a waiting list is not access to health care."
Next, Hillary says, "The outcomes in countries…that have a uniform national system are better, on balance, than they are in this country. I can give you the statistics, and you can shake your head."
I wonder what statistics she is referring to? Life expectancy and infant mortality?
Finally, you'll notice that Hillary's response is delivered in that schoolmarm, authoritarian tone that (1) makes you prefer hearing nails on a chalkboard and (2) makes pretty clear that Hillary isn't interested in listening to anyone who disagrees with her. And if you doubt that last point, here is her closing remark to that gentleman:
You come and introduce yourself to my staff and we will try to give you some information if you are interested in being educated instead of being rhetorical.
Do we really want a woman who is so convinced of her superiority in charge of our health care system, let alone be president?
(Oh, and if you want a good sense of how screwed up our politics are when it comes to race, watch the clip that follows on whether Barack Obama is black enough.)
But Who Do They Like?
Posted by on 8.11.07 @ 3:48AM
The latest Gallup poll looking at the candidates' favorability ratings is chock full with interesting tidbits. At 55% favorable Rudy is the only one of the top eight presidential contenders (the poll include Al Gore) who is above 50%. Rudy's "net" favorable is also highest at 23%. Hillary's unfavorable rating outweighs her favorable rating 49-47%. The candidate in last place: Mitt Romney who record a 22-31% favorable to unfavorable result, although 47% never heard of him or don't know enough about him. Fred Thompson, who is also a mystery to 49% of those polled, has a favorable to unfavorable rating of 31-20%. John McCain has slipped to his worse rating recorded to date -- 41-42% favorable to unfavorable.
What does this tell us? Gallup says this about Romney: "Typically, Americans' ratings of relatively unknown candidates are more favorable than unfavorable in the early stages of their campaign. But opinions of Romney have never been much more positive than negative. His highest net favorable was only +8 this past May. As he has become somewhat better known in recent months, his ratings have become on balance negative, and his current net favorable rating is -9 (22% favorable, 31% unfavorable). " If you look closely in the poll it appears that although his rating with Republicans is much less than Rudy and Thompson, his biggest difficulty comes with Democrats and Independents (more below). What is not clear is why Romney's negatives are going up.
By contrast, Gallup has this to say about Thompson: "Thompson -- the other still relatively unknown candidate -- fits the more typical pattern of being viewed more positively than negatively. His net favorable ratings have been consistent since Gallup first measured his ratings in April -- ranging between a +10 and a +16 net favorable rating over this period of time." The most noteworthy nugget there is that 49% of the public doesn't know him. Being a celebrity does not equate to being known as a candidate and the notion that he might bypass some retail politicking (on the theory voters already "know him') and rely on high tech campaign will I think go by the wayside. (It should be noted that Thompson's unfavorability rating has increased as well from 11 % in April to 20% in August while his favorable rating increased only from 24 to 31%.)
Finally, for those interested in electability Rudy holds a net positive 17% favorability with Independents, Thompson a 4% positive and Romney a negative 17%. McCain seems to have lost his touch with Independents- showing a net 0% (meaning equal numbers view him favorably and unfavorably).
Friday, August 10, 2007
Two Ames Rules
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 10:58PM
While I'm reluctant to impose my preferences on Republicans in Iowa, I'd like to propose two new rules for the Ames straw poll.
1. Any candidate who finishes behind John Cox must drop out.
2. Any candidate who does not participate in the straw poll yet finishes ahead of at least one candidate who does deserves, at least, props.
I'll allow "props" to be defined by the people of Iowa, good federalist that I am.
Zycher, Lott, Levitt, and Reynolds
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 5:15PM
Benjamin Zycher has been watching the battle brew between John Lott and Steven Levitt. He's also been paying attention to Glenn Reynolds' reporting of the issue. Follow this link to see what he has to say about it.
Re: Fred Bubble
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 4:57PM
Phil, it is not just the Rasmussen poll. I am always hesitant to put much stock in one poll but if you look at Rudy's RealClearPolitics average it is up to 10.3% after drifting down a week or so ago into the 6% range. This is not all attributable to the Rasmussen poll. The Cook RT/Strategies poll also shows improvement and Gallup, Newsweek and NBC/Wall Street Journal show him either steady or improving from past polls. Is this former McCain voters finding another candidate? Is it Thompson excitement cooling? I think it's all of these plus a fairly impressive combination of conservative messaging, a solid debate performance and --perhaps the biggest-- electability worries. The latest CNN poll shows Rudy cruising in the electability category with 44% and Thompson, his closest challenger, at 20%. Hillary may be the best thing Rudy has going for him.
Re: December Caucuses
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 4:07PM
Don't cancel your Christmas plans just yet John. A 2007 caucus is not gonna happen, says Iowa's governor.
Will December Caucuses Matter?
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 2:52PM
There's talk now that, thanks to South Carolina pushing its primary back and New Hampshire doing the same in response, the Iowa caucuses could come as early as mid-December. (I discuss this a bit in my Brainwash column today, which also includes musings on Ames and interest group candidate forums.) The whole point of states' insistence on holding their nomination contests early is to heighten their importance. But mightn't this strategy have diminishing returns? Much of the press goes quiet from Christmas to New Years, after all; it seems like the break in coverage could greatly dilute whatever momentum a candidate gets from winning in Iowa.
Fred Bubble Losing Air?
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 1:34PM
We now have, shall I say, a droplet of evidence supporting the thesis that Fred Thompson has hurt himself by waiting too long. It comes in the form of Rasmussen's daily tracking poll:
While daily fluctuations are as likely to reflect statistical noise as real changes in the race, it's worth noting that Giuliani has been ahead of Thompson or tied with him each day in August. During July, the reverse was generally true.
Giuliani now attracts support from 28% of Likely Republican Primary Voters, his highest total since early in May. As for Thompson, his support has slipped below the 20% mark for the first time since the summer began. Thompson is now the top choice for 19% while former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney attracts 12% support and Arizona Senator John McCain is clinging to double digit territory at 10%.
There is still clearly an opening for Thompson in the race, and he may very well get a boost once he officially announces, but assuming he was going to get in, it seems he would have been better off at least making his intentions known earlier.
Ames Schedule
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 12:50PM
Here are the logistical details for tomorrow. For all of you who would rather be watching C-SPAN than relaxing at the beach with your family, the candidate speeches run from 12:45-3:30, and the results are announced at 7 p.m.
Hillary the Conservative
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 12:49PM
In the Los Angeles Times, Bruce Bartlett once again makes the conservative case for Hillary. I'm still skeptical. Even if Hillary, in her current guise, is the least loony-sounding of the top-tier Democratic candidates -- more likely because her frontrunner status allows her to look toward the general election than due to any genuine centrist conviction -- I'm not sure what conservatives gain by offering only "token resistance" to her candidacy or pretending that they can somehow meaningfully influence the Democratic nomination process.
While Hillary is taking positions to the right of Barack Obama and John Edwards, to say nothing of the also-rans, she is also to the left of Bill Clinton on some of the very issues Bartlett cites: trade, growth, and markets. A few comforting soundbites don't make up for a generally statist platform. It's also worth noting that Bill Clinton was most fiscally conservative and pragmatic when dealing with a Republican Congress, so even if Hillary wins a "trapped rat" approach to her candidacy -- which might hold down her margin of victory and help other Republicans down ballot -- could still be the best choice.
To my mind the conservative case for Hillary is this: There is no Democrat who would do more to reinvigorate small-government conservatism in the Republican Party. And the fact that she is so polarizing will be an asset in trying to keep her programs from being enacted. But that's not because she is a conservative -- it's because of the conservatism she might inspire elsewhere.
Ames Effort
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 12:46PM
Lots of us know Romney has put in a big effort in Iowa but I think the magnitude is sometimes not appreciated. According to his campaign, he has made 17 trips, spent 43 days, and held 53 "Ask Mitt Anythings", 9 townhalls, and a total of 310 events. None of the other contenders, certainly none of the others on the Ames ballot, comes close. When combined with the "spare no expense" approach to the Ames straw poll voting there is simply no doubt that he will win and win by a very, vey significant margin. Without Thompson, Giuliani or McCain I think it's reasonable to assume he'll get over 45% of the votes. What will it mean? Critics and rivals will say not much since others didn't compete and Iowa's caucus may now conflict with Christmas shopping. I look at it this way: straw polls are tests of organization. If he mapped out a game plan, executed it and had the money to pull it off it shows he has a formidable organization. The test is whether he can translate that into other states where other candidates' operations and investments more closely approximate his. But I do stand by my favorite axiom in presidential politics: it's more about organization than anything else.
Re: McCain-izing Rudy and Kerry-izing Romney
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 12:06PM
Phil, I think these things work as part of a theme. I suspect the reason that the Rudy folks went on offense with the flip flop label is because it fit so well into an already established theme that voters have heard time and time again and which other candidates like Huckabee are amplifying. As for immigration, voters were enraged at McCain because he was CURRENTLY championing a bill they detested (which Rudy opposed in large part on national security grounds). So I think the McCain-ization only works if a candidate is currently pushing an amnesty position. If Romney is trying to McCainize Rudy for past positions on illegal immigration it's an uphill fight at best, in part because of the reason you outlined and in part because Rudy uses the exact same defense which Romney did in the recent immigration fight against McCain -- look where I am now and what my position is currently. Well, maybe he will paint Rudy as a flip flopper, some say, not resolute enough on immigration. This is where the "it has to be part of a theme" comes in. After sticking to his guns more or less on abortion and with his general image of resolution I doubt the public will buy Rudy as a flip flopper. In short, I agree this is not a winning argument for Romney, but it also may be the only one he can presently think of to get to the "right" of Rudy given Rudy's health care (more "conservative" I think than Romney Care) and other policy positions which are equally conservative as his and the difficulty Romney has in raising the abortion issue himself (probably not an issue he wants to go on offense with right now).
Re: ... On Vacation?
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 11:52AM
Dave, I wish. But as my father used to say, every day is vacation. (Which was true enough -- we lived in Santa Barbara.) As for golf, I'm not quite the greens expert you make me out to be. The honors here should go to Quin -- he knows the name and standing of every golfer not only on the PGA but on the Asian and European tours as well. All I know is that Tiger Woods is bound to win this weekend. He's way overdue for another winning streak. What's it been -- several months -- since he won seven (or was it 70) tournaments in a row?
Now back to my summer reading -- Dr. Rudy's cautious health care plan.
Dog-Hunting Update
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 10:48AM
In The New Republic's statement last week on their investigation into Scott Thomas Beauchamp's "Shock Troops," they said that they "contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described."
Well, Bob Owens tracked down that spokesman. It turns out that TNR's researcher "only asked general questions about 'whether a Bradley could drive through a wall' and 'if it was possible for a dog to get caught in the tracks' and general questions about vehicle specifications." They didn't actually show him what Beauchamp wrote in "Shock Troops." Owens does share the relevant portion of the article and -- surprise, surprise -- the spokesman is skeptical.
Meanwhile, Matt Sanchez talks to a soldier about hitting dogs with military vehicles. Here's the video.
McCain-izing Rudy and Kerry-izing Romney
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 10:45AM
Jim Geraghty has a nice compilation of the back and forth immigration debate between Romney and Rudy. The biggest question is whether it will allow Romney to McCain-ize Rudy, or provide Rudy with the opportunity to Kerry-ize Romney. During the immigration debate earlier this year, it didn't help McCain politically that he was sticking with his principles, and it didn't hurt Romney that he had had more positions on immigration than Liberace had wardrobe changes. In the end, all that mattered was that McCain was arguing for regularizing illegal immigrants and Romney was shouting "Amnesty!" from the rooftops. Romney got a boost, and it may have dealt the fatal blow to McCain's campaign. So what now?
In my view, Giuliani offers a very reasonable defense of his decision to uphold the policy of not reporting illegal immigrants to the INS for accessing basic city services. Given that he inherited a city with 400,000 illegal immigrants, and that the federal government could only deport a few thousand a year, it makes sense that you'd want them to be able to report crimes or register their kids for school. To do otherwise seems to me like sheer lunacy. I don't see how on earth you expect to reduce crime based on compiling statistical data on where and when it takes place if the equivalent of about 5 percent of the population cannot report crimes. I don't see why you'd want tens of thousands of kids roaming the streets. I'll concede that providing them medical care is much less defensible from a conservative perspective. But even so, if you go back during the 1990s, you'll find statement after statement in which Giuliani talks about the need for the federal government to do a better job combating illegal immigration. In a 1995 interview I linked to a few months ago, then-Mayor Giuliani said, "(The federal government) has to increase its ability to do border patrol. It has to increase the emphasis through foreign policy. It has to increase its emphasis on deportation and put more resources into that."
With that said, I'm not politically tone deaf, and I am aware that to passionate immigration hawks, when somebody says "New York City," they hear "Amnesty City" and no argument made in Giuliani's defense is likely to alter that view. During the recent immigration debate, with all the attention focused on McCain, Giuliani didn't get much criticism for his policies as mayor. Given that Romney's attacks on McCain were so successful, and that he obviously has no qualms about taking positions that are contrary to his own record, it may prove smart politically to force Giuliani to defend a policy that's unpopular among conservatives.
On the other hand, I was recently looking back at Giuliani's 2004 speech to the Republican National Convention, and remembered how effective he was in communicating the Kerry flip-flopper narrative. "There are many qualities that make a great leader," Giuliani said at the time, "but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader…. Yes, people in public office at times do change their minds, I've done that, or they realize they are wrong or circumstances change. But John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception."
So, I reiterate, will Romney McCain-ize Rudy, or will Rudy Kerry-ize Romney? The 2008 Republican nomination battle may hinge on that very question.
Must be the Day Before Ames
Posted by on 8.10.07 @ 2:31AM
The Rudy-Romney war over who did what when he was in office with regard to sanctuary cites goes on. Romney accused Rudy of harboring illegals while he was Mayor of New York. Rudy struck back and "friends" offered up clippings showing that Romney did precious little, in fact increased funding, with regard to three sanctuary cities in Massachusetts. Needing a nifty metaphor the Rudy camp came up with this to describe Romney on immigration: "Mr. Magoo to Yosemite Sam." Aside from encouraging a hobby in coining movie metaphors for candidates, the Rudy team may now see this flap as a chance to reinvigorate the flip flopper theme. (They also have reminded reporters of Romney's plea in the debate on Sunday to let candidates characterize their own records.)
In that regard, Mike Huckabee is joining in on the flip flop chorus, commenting in a Washington PostTalk program on Romney's vulnerability in the general election: "Let's assume everything is hunky dory with his views now," he said. "The problem is not so much where he is but where he was and the fact that that's a change and not just on that issue but on a number of others. What's problematic is that it does represent a dramatic shift and the obvious thing that a Democrat[ic] opponent will do to him is to say he shifted once, will he shift again?"
On Saturday we will find out if, at least in the short run, a very contentious week for Romney has dampened his chances for an impressive victory. I'm betting that with millions spent on ads and millions more on organizing activities and plenty of buses at the ready Romney will win by a healthy margin.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Is Wlady On Vacation?
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 7:41PM
Given Wlady's affinity for the greens, I'm surprised there was no mention of the PGA Championship on this blog today. At the end of day one, Graeme Storm (who?) leads at -5. John Daly(!) is second at -3. Tiger Woods is at +1.
RE: An Obama-Keyes Rematch?
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 7:11PM
Maybe Keyes wants to go to Iowa because he misses the mosh pit.
Sanctuary Cities in Romney's Massachusetts
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 5:09PM
In recent days, Mitt Romney has assailed Rudy Giuliani for maintaining a "sanctuary" city for illegal immigrants in
In describing Giuliani's reign as mayor yesterday, Romney said, "
Despite the fact that
Earlier today, I spoke with John Clifford, a press spokesman for Cambridge Mayor Kenneth Reeves, and asked whether the city remembers any pressure, financial or otherwise, applied by the Romney administration asking them to change their sanctuary status when it was up for renewal last year.
"Absolutely not," Clifford responded. I followed up by asking whether the Democratic government of
Other sanctuary cities in
Asked for comment, Matt Rhoades, Romney's communications director said:
"One of the responsibilities of the President is to enforce federal law. As President, Mitt Romney will make sure that cities that offer sanctuary to illegal immigrants suffer a financial penalty. As Governor of Massachusetts, he took action to ensure the state did not become a magnet for illegal immigration. He vetoed in-state tuition at public colleges and universities for illegal immigrants, opposed driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and signed an agreement with the federal government to allow state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws. Governor Romney believes sanctuary cities weaken our ability to secure the borders because they encourage illegal immigration and reward lawbreakers by setting up zones of protection."
While it is technically true that Romney "signed an agreement with the federal government to allow state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws," he only did so in the closing weeks of his term, and the program never actually went into effect because it was rescinded by Romney's successor even before the state troopers began training.
Thompson Reacts to Primary Calendar
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 3:59PM
On the new primary schedule Team Thompson puts out a press release saying:
"Changes to primary dates are only a problem for
long-running
candidates," said Randy Enwright, national political director of
the
Thompson committee. "Large organizations with detailed
political
strategies that include roll out dates may find it more difficult
to
change their playbook mid-game."
They have a point but they of course need to
set up thier own organization from scratch and quickly start some
retail politics. Thompson seems to understand this and also
announced his first visit to Iowa. Where he chooses to campaign and
whether it makes sense for him to contest in Iowa at all will be
one of his first key decisions. South Carolina seems his best bet
among the early states but he may be disinclined to cede New
Hampshire and Iowa, however uphill a battle those two states might
be and however far behind he is in local organization, to the other
top candidates.
Mother Flunker
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 3:08PM
One of the British pop culture rags reports that Gwyneth Paltrow is ready to make her Hollywood comeback:
Aside from a few minor roles, Paltrow has largely focused on looking after Apple, 3, and son Moses, 1, the two children she has with her Coldplay husband Chris Martin.
Mission accomplished! Children raised! Next!!
No Moral Hazard
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 3:00PM
Philip, where should I start? I guess I will start by agreeing with you about moral hazard. If my goal were to "bail out the lenders," that would indeed be objectionable. But nowhere did I say that was my goal. My goal is to help the homeowners and potential home buyers -- the individuals, not the lender/profiteers -- AND to guard against a generalized panic that would harm not just the lenders, but the fairly innocent bystanders such as the builders and construction workers who they employ, and, from there, all the others down the line who would be affected. Also, note that I am not suggesting a bailout of the lenders -- the typical Democratic response, which is what Bush in the past two days has so rightly rejected -- but a VERY modest move by the Fed to stabilize the economy as a whole. That is NOT an example of the moral hazard problem you warn against.
Diversity Is A Jealous God
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 2:38PM
Remember that flap about Robert Putnam's finding that diversity erodes trust and sociability -- even among one's fellows? Well, it's still in the news, as the scramble begins to justify diversity by touting whatever it is that science can prove it improves.
Okay, fine, knock yourself out. But, I ask you, is diversity a bum deal even on its own terms?
The Fed and the Moral Hazard Problem
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 2:24PM
Quin, it seems like what you're basically saying is that the Fed should cut rates to avoid a credit crunch while still asserting a commitment to fighting inflation. The problem I see is that such a policy would create, in economic terms, a moral hazard. Here's what I mean. I remember covering the subprime mortgage industry during the housing boom back in my days as a financial reporter. At the time, with rates at the lowest levels since the Eisenhower era, lenders were giving away mortgages like candy, and were rewarded with stratospheric profit growth and surging stock prices. The problem, however, was that in their push to maintain staggering growth rates, standards went down, and they kept loosening their credit criteria. So, it should come as no surprise that they are now being forced to pay for their unwise lending decisions. Perhaps the credit market is overacting and being too tight now, but I think that this is a process that needs to work itself out, and I think that lenders need to suffer consequences for poor lending decisions so that hopefully they can learn something from this experience and behave more rationally in the future. If the Fed were to essentially set the precedent that it would always cut rates to bail out lenders who have made poor lending decisions, it will only encourage future lenders to make similarly risky decisions down the road. Japan, in a much more dramatic way, faced all sorts of problems because its government would not let banks fail, and thus encouraged them to engage in risky behavior. I think it's important to examine the long-term implications of what you're proposing.
A Non-Chaotic Fed
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 1:26PM
Larry, I just don't understand what is so "chaotic" about the very very very very very very simple thing I suggest doing. What is so hard about saying, "We're gonna pump the gas just a little, but we are prepared to slow back down again if need be"? ??!!!???? For most ordinary human beings, the natural tendency if trying out a new thing is to be biased in favor of going back to the starting point if the new thing doesn't work. If you are going the speed limit and then speed up a little, your bias will be towards slowing back down. If you are climbing a tree and climb a little higher, your normal bias will be toward climbing back down to your original perch if the higher branch shakes too much. And so on. The Fed could make a very clear statement: "In light of some pressures on the building and housing loan markets, we are cutting the Funds rate by one-quarter point, and one-quarter point only, with no expectations of going farther. We think the underlying economy is still quite sound, though, and that with this one slight easing, the likelihood in the future is that the current credit crunch will work itself out. Inflation seems to be taming right now, but if inflationary pressures build up again, we will not hesitate to raise the Funds rate back again by the same quarter point."
Re: Fed Musings
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 12:36PM
Quin, that doesn't make any sense, and no, I don't think I misunderstood you. In order to carry out your proposed strategy, Fed Open Market Committee meetings would turn into a connivance. ("Let's see...what do we want to look like? But what do we want to do? And what do we want to look like we're thinking of doing?") The FOMC minutes are published now, a matter of days after the committee's decision is announced. The minutes of such a meeting would look a great deal like your hypothetical disagreement over driving: chaotic.
This and That
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 11:52AM
The Romney-Rudy flap over immigration is heating up. Is Romney getting nervous over Rudy's efforts to make headway in Iowa? Is he trying to get to the right of Rudy on an issue other than abortion(which is a sore subject and not a good topic for him to raise these days)? With Fred Thompson not in the race and John McCain fading we may see more back and forth between these two.
As for Thompson, Campaign Spot has a solid assessment of what is going on. Thompson folks have indeed been dismayed at the turmoil of late and the addition of Lacy is meant to set things right. The calendar is not their friend at this point. They have a few weeks to prepare for the official entry and to have ready answers for the host of questions about his record and position on issues. More important that all that, which may have minimal impact on the average voter, he will need to have a clear vision of what his run is about and why he offers something the other contenders don't. With the new SC primary date( more later today) he could be looking at the Iowa caucus just 4 months after his official start. (Does he even compete in Iowa? Does he just focus on SC and Florida, hoping to use those as a springboard to Super Duper Sunday?)
UPDATE: Others pick up on the point that Romney in the last debate said it wasn't a good idea to characterize others' positions. Unclear to me still why in days leading up to Ames Romney would want to deviate from his otherwise positive message by getting into a joust with someone not even on the Ames ballot. It also seems odd to pick on sanctuary cities since Cambridge and Somerville, MA designated themselves as sanctuary cities during Romney's tenure and as far as I have found he did nothing to stop them, such as conditioning or cutting off state funding.
Stark Choice Vs. Terror
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 11:28AM
President Bush just wrapped up a fairly effective press conference. It ended on a note that will make the Left go bonkers, but one on which the president's very direct language is absolutely positively appropriate and accurate. I think I have the quote right. Bush was speaking on the war against terrorists. He called it "a struggle between the forces of moderation and reasonableness and good versus the forces of murder and intolerance."
Precisely. We are the good guys on the world stage. The Left thinks not just that we are in a futile effort in Iraq; they think we are in an IMMORAL effort there. But that just shows how utterly skewed is the morality of the Left. We overthrew a vicious, murderous dictator who gassed his own people, invaded two neighbors, harbored and abetted terrorists, developed weapons of mass murder and then refused to account for their disposal, sponsored the biggest corruption scheme in UN history, consistently fired on American planes enforcing UN resolutions, and planned and plotted for new development of weapons of mass murder. We were right to do so. We acted morally in doing so. And we are acting morally in fighting Islamic jihadist terrorists worldwide, while trying to change the hearts of more Muslims so that they will root out the terrorists from their communities and support peaceful coexistence with people of other faiths.
So, yes, it is a fight between good and evil. And we are good. The president is right.
Red State Agrees
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 9:56AM
"Blackhedd" at Red State makes a much more erudite, yet more approachable, argument about the need for liquidity in "certain asset classes," than the one I made in several posts yesterday. Bottom line? As usual, the Fed gets moving too slowly, and when it does move, it overshoots. Right now the Fed has been too slow to realize that it needed to ease the pressure a little bit. Read the Red State piece for the best explanation. Also, by the way, the Red State piece gives a less hystrionic explanation of why Jim Cramer was probably right in his meltdown on CNBC the other day.
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Meacham
Posted by on 8.9.07 @ 9:43AM
One point I wasn't able to address in my piece today on Newsweek's hatchet job about global warming "deniers" (I tried to keep it to a reasonable word count!) was editor Jon Meacham's defense of the magazine's cover story. Included in his comments he wrote, "Our story is not a piece of lefty cant."
Now, why in the world would a reputable, objective magazine have to make a defense like that? My point exactly -- such a publication wouldn't.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Ames Antics
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 11:54PM
There is a sure sign we are just a few days from the Ames straw
poll: Mitt Romney is getting it from all sides. First, he responded
to an Iowa mom's question as to why his sons weren't in the
military by saying they made their own choices and were serving the
country by helping elect their dad. This response struck some the
wrong way. Several pundits and critics contended that his
comment was glib. Spokesman Kevin Madden responded to my inquiry:
"The Governor expressed his proud support and respect for those
servicemen and women who are bravely volunteering for their
country. His sons are not serving in the military, but I don't
believe the American people apply a litmus of family service for
those who choose to support the mission of our troops." We'll see
if Iowans take offense or this is another minor scrape on his way
to a victory on Saturday. Romney also took a shot at Rudy Giuliani
about giving sanctuary to illegal aliens in NYC. Rudy struck back
as Phil reported.
Again, Romney's spokesman defended his candidate saying that Romney
"disagrees with the approach that Mayor Giuliani took with regard
to encouraging illegal immigration and creating a sanctuary for
illegal immigrants in New York City. " There are two dangers for
Romney here: 1) Romney's image as a positive campaigner who was
foreswearing negative attacks gets smudged and 2) one of the issues
(most likely the tussle over his abortion views) strikes a cord
with Iowans and turns off some straw poll voters. This is after all
why we have campaigns-- to see how frontrunners fair and how they
roll with the punches. Romney is going to win on Saturday; his
opponents will do everything they can this week to narrow the
margin.
Addendum on Fed
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 5:53PM
I also am looking at signs that say the short-term inflation picture, at least, is a bit brighter. Core inflation already is moving downward, and oil prices have retreated in the past week, and gasoline prices are expected to drop in the fall with the summer vacation season ending, all of which argues that a tiny bit of interest rate relief could be absorbed without triggering new price-inflation problems. Remember, too, that interest rate cuts can boost business investment even more than they boost consumer spending, meaning that more goods will be produced, and the supply side can thus absorb what consumer spending there is. If you want to reassure 14 million homeowners that they have just a bit of relief and thus some hope, and if you want to avoid a panic that feeds on itself as mortgage companies declare bankruptcy, a tiny rate cut might just be the right solution -- IF it is understood, because of a clear Fed statement, that it does not signal a long-term lack of concern with inflation.
What it comes down to is this: A whole bunch of people bought their first homes about four years ago when rates were absurdly low, and made the mistake of getting an adjustable rate mortgage. (This does NOT apply to me, by the way, thank goodness.) They are now realizing they can't make their payments, and they need to sell. But buyers are a bit wary. It is amazing what even a quarter-point can mean to a new home buyer. It could make the difference between buying or not. If they buy, they get an asset, and the over-extended seller gets out of a bad deal rather than being forcelosed upon or declaring personal bankruptcy, or whatever. Which is why yesterday would have been a good time, as Cramer said in his rant, for a little help from the Fed.
No, James, I'm Not
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 5:39PM
I am NOT assuming that the Fed can do this perfectly. And I am NOT suggesting that it make a regular habit of this kind of thing. I am suggesting that, at certain times, different groups look for different signals from the Fed, and that psychology matters, and that what they "think ...might be the actual consquences of the Fed's actions" can become self-fulfilling prophecies. THEREFORE, if there really is a need for some relief for homeowners and home-buyers, the Fed could, just once, provide just a tiny bit of that relief while assuring everybody through its accompanying statement -- a statement ALWAYS widely read -- that it is a one-time deal, rather than a start of another 17 moves in the same direction.
Better than all of that, though, would be a change in the overall approach of the Fed, away from interest rate targeting and towards a dollar-price targeting system that would really provide stability. On that, I assume most of us here could agree, at least in theory, n'est-ce pas?
RE: Federal Reserve Musings
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 4:54PM
The problem is that you are assuming that the Fed can send these signals perfectly, that people will generally respond in the correct way to these signals, and that these moves will have little or no impact independent of their psychological impact. The problem usually isn't that people assume that the Fed is trying to hamper economic growth or permit inflation -- they just think those might be the actual consequences of the Fed's actions.
Re: Federal Reserve
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 4:16PM
Larry and Philip both completely misunderstand my point. There should be no confusion if the Fed does it right. Imagine you have two passengers in a car. One of them wants the driver to get there faster. The other one is worried about getting a speeding ticket. The driver tells them both: "Look, I have cruise control, and I have a CB radio where they tell me if there are any cops out. I am speeding up from 70 to 73. So I'll be going faster, but the cruise control will make sure I don't go TOO fast, and I'll slow down again at the first sign of trouble." That's not confusion, that's clarity -- the sort of clarity that satisfies both of them. That's what I am suggesting the Fed should do: Put the foot on the accelerator just a tiny bit, while announcing that its bias is in favor of slowing down again at the first sign of trouble. Why doesn't that make sense?
Romney Blasts Rudy, Team Rudy Fires Back
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 4:12PM
It seems that it took Romney all of three days to reverse himself from a standard he established in Sunday's debate that the best way to learn about somebody's positions "is not to ask their opponent, it's to ask them." Today, Romney issued a sharp attack on Rudy Giuliani in Iowa on the immigration issue, and the Giuliani campaign responded in kind:
"If you look at lists compiled on Web sites of sanctuary cities, New York is at the top of the list when Mayor Giuliani was mayor," Romney said at the Abbey Hotel here. "He instructed city workers not to provide information to the federal government that would allow them to enforce the law. New York City was the poster child for sanctuary cities in the country."
The Giuliani campaign issued a statement rejecting the charge. Campaign communications director Katie Levinson said: "I am not even sure we should weigh in on this given Mitt Romney may change his mind later today about it. Mitt Romney is as wrong about Mayor Giuliani's position on illegal immigration as he was when he last mischaracterized the Mayor's record and later had to apologize. New York is the safest large city in America since Mayor Giuliani turned it around -- it is not a haven for illegality of any kind. The Mayor's record speaks for itself."
Beyond the actual underlying issue, what this says to me is that the GOP candidates are starting to take their gloves off. Perhaps with McCain's chances dimmed and Thompson still undeclared, Romney now has Rudy in his crosshairs. And as far as I can tell this is the first time the Giuliani campaign has really gotten into the mix with a sharp retort.
An Obama-Keyes Rematch?
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 3:39PM
Apparently Alan Keyes might get into the Ames straw poll race. I'm as big a fan of lost causes and protest votes as the next guy, but I think the 2004 Illinois Senate race ought to be the end of his career as a major-party candidate for public office. Keyes would have been better off taking my advice then; he should now.
Otherwise, Alan Keyes is not making sense.
RE: Federal Reserve Musings
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 2:37PM
Quin, I would have to disagree with your suggestion that the Fed "send not one but two signals at its meetings, with those signals deliberately appearing to contradict each other." The problem in doing that is that by creating excessive confusion in the market about what the Fed's thinking is, you increase the likelihood that investors will make decisions based on wildly incorrect assumptions, creating panic, and massive volatility over time. Of all the things that Wall Street doesn't like, uncertainty is at the top of the list. Investors like for things to be predictable, and all of the models that analysts use to help investors make decisions are based on limiting uncertainty, and it would make no sense, as a matter of policy, to deliberately introduce more uncertainty into the market. One of the great achievements of Alan Greenspan is that he ushered in an era of openness in the Fed, so that investors weren't making decisions completely in the dark, and markets have been much more stable as a result. It would be a huge mistake to return to the old way of doing things, when comprehending Fed policy was a matter of guesswork.
Re: Fed Musings
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 2:26PM
Quin, allowing for the best of motives, what you propose is, essentially, random and meaningless action by the Fed, which would shake markets up horribly.
Foer Digs In
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 2:19PM
From the Howie Kurtz report that Jennifer mentioned below:
But New Republic Editor Franklin Foer is standing his ground. "We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account," Foer said. The magazine granted anonymity to the other soldiers it cited...So Foer's position now is that the burden of proof is on the Army to demonstrate that they didn't botch their investigation."Thus far," [Foer] added, "we've been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have."
I made this point in my column today, but let me tease it out: All things being equal, it's more likely that the Army got the truth than that TNR did. The Army investigators interviewed members of Beauchamp's platoon and company in person. It's very difficult for liars to keep their stories straight under those circumstances. This is the basis of the prisoner's dilemma. According to game theory, the equilibrium in the prisoner's dilemma is for rational players to defect -- that is, to snitch on other interviewees.
There was no such dynamic at work in TNR's investigation. They were emailing with their sources. If the soldiers they questioned decided to mislead them, all they had to do was coordinate their stories before answering emails from TNR.
Is it possible that TNR has the truth and the Army doesn't? Of course. But that's certainly not how I'd bet.
Federal Reserve Musings
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 2:05PM
I am no expert on monetary policy, but I have been developing a theory for years that the few things actually done by the Federal Reserve Board Open Market Committee have at least as much impact on the psychology of investors and businessmen, at least short-term, as they do on their actual economic bottom lines. My proposed solution is for the Fed at times to send not one but two signals at its meetings, with those signals deliberately appearing to contradict each other. For instance, it could raise the fund rate while indicating, in its accompanying statement, that its bias thereafter would be in favor of guarding against a recession. Or, in the case of today's circumstances, it could do just the opposite -- which is what I wish it had done yesterday. What do I mean? Well, it could do at least a tiny bit to ease the current credit crunch by lowering the fund rate by a quarter point, while at the same time in its statement saying that fighting inflation remains not only its primary concern foing forward, but that its anti-inflation vigilance will be enhanced BECAUSE it just cut the funds rate and so must watch out to ensure that inflation doesn't result FROM that move.
Why would it do that? Because it gives everybody something to like. The tight-money folks would be reassured that the Fed's move does NOT signal a change in its commitment to fighting inflation and does NOT signal a change in long-term strategy. But investors AND potential home-buyers looking for a reason to be bold would see an opportunity to actually make the leap -- knowing that the new, lower rates might not last long, but that they are available now to improve their deals at the margins. If economic activity, especially in the building sector, moved up even a little bit as a result, it would stop any negative psychological snowball effect from developing. When it comes to big-money decisions by ordinary people, both optimism and pessimism feed on themselves. Right now, pessimism reigns in the building market. the pessimism is not at crisis levels yet, but it needs to be kept from reaching crisis levels. A small rate cut could be the difference needed to avoid such a crisis of pessimism.
Now, a major caveat: I would prefer that the Fed do less rather than more fine-tuning of the economy. Many of my supply-side friends would prefer that the Fed change its entire approach and target dollar-price stability (by buying and selling bonds, I think) while letting the Funds rate float. That would be fine with me. But if the Fed is going to continue its game of interest-rate manipulation, which it seems determined to do, then I would rather that it show show an understanding that it has a recent history of overshooting its targets, and therefore a willingness to ct to mitigate against bad results therefrom.
I await the outraged howls of monetary experts from all sides of the debate. I offer this, therefore, not as a definitive policy prescription, but as a suggestion to be considered in recognition that money these days is such a fast-moving commodity that the market, and the minds of the market's investors, will affect money's supply and its value as much as any group of central bankers can do.
(Does that make sense?)
Political News
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 1:18PM
I am stranded at Dulles Airport on a delayed flight to LAX. We're getting the "we'll give you an update at 3pm" routine. I'm not counting on it, believe me. Meanwhile in political news:
1) Thompson has a new campaign director, Bill Lacy, who ran his Senate campaign. Randy Enwright it will remain, but as the political director. The press release emphasizes Lacy will have full operational control and report to Fred directly. Is this another sign of shake up? A help to Thompson to have his old friend at his side? What is clear is that Team Fred will have less than a month before the expected September announcement to get up to speed. Nervous donors and critics will seize on the latest change as evidence they still have not gotten their organization in order and supporters and fans will say "at last, we have our man." By emphasizing that Lacy will be top dog I take that they are aware that they must put any discord behind them.
2) Reports are surfacing that South Carolina is moving its primary to January 19, leapfrogging Florida and forcing New Hampshire to move up even earlier. This in turn may force Iowa to move up. Could we be looking at an Iowa caucus in December? A move up in South Carolina will favor Thompson and Rudy (who is running very strongly there in recent polling) and could pose a problem for Romney who has been lagging. McCain is also choosing to stand and fight in South Carolina and he holds, at least for now, support from numerous local officials. All of this serves to emphasize one of my favorite axioms: it's the organization that is key in a presidential race.
Re: Recipe for Crow and Ames
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 9:54AM
Quin, no crow need be ingested on my behalf. I do think overall the declared candidates have done more "substance" earlier in the race than in past years and there is no shortage of commitments, policies, plans and proposals to paw through. I always wonder how much weight even the informed primary voter places on these and how much is based on a more generic sense of the person, their record and their capabilities. For my money, in a post-George Bush election, competence and executive experience carry a lot of weight.
Phil, you hit the nail on the head. Since Romney and McCain (yes, he's still in the race) put so much stock in the early states, a win or two by Giuliani could seal the race. It's an odd situation where the race's overall frontrunner would be the underdog and an upset winner in the early races but that is how things are shaping up.
I'll be leaving today for a couple of weeks on the Left Coast but will continue to blog from time to time and try to report back on what Arnold is up to and whether the California GOP is on the rise.
Recipe for Crow?
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 9:18AM
Jennifer, please direct me to a cookbook with a good recipe for crow, because I need to eat some of it. I actually had read your excellent piece on Huckabee at NRO and had just forgotten it was yours. So I stand corrected -- and embarrassed. I still can't believe the MSM would do hit pieces on a non-candidate's WIFE when they haven't even done basic due diligence on a real candidate's own record -- especially on ethics. Hey, if anybody knows where Jon Weill is these days, he is a terrific reporter who did top-notch work for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette back in 1997 or early 1998 (when I was an editorial writer there, which is how I was able first-hand to develop a healthy skepticism for Huck's ethics), bedeviling Huckabee by consistently showing the ethical breaches in his holier-than-thou persona. Find Jon, or his stories: They are a treasure trove. I guarantee you that Hillary's Arkansas connections have huge files of such materials, salivating at the thought of Republicans being stupid enough to nominate Huck and thus handing them such an easy target to eviscerate in the general election.
RE: Ames
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 9:09AM
We won't know until January whether Giuliani's decision to skip Ames was a wise one. But it's pretty clear that right now he's at least making a play for Iowa in the caucuses. Perhaps if we approach the caucuses and it's obvious he has no chance of winning there, he'll divert resources elsewhere. But let's keep in mind that if Giuliani were to win the Iowa caucuses it would effectively be a first round knockout. That has got to be tempting.
Romney Revs Up
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 9:03AM
Mitt Romney has a new ad up in Iowa. He makes a clear pitch to be the "change" canidate-- declaring : "Washington politicians in both parties have proven they can't control spending, and they won't control our borders." He concludes with the line: "So come on to Ames. After all, changing America always starts in Iowa." No one should doubt that GOP candidates will be running against Washington and to some degree George Bush himself. At one point Romney seemed to indicate he would scale back efforts in Ames when it was clear his main rivals would not show but now it's clear he is leaving nothing to chance. There are lots of stories of course about how straw poll voters are wined and dined and given freebies to come vote, but that is the nature of the beast. One test of a campaign is how well you organize and work the system. It may not be a "pure" test of your political support but it is a test of the campaigns' operations. Looked at this way it makes sense for Romney to spare no expense.
Don Young's Way
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 8:40AM
Stuff the federal highway bill "like a turkey" with pork projects -- including a $231 million bridge in Anchorage to be named for himself -- then suggest that taxes need to be raised to fix failing infrastructure in the rest of the country.
Go ahead sky -- fall on him.
Baghdad Diarist
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 8:08AM
Re: Ames
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 7:23AM
James, you raise an interesting point as it relates to Rudy. I pointed out the three candidates who won Ames but never got the nominaiton and you pointed out the closer correlation between winning Ames and winning the Iowa caucus. That points to Rudy's efferts to upset the latter trend. We assumed for awhile that he was mouthing platitudes about making a run for the caucus despite bowing out of Ames. This week's activites which I mentioned convinced me he is serious. Whether it will work is always another story but clearly he is trying to leave a good impression with Iowa voters. If between now and January Romney fades, Rudy would be in an excellent position to win or be highly competitive in the caucus. Looking at his schedule with regard to both New Hamsphire and Iowa lead me to believe he is not relying soley on a Florida and Super Sunday strategy but really is going to make a stab at New Hampshire and Iowa. He certainly is in South Carolina (where Romney is running very poorly so far) although Fred Thompson's entry will complicate things considerably.
RE: Ames
Posted by on 8.8.07 @ 12:47AM
The only candidate who scored a near-win at Ames who really bombed at the Iowa caucuses was Phil Gramm. Gramm, as you noted, tied for first with Bob Dole in the straw poll, which reflected his success at fundraising and organization.
But Gramm participated in the Louisiana caucuses, which came before Iowa and thus angered many Iowans. Even worse, he lost those Bayou State caucuses to Pat Buchanan. Finally, he didn't have PJB's level of support among Iowa's Christian conservatives. So Gramm did not get a ticket out of Iowa to the New Hampshire primary. Buchanan of course won the Granite State primary and would have won Iowa too if Alan Keyes had not been on the ballot.
George H.W. Bush won the straw poll and the caucuses during the 1980 cycle. Pat Roberston won the straw poll and came in second in the caucuses, beating out then Vice President Bush, in the '88 cycle.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Ames News
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 10:25PM
Chris Matthews and Final Thoughts
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 9:01PM
Chris calls Hillary "majestic." Not the first word that comes to mind but she is in command. If she'd have gone home before we got to the parade of hard luck cases she would have had me. Obama certainly seemed comfortable in front of his home crowd but did nothing to knock Hillary off her perch. Is the Edwards angry man populism wearing thin even with a labor crowd? And Joe Biden still gets the "if I had to choose someone to be in a GOP cabinet or at least listen to regularly" award. I think he's got his eye on the Secretary of State for Hillary (certainly helping with the put downs of Obama and Edwards tonight).
RE: AFL-CIO Forum
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:46PM
Obama was sure eager to dodge the Barry Bonds question. He seemed to be tip-toeing toward a "no" on inviting him to the White House but then pulled back at the last moment.
Bring Your Brooms To Washington
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:44PM
And your vaccum cleaners, says Hillary. We've got some cleaning up to do. Well, she may not bake cookies or have teas but at least she's not above housecleaning metaphors.
Sweeping reforms and giant sucking sounds.
Re: The AFL-CIO Forum
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:38PM
I should have Hugh Hewitt-ed it in and just read the clippings. Railing at special interests while promising to grant every organized labor special goodie is an art I suppose. And John, everyone is SCREAMING because there is someone in the back row who didn't hear all the things these folks are going to do to turn the labor laws and economy inside out.
The AFL-CIO Forum
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:29PM
I only just tuned in. Why is everyone SCREAMING?
UPDATE: Did Olbermann really just waste time asking about Barry Bonds? This is why SportsCenter anchors shouldn't move to hard news.
Hillary
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:22PM
Gets asked about No Child left Behind. "A terrible imposition" she says. Kids shouldn't be a "walking test." Well, probably not for the reasons she has in mind, but if she wants to yank the whole thing out I'll be saying "go get 'em." I don't know, but if I weren't hugely political and just walked into the room I'd say she seems real smart and not that whacky. That's who and what the GOP nominee will be up against.
Biden vs. Edwards
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:17PM
Oh no Biden says, I walked more picket lines than these guys. Chides Edwards ( I think it was directed at him) for being a Johnny come lately and just popping up on the scene recently. Edwards then retorts citing his picket walking credentials. Doesn't believe employers should be allowed economic replacements during a strike. Lovely. Biden tries to jump back in with his picket walking experience. Even Obermann can't take it and moves on.
John Edwards vs. Hillary
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:10PM
Edwards promises he's going to be the president for organized labor. Walked 200 picket lines and he was with them in "crunch" time. The crowd goes wild. Hillary says we need defined pension benefit plans again (we're going to pass a law requiring companies to do this?) and flashes her own union card as New York union gal winner (or something like that). Gets big hand. If this isn't a wake up call for conservatives I don't know what is. Yikes.
Obama vs. Hillary on Pakistan
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:04PM
After Chris Dodd criticized Obama's recent statements on Pakistan, Obama retorted by saying he found it ironic that those who brought the country into one of the greatest foreign policy disasters of all time were criticizing him for wanting to go after the people who actually attacked us. He clarified that what he said in his speech was that he would work with Musharraf, but if there was actionable intellegence on bin Laden, America should act if Musharraf cannot. Trying to agian play the role of the responsible grownup, Hillary fired back that "I don't think people running for president should entertain hypotheticals" because of the signals it sends the world. She concluded, "You can think big, but you don't have to say everything you're thinking." So in other words, you should say whatever you need to get elected. On TV, it seemed that her answer was greeted with boos. Obama fired back, to cheers (keep in mind it's a hometown Chicago crowd) that this was an important discussion to be having that should not just be occuring among "washington insiders."
Poor Biden
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:00PM
Got booed for saying everyone should know the facts about Iraq and Pakistan. Yeah, we don't need no stinkin' facts.
Big Ideas But A Little Restraint
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 7:57PM
Hillary chiding Obama that it's nice to have big ideas but you can't say everything that pops into your head in a presidential campaign encapsulates her new appeal: I'm the grown up and he may be smart but not smart enough to realize that words have consequences. His rejoinder-- we should all get in on the debate--epitomizes his appeal to throw the Washington crowd out.
Hillary Blasts Right Wing Machine
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 7:37PM
Under attack from John Edwards for being the candidate of Wall Street based on a recent Fortune cover, Hillary Clinton just turned the tables by attacking Republicans. She said she's heard her name mentioned a lot by other campaigns in recent days, and then said "I want a united Democratic Party." (Paraphrasing)
It's a smart move for her to maintain this strategy, especially because a lot of Democrats are still bitter at Al Gore and John Kerry for not fighting back more aggressively against Republican attacks.
Prosecute Traders
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 7:25PM
No, not a typo. Hillary Clinton just called for a special "trade prosecutor" to enforce trade deals like NAFA, taking the "free" out of free trade. Very well then. I nominate Ken Starr.
Biden Itching for Fight With Rudy
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 7:22PM
Joe Biden, speaking at a Democratic debate, just called out Rudy on terrorism, saying: "I can hardly wait to debate Rudy Giuliani on whether we are safer or not." i.e., since 9/11.
Biden has previously blasted Rudy on this subject on YouTube. I'm sure that Rudy is quaking in his boots.
The Democrats are debating at a forum sponsored by the AFL-CIO and held at Soldier Field. The first round of questions by MSNBC moderator Keith Olbermann involved what we could do to improve infastructure in the wake of the Minnestota bridge collaplse.
RE: Deficit Coming Down
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 6:42PM
Phil: I'm very much open to a better name. If you, or anyone else, can come up with a way that expresses that we need to use the surplus for personal savings to help offset the entitlement crunch, and do so in a way that is positive, please let me know.
On another point, I think using the surplus for the purpose of personal accounts would put pressure on Congress to keep spending down. After all, if spending goes up and eats up the surplus, then bye-bye money going into personal accounts and hello angry voters.
Catching Up
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 6:34PM
RE: Deficit Coming Down
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 5:50PM
Dave, I agree that if we do achieve a "surplus," using it to help offset the transition costs of implementing personal accounts would be a good start. But I'm not sure I'd call it "Balanced Budget Conservatism." Such a name would tend to emphasize the annual budget and de-emphasize the long-term entitlements deficit. I think the focus on annual balanced budgets during the 1990s lead to the explosion in spending in this decade, because once Congress had a "surplus" to spend, they went on a binge, and didn't address our dire long-term situation. As I have written before, I think it is important for conservatives to emphasize that this shrinking deficit we're seeing is being driven by higher revenues as a result of tax cuts spurring economic growth, not as a result of any commitment to fiscal discipline on the part of our lawmakers. And let's hold their feet to the fire on "mandatory" spending.
UPDATE: The actual CBO release Dave mentioned is here. Just to clarify, it says the FY 2007 deficit is estimated to be "toward the lower end" of its previously indicated $150 billion-$200 billion range. So that would presumably mean somewhere under $175 billion. The deficit was $158 billion for the first 10 months of the 2007 fiscal year ending Sept. 30. Also, further my point, "Revenues are about 7 percent higher than in the same period last year, outpacing the nearly 3 percent growth in outlays."
Re: Bizarre Beauchamp Story Gets More Bizarre
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 5:00PM
Michael Goldfarb responds to TNR's statement:
Three points:Good questions.(1) They neglected to report that the Army has concluded its investigation and found Beauchamp's stories to be false. As Major Lamb, the very officer they quote, has said in an authorized statement: "An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."
(2) Does the failure of the New Republic to report the Army's conclusions mean that the editors believe the Army investigators are wrong about Beauchamp?
(3) We have full confidence in our reporting that Pvt Beauchamp recanted under oath in the course of the investigation. Is the New Republic claiming that Pvt Beauchamp made no such admission to Army investigators? Is Beauchamp?
Deficit Coming Down
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 4:52PM
The CBO is forecasting that this year's budget deficit could be in the $150 billion range, a lot lower than last year's $248 billion.
If this continues, we will be in surplus territory soon. If so, we need to come up with a new policy stance which I will call "Balanced Budget Conservatism." I'll put more meat on this idea later (and, to everyone blogging here, please feel free to add your own), but for now I'll just say that we need to start pushing the idea of using the surplus to create personal accounts that help us save for the coming shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare.
RE: TimesSelect Wall Coming Down
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 4:46PM
And it also means that I'll no longer have an excuse for not reading Paul Krugman's tripe on health care. Groan.
TimesSelect Wall Coming Down
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 4:35PM
Dang -- now that it'll be widely read again, we're going to have to go back to paying attention to the New York Times op-ed page.
UPDATE: Whoops -- I see Jennifer made a very similar quip earlier. That'll teach me not to skim over my co-bloggers' posts.
Bizarre Beauchamp Story Gets More Bizarre
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 3:17PM
The latest from TNR:
We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."
So, either the Weekly Standard's source is wrong, or TNR is digging itself deeper.
Rudy and McCain
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 2:53PM
Drudge links to this video of Rudy Giuliani saying if he weren't running, he'd be supporting John McCain. The Giuliani campaign passes along his full answer, which came in response to a question about campaign finance reform asked at a town hall meeting in Iowa:
QUESTION: Do you have any plans on repealing McCain-Feingold?
MR. GIULIANI: Do I have any plans on repealing McCain-Feingold? Gee, why don't you ask Senator McCain when he comes? He knows better about McCain/Feingold. I'm gonna tell you -- I'm going to tell you a few things, and this is not personal at all because I happen to be a very big admirer of Senator McCain, and I can tell you quite honestly, if I weren't running for president, I would be here supporting him. If for some reason I made the decision not to run, he'd be my candidate, and I really admire the man tremendously. I supported McCain-Feingold. I wasn't a big player in it because I wasn't in Congress, but I supported it. The concept made sense to me. Now that I see it play out in a couple of elections, I think it was a mistake. We should get much closer to being able to allow people to -- to realize their rights of free speech in the way in which they get involved in campaigns, make contributions to campaigns. I think these 527s have just -- I think McCain -- the end result of McCain-Feingold is not that the power of money has been lessened in politics. In some ways the power of money has been increased in politics, so I think it had an unintended consequence and we should go back and reform it, take out some of the abuses and probably get closer to recognizing people's rights of free speech. So I think ultimately it hasn't worked, and I do not in any way say that in any way to blame it on Senator McCain. I think he passed it in absolute good faith thinking he was straightening out a problem. I think lots of other people supported it, including me. I think, though, it's like, you know, you say does this balance in running something, running a government or an Army or anything else, sometimes the things you think are going to go right go wrong and you got to go change them. And then sometimes they go - they go right and you stick with them. (Rudy Giuliani, Townhall Meeting, Mason City, IA, 8/6/07)
As for his views on campaign finance reform, while I would like to see Giulaini come out for an outright repeal of McCain-Feingold, I think he deserves credit for being up front about the fact that he supported it himself, while still acknowledging it was a mistake. As for his hypothetical scenario endorsement of McCain, it should be interesting to see how this plays out. On the one hand, it could mean that Giuliani could win over McCain's remaining supporters if McCain makes an early exit, allowing him to consolidate the moderate/independent vote. On the other hand, by linking himself to McCain, Giuliani risks inheriting all of the negative feelings conservatives have for the Arizona Senator. It could provide an opening for Mitt Romney, who has no qualms about hiding from his past positions, to portray himself as the true conservative battling the Giuliani-McCain moderate axis.
Indefensible
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 2:30PM
Jennifer, I said not one good word about Thompson in my last post. I merely blasted the MSM for its indefensible incompetence and its indefensible news judgment. How is it "shilling" for any one candidate for me to say that the MSM is pathetic, and to say that all the realistic GOP candidates except one would make pretty decent presidents? I do find your obsession with nitpicking the undeclared campaign of Thompson rather bizarre, though. Why not spend time picking not the tiny nits, but the big ugly bugs, from the ALREADY DECLARED campaign of Mike Huckabee, who actually is participating in the straw poll in Iowa this weekend? And I'm not talking about horse-race BS, such as who has what jobs in a potential campaign, but actual substance? Like taxes, and spending, and ethics --on all of which subjects Huckabee, for one, merits serious criticism.
RE: Jennifer That's Weak
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 2:17PM
Quin, I didn't get the "let's shill for our side" memo. We serve readers best when we point out the strengths and weaknesses of candidates and their campaigns. Fred needs to kick it up a level to be competititve or he'll be left in the dirt. It does no good for a candidate to blame the MSM --which is OFTEN unfair to conservatives -- when they get it wrong. If they are proactive and develop and get their message out Fred's Team won't have to complain that the press got it wrong. As for the relevance of Jeri, I think my prior blogs on the topic explain it fairly clearly. (It is of course evidence of the truism that if a candidate doesn't have a clear, substantive message the space gets filled up with mechanics and process stories that usually are unfavorable.) Phil, I think they were both complaining (Fred certainly was in his Byron York interview) and, you are right, perhaps moving to a more active mode with the media. If we see more of the latter, they won't need to do the former.
Jennifer, That's Weak
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 2:06PM
I have been trying to stay out of all the presidential horse race stuff for the past couple of weeks, but Jennifer, your last response just doesn't cut it. It's just absurd to make ANY excuses for the shoddy journalism. The press got it wrong, and it is THEIR responsibility to get it right. Fergoshsakes, I have never seen such crazy, fevered attention to the wife of an undeclared candidate yet. What previous undeclared candidate's non-campaign would ever have thought it important to bother with nutcase-like reports about the non-candidate's wife?!?
A mea culpa: I too once thought she had been a lawyer. But I didn't write a story on Thompson. If I had, I would have checked my facts before publishing.
What I want to know is, which campaigns are trying to sic the press on Jeri Thompson? And on what possible journalistic grounds are the reporters complying by doing hit pieces on her?
I repeat my earlier contention: Aside from Mike the Huckster Huckabee, any of the Republican candidates with a real chance of winning the nomination would probably make a pretty good president if actually elected. I say it's time to aim our fire at the lefties running with a 'D' by their names, and stop the cannibalism on the right. AND, while we're at it, don't make any excuses for the pathetic standards of the really-not-so "mainstream" media.
Does This Mean I Have To Read Her
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 2:04PM
Re: Now They Tell Us
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 2:02PM
Jennifer, first off, journalists should not base factual reports on assumptions, even reasonable ones, because they often turn out to be wrong. Secondly, it appears to me that the Thompson non-campaign is now doing precisely what you think they should be doing--i.e. correcting erroneous reports--and yet you're accusing them of "whining."
Re: Now They Tell Us
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 1:44PM
Phil, the press didn't invent something out of whole cloth, they made an honest error based on available information. They picked up numerous reports indicating Jeri had worked for law firms. Knowing she was a professional (as opposed to an executive assistant) they assumed she was a lawyer. When Newsweek, for example, asked for basic data on her the Fred campaign told them to beat it. Of course the press should get it right but whining when they don't and your own campaign has let the erroneous information seep into report after report is just bad communications work. That is why every day we get email after email seeking to "correct the record" and "set us straight" from all the other campaigns. That is what the best communications people do and what Fred's team will need to do to be competitive.
RE: Now They Tell Us
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 1:25PM
Jennifer, perhaps the Thompson non-campaign could have been more proactive, but I would say that the onus is still on the media to get their facts right in the first place rather than invent things out of whole cloth and hope that somebody calls to tell them they are wrong.
Re: Giuliani Kids and Romney's Latest ...
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 1:14PM
On the kid front, I've written before I don't care about kids of candidates and don't write about kids of candidates. Wlady, you remind me of another rule. I don't like candidates or causes that take advantage of kids. Pointing to the political views of opponents children is distasteful in the extreme and using them as props in marches and demonstrations is likewise manipulative and unseemly. In short, such behavior is not "for the children" --it's is for adults who don't know where to draw the line. ( I'll save for another day the other well taken point that 17 year olds don't act like children these days and share way too much personal information with total strangers.)
As for Romney, I think all the back and forth on his prior views and whether he accepts a federalism abortion solution does, as Phil suggests, raise the consistency issue and fuel fears that his opponent, likely Hillary, will Kerry-ize him in the general election. Do pro-life voters begin to doubt his fidelity to their cause? Unclear but this is the card Huckabee and Brownback will play this week. Saturday we'll get a sense whether it matters.
Now They Tell Us
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 1:00PM
Bill Kristol Endorses Hillary
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 11:49AM
Well, not exactly. But Kristol's favorable comments about Hillary in this Washingtion Post story should get the netroots hopping.
Re: Giuliani's Kids
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 11:11AM
Phil: So would you say Howard Kurtz is wrong when he writes, apropos Slate's outing of Ms. Giuliani, "[A] n outrageous invasion of privacy by a voracious media? Not this time. These days, posting something on your Facebook profile is the equivalent of standing in Times Square with a banner." If the young woman didn't want to have anything to do with the story, why did she let it be known she's an Obama backer in the first place? Just so her fellow incoming freshmen at Harvard would know and maybe like her for who she isn't? And since when are New York City 17 year olds the equivalents of babes in the woods?
Creepier, actually, is Obama's response, as quoted by Kurtz:
"That's very nice. We think it's wonderful that we are attracting support from young people all across the country. I can't wait to meet her."
It was bad enough when John Edwards interfered in the Cheney family's private matters. Now Obama wants to reward a young woman for her public display of disloyalty to her father.
RE: Romney's Latest Shift
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 10:43AM
John, it is true that abortion is not a make or break issue for me. I could support either a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer depending on who I thought would be the best leader to confront the terrorist threat. The reason why I have a problem with Romney's changing positions on abortion is that they are part of a larger pattern, which extends to gun control, immigration, campaign finance reform, and gay rights, just to name a few. On issue after issue, the one constant in Romney's public career is that he will say and do whatever is most politically expedient at the time. That's a problem for me because it impacts my judgment of what type of commander in chief he would be. One of the most important qualities I look for in a wartime leader is the ability to have the courage to make decisions that may not be popular at the time. Romney does not meet that test. Furthermore, as a governor, he has no record on national security issues to speak of, so the only thing I have to rely on regarding his foreign policy views is what he's saying now. Given his history of saying the most politically expedient thing at the time, he has not given me much confidence that his statements are anything more than carefully designed to appeal to conservative primary voters. Moving on to other issues, he instituted a universal healthcare plan in Massachusetts that included mandates --something that in my view is a fundamental violation of conservative principles regarding the coercive power of government. So far, he has said he wouldn't support such a proposal at the national level. But again, given his history of reversing himself, I have no faith that he would stick by that if his advisers told him national universal healthcare with mandates would be a smart move politically. In summary, abortion may not be a top issue for me, but by continuing to say whatever is politically convenient, and by splitting hairs in a Clinton/Kerry-esque way, Romney has lost all credibility with me, and I cannot take him seriously on any issue.
Re: Giuliani's Kids
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 10:07AM
Daniel Radosh, no Giuliani fan, made the "leave the kids alone" point in a characteristically amusing post yesterday.
Good Call
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 10:03AM
Megan McArdle, on July 26: "At this point, I would be willing to put a little bit of money down right now on the proposition that Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp recants the entire thing as soon as the army opens up a court martial investigation for the many violations of the UCMJ chronicled in his diary."
Re: Giuliani's Kids
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 10:00AM
Dave, that story was out yesterday and I avoided linking to it because I really don't think kids should be made an issue in the campaign. It's bad enough about wives, but at least any wife who is married to a politician at some point made a choice and came to terms with the fact that they would be in the public spotlight. A kid has no choice. I especially always felt bad for the way Chelsea was treated. Granted, earlier this year, when Andrew Giuliani became an issue, he was an adult who agreed to talk to the media, so I didn't really have a problem with it. But the Slate story actually involved stalking a girl who is under 18, and invading her privacy even though she wanted nothing to do with the story. I think that crossed the line.
Of all the things I would defend Rudy on, his personal life would certainly not be one of them. But for what it's worth, yesterday his son Andrew said of the NY Times story earlier this year on the rift between him and Rudy: "That story was overdone. It was nowhere near as bad as the story made it sound."
Re: Romney's Latest Abortion Shift
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 9:56AM
Romney makes "John Kerry look like the model of consistency?" Oh, come on. Kerry waffled on deathly-important matters of war and peace. I can see why committed pro-lifers might distrust Romney. But aren't you a Giuliani fan, Phil? And isn't it fair to therefore conclude that abortion isn't all that important to you?
Romney's Latest Abortion Shift
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 9:40AM
Mitt Romney continues to make John Kerry look like the model of consistency. Yesterday, he came up with yet another position on abortion. Romney had previously said on multiple occasions during this campaign he favors a federalist approach to abortion rather than a "one size fits all" standard imposed on the whole nation, so once Roe v. Wade is overturned, individual states would be free to set their own policies. However, when asked yesterday if he supported the portion of the Republican platform calling for a Human Life Amendment, which would prevent states from making abortion legal, he said he did. At first, I thought Romney should get the benefit of the doubt, because you can support the Republican platform without agreeing with everything in it. But then I read the comments of Romney spokesman Kevin Madden, who said, "putting the decision back in the states" is what Romney supports "in the meantime." Now, there are plenty of people who support a gradualist approach. It is not contradictory to say that you think Roe should be overturned so that people and their legislators, not judges, can make abortion law through the democratic process in the meantime, even though you still ultimately desire outlawing the practice of abortion throughout the land. But if you're Mitt Romney and you've stated that one of your specific objections to Roe is that it imposes a "one size fits all" standard on the country, you're simply being disingenuous by then saying what you really support is a uniform standard. Liz Mair has some video of Romney's shift on this issue.
Meanwhile, in other Romney news, the New Hampshire Union Leader editorial page is skeptical of Romney's abortion views. And E.J. Dionne writes that Romney is essentially the leading Republican candidate, based on his strength in Iowa, while ignoring his weakness nationally and his failure to gain traction in South Carolina.
Hopefully, that will take care of my Romney posting for the day, but there's always the chance that he'll change his position a few times before lunch, so I offer no guarantees.
Giuliani's Kids
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 9:37AM
Well, Ronald Reagan's kids were often a pain to their papa. We know that Giuliani is not on the best terms with his son. Looks like things aren't great with the daughter either.
R.I.P., Bat Boy
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:57AM
I am in tears -- of laughter -- reading about the demise of the Weekly World News.
Is Frank Foer Going Incommunicado for a Week?
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:15AM
Frank Foer's voicemail at TNR now says he's on paternity leave until Wednesday, August 15. I'll refrain from speculating that this is anything other than a coincidental family obligation. But it might be a good idea to check in and say something publicly about last night's news. I'm just sayin'.
Re: Doh!
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 8:14AM
See also John Podhoretz's review. I'm not sure if the movie compares unfavorably to "just about every episode of the show," but it's certainly not as good as most of them.
Doh!
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 7:59AM
The box office for the Simpsons movie is down 66% from its opening weekend. As a friend of mine put it, "Being 80 minutes of preachy environmentalism and conservative-bashing with only occasional laughs will apparently limit your audience! Who knew?"
Scott Thomas Beauchamp: Liar
Posted by on 8.7.07 @ 12:39AM
He's either a perjurer or a fabulist, if Michael Goldfarb's source is reliable:
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.So if TNR continues to stand by Beauchamp's work, they're accusing not only Beauchamp but several other soldiers (since they say others have backed up Beauchamp's claims) of lying to Army investigators.Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."
Monday, August 6, 2007
Gallup
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 10:57PM
Are the frontrunners beatable? Of course, but a rival will have to take it from them and the prospect that these two will somehow self-destruct is becoming less likely. Hillary can't win the Democratic base because of her Iraq votes? Apparently she's explained herself well enough. She's not warm and fuzzy? Evidentially Democratic primary voters have warmed to her. On the GOP side, Rudy has too much baggage? Perhaps GOP voters with their own blended families and divorces have become less critical these days. He's too liberal for the GOP? Maybe those debate performances and conservative themed Commitments are telling voters otherwise. Both of these candidates have worked hard, set up impressive campaign operations, improved their messaging, and gained confidence in debates and interactions with voters. Beating them is certainly possible but won't be easy.
UPDATE: Looking at the actual poll rather than a story it appears that Rudy did not gain 3 pts from an equivalent poll a month ago(one with- out Gingrich) but held exactly even. With Gingrich in the race he has an 11 pt lead over Thompson. Without Gingrich he has a 12 pt. lead. The RCP average now shows a Giuliani lead of 9.4%.
I'm With Seinfeld?
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 8:22PM
No Laffer Matter
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 6:44PM
Over at Andrew Sullivan's, Bruce Bartlett argues supply-siders have gotten away from the basics. I think he's basically right, though I think our economy and tax rates would look more like those in Europe if we had an income tax and a VAT at the same time.
RE: FISA Politics
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 6:33PM
Six of the sixteen Senate Democrats to vote for the bill are from indisputably blue states (not counting semi-Democrat Joe Lieberman from blue Connecticut). A majority hail from blue or purple states. I don't disagree with you that it was politically prudent for Democrats from competitive states to back the FISA legislation, but I think those facts mean something.
Imagine how many Democrats would have voted for the bill if there was a Democratic president.
Re: FISA Politics
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 5:47PM
RE: FISA Politics
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 5:22PM
Jennifer, couldn't the Democratic senators' votes have reflected their own ideological predilections? Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, and Ken Salazar are generally to the right of their party on national security issues. Ditto Jim Webb, who may be against the Iraq war but isn't exactly Dennis Kucinich when it comes to defense. Tom Carper of Delaware is a DLC-style Democrat.
A fair number of safe liberal Democrats also voted for the FISA legislation -- Barbara Mikulski in Maryland, Dianne Feinstein in California, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. None of these senators would have endangered their seats by voting the other way. I'm not sure the politics are so clear cut.
Re: FISA Politics
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 5:01PM
Liz Mair filling in for Andrew Sullivan writes that she agrees with much of what I say but disputes my definition of "Red State"- contending it is incorrect to label Montana (with a Democratic Governor and Senators), Arkansas and Colorado as still Red. As of late these states have still voted Republican (with the exception of Arkansas for Clinton) in presidential races. Despite recent losses I would contend, as I've written previously, that Colorado in registration and politics remains Red. I think her argument is strongest with regard to Montana. Perhaps "states with lots of conservative people who care a lot about national security" would better than "Red." Let me put it this way: Democratic Senators with lots of conservatives in their states were troubled about voting against a measure like the amendment to FISA; Democrats in safe Blue states were perfectly comfortable doing so. Democratic presidential candidates from Blue states who thought there would be time to put this vote behind them if they got the Democratic presidential nomination voted no.
Re: Thompson Defends Jeri
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 4:42PM
Phil, I agree in part. As I have written before, the Jeri story line matters only in so far as it adversely affects the campaign and the appearance that Thompson is the captain of the ship. Interestingly, this is precisely the point that Thompson seeks to address-- declaring that she was acting at his behest. As for the comments he made at NRO, a candidate and his wife can't simultaneously complain that the press got it wrong and refuse to talk to them, even to confirm basic facts. More importantly, if you are going to have a Seinfeld non-campaign (right now it is about nothing) the press will have a field day. The way to have fended this off was to have entered in a timely fashion and laid out a bold agenda. That is water under the bridge now and we'll have to see if Thompson can steer his own course in September.
FISA Politics
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 2:02PM
Thompson Defends Jeri
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 1:48PM
Byron York has a story based on an interview he conducted with Fred Thompson in which the sort of candidate says:
"She has taken a lot of comments that should have been directed toward me," Thompson told me. When he started looking into running for president, Thompson said, there was a lot to be done and very little time to do it, and his wife played a key role in getting things going. "We started literally from the kitchen table a few months ago," he said. "While I did the things that I felt like I needed to do - I had a contract with NBC television, I had a contract with ABC radio, I was chairman of the advisory board on international security for the State Department, and a lot of other things - while I was disengaging from that and getting my thoughts together on issues and things of that nature, public comments I knew I would be called on to make, I asked her to do certain things for me. She did what I asked her to do."
Assuming Thompson gets into the race, his candidacy will sink or swim based on whether he lives up to the expectations that have been built around him. All of this stuff about his wife is just background noise.
RE: Saving Money
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 1:38PM
Well, taking some shine off Rudy populism, a Politico commenter notices that at the :15 point in the video you can hear the announcer over the Wal-Mart public address system say, ""Would the owner of the two black SUVs that are parked out front please move them."
Another Committment
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 1:25PM
What's the Matter With Saving Money?
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 12:44PM
Re: Romney the Ridiculous
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 12:17PM
RE: Romney the Ridiculous
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 10:57AM
It's also worth noting the absurd standard that Romney introduced in the debate that the best way to learn about somebody's positions "is not to ask their opponent, it's to ask them." He used it when defending himself against Brownback, and when backing off his statement that Giuliani was "pro-choice, and pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun." I say it's absurd because there's no way he can ever stick by that standard, and when he starts running attack ads, his opponents (whether Republican or, if he makes it that far, Democrat) can use his comments in this debate against him. It's no surprise that, in typical Romney fashion, he's already flip-flopped on this. Jonathan Martin reports that at a campaign rally yesterday afternoon, Romney added a time element to his standard: "I think we're best, certainly at this stage in the campaign, this is very early on, to describe our own views," That makes no sense. Letting the candidate describe his own views is either an accurate way to understand their positions, or it isn't. If you believe in that standard, the timing should be completely irrelevant.
UPDATE: Liz Mair has some additional thoughts.
RE: Romney the Ridiculous
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 9:58AM
This kind of hair-splitting over abortion has been a feature of every campaign Mitt Romney has run. In my review of Hugh Hewitt's A Mormon in the White House? I discuss how he has been alternately embracing and running from Massachusetts Citizens for Life for thirteen years. This behavior is unlike any leap-year abortion conversion in Republican politics.
In the YouTube debate with Shannon O'Brien, listen to Romney's legalistic references to not having "taken the position of a pro-life candidate," much like he now says he took an effectively pro-choice position while not calling himself pro-choice. Romney has been bobbing and weaving on abortion ever since he began running for elective office in 1994.
Frankly, I think he probably has always held antiabortion views and merely adopted a pro-choice stance to be electable in Massachusetts, but that's only informed speculation from watching him in action for the past decade. But his abortion gymnatistics make it hard to trust him on a variety of issues, not just those related directly to life. It cuts to his overall credibility.
Romney Abortion Comment-Brownback Attacks
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 7:06AM
Romney the Ridiculous
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 2:17AM
I wish there were a way to write this post more diplomatically, but the truth is, I thought Mitt Romney looked like a total buffoon when he was talking about his changing positions on abortion, so I may as well come out and say it. I don't know how I can be expected to take a candidate seriously who says, regarding his past abortion views: "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro choice." What on earth is that supposed to mean? It's hard to think of a statement about abortion that would be any more Kerry-esque.
Evidently what this pro-choice vs. "effectively" pro-choice dichotomy means is that we're supposed to believe Romney was personally against abortion but supported a woman's right to choose as a matter of law. (He reinforced this in his answer to the question on mistakes by saying he regretted taking an effectively pro-choice position even though he was "deeply opposed to abortion.") However, if he's going to admit mistakes, he should just be a man about it and go the full way, rather than try to qualify it by splitting hairs by trying to emphasize he personally opposed abortion. It just makes him seem that much more insincere.
Also, I thought it was especially audacious of Romney to say to Brownback, "I get tired of people who are holier than now, because they've been pro-life longer than I have." Well, Romney shouldn't be getting so sanctimonious either. He's trying to bill himself as the best choice for social conservatives, and yet spent 35 years of his adult life as pro-choice/"effectively" pro-choice and has only become publicly pro-life in the last two. Romney still has a long way to go to convince conservatives that his pro-life conversion was genuine. He could show a dose of humility.
Meanwhile, it is especially damning to watch the video of his exchange with Brownback right after watching Romney's 2002 exchange with Shannon O'Brien when he was running for governor. They are mirror images of one another. In 2002, Romney was belligerently and combatively disputing the suggestion that he was pro-life by touting his pro-choice views. Yesterday, he was belligerently and combatively disputing the suggestion that he was really pro-choice by touting his pro-life views. And as an added bonus, yesterday, Romney boasted that he had received an award from Mass Citizens for Life, and yet in the 2002 clip he ran away from their past endorsement of him like they were spreading the bubonic plague. I don't know how anybody could watch those two clips back to back and still take anything Romney has to say seriously.
For an alternate view, check out Hugh Hewitt, who didn't watch the debate but declared Romney the winner anyway based on press releases.
My Debate Thoughts
Posted by on 8.6.07 @ 1:55AM
I watched the debate, but didn't have a working Internet connection yesterday, so I'm just catching up now. To start, let me just say that given that this debate took place on a Sunday morning in August, only the biggest political junkies were watching, so it's especially unlikely that it will mean much. Furthermore, there weren't any truly memorable moments (i.e. Rudy vs. Ron Paul in the second debate). With that said, here are some of my thoughts.
Rudy Giuliani gave another strong performance. He was able to bat away the social issues question early, and offer strong answers on national security and economic issues. He did a great job of challenging the premise of the questions, attacking Democrats whenever he got the chance, offering a unique perspective on policy, and displaying quick wit. He also effectively weaved in his practical experiences as mayor of New York to demonstrate points -- raising more revenue through lower taxes, managing the city's extensive bridge system, and treating security as a necessary precursor for citizens in a free society to be able to exercise their freedoms. Giuliani's positions on some issues no doubt still make him unacceptable to a certain number of voters, but right now he is running in a way that gives him the best chance to win.
Mitt Romney may be getting kudos for his canned line about Barack Obama going from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove, but in my view his answers on abortion were an utter embarrassment, and justify a separate post.
During the height of the John McCain doom and gloom, I predicted he would survive because the defeat of the immigration bill meant that the dominant issue would shift from immigration to Iraq, on which he is in agreement with conservatives. This debate performance largely confirmed that view. His answers on national security were all strong, and with the exception of the Cheney question, I think conservatives would find little to disagree with him on during this debate. I still don't think he has a realistic chance of becoming the party's nominee, but he's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Of the other candidates, the only one I felt stood out was Duncan Hunter. In his retort to Ron Paul on Iraq, and in his answer on Pakistan, he displayed a command of many specific foreign policy details while other candidates opted to paint with broad strokes.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Re: Credit to McCain
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 8:14PM
Wlady, perhaps your cynicism (or is it realism?) is well placed and the
Re: Credit to McCain
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 7:13PM
Jennifer: McCain's response left me utterly confused. The question was about "defining mistakes." Giuliani cleverly dodged the question by saying he had too many sins to confess to in so brief a time period, and in any case would address them to a priest and not a secular questioner. All the candidates responded in comparable terms about something or other they regret doing or not doing because it wasn't the best thing in moral terms. But here McCain was essentially suggesting it was a mistake to have done the right thing and volunteered for service from another carrier, because it set in motion his being shot down and imprisoned for five and a half horrible years. So was he suggesting he was wrong to do what he initially did?
As for his mentioning the Keating connection, I do recall a time or two he had alluded to it, though not in recent months. At the same time, everyone knows he became a staunch fighter against "money in politics" because of the near-miss he experienced in being one of the Keating Five. So I don't think it was that unusual to have him allude to it. It's not as if Teddy had suddenly mentioned Chappaquiddick. More telling, in terms of how McCain plays politics, is that he didn't mention the Keating sin until having first brought up his Vietnam War suffering. Who would hold a minor intervention with a regulator on behalf of a backer against him after that?
Note also that the often joky McCain suddenly got very serious -- sanctimonious? -- in answering the question, unlike, say, Giuliani, who treated it with all the dismissive wit it deserved. It's that very quality that's caused conservatives to dislike McCain so much, ever since he unveiled it during his run aboard the Straight Talk Express.
Empathy
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 4:40PM
As I noted on Friday, the netroots is not pleased with the representatives they sent to Congress. Today, angered by the amended FISA bill, Kossack Meteor Blades wrote an open letter to the Democratic Congress which read, in part, "Frankly, you epitomize weak. Your every pore exudes feebleness. You are surrender monkeys. And you've just casually tossed away a basic protection as if it were a banana peel."
Yes, liberal activists. Now you know how we felt about our supposedly ultra-conservative Congress.
Hey, if you ever need a shoulder to cry on, we've had our differences in the past but...I'm here for you, bro. Or broette. (Kossack handles are so androgynous.)
Credit to McCain
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 2:10PM
McCain's full answer to his "what mistakes did you make" question: "I would imagine that in 1967, in the USS Forrestal, where we'd just had a horrendous fire and the ship was headed back to the United States, and a guy came onboard and said, "We need people to go over to another aircraft carrier and stay in combat," that was a very defining moment. I thought about that a lot in the intervening five and a half years in prison. The other mistake was when I went to a meeting among some regulators concerning a guy who was a supporter of mine. It was a mistake and one I never should have made."
The latter was the first reference I've heard him make to the Keating Five scandal. Politicians deserve credit when they admit to real mistakes not just fake ones. ("Oh I just work too darn hard.") Kudos to him on this.
One More Debate Thought
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 1:56PM
Second Thoughts
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 1:37PM
After watching the video of the incident with the uniformed soldier at YearlyKos, I have to say that it seems like less of a big deal than it did when I read about it. The audience isn't really behind Jon Soltz when he yells at the guy; they just sit there dumbfounded. And since Soltz warns the soldier (before his question begins) not to say anything political in uniform, "for or against," the answer to my question -- Would the reaction have been different if a uniformed questioner had been assenting to anti-war orthodoxy rather than dissenting from it? -- may be that it wouldn't, in fact, have been much different. When asked later, the questioner doesn't deny that he's breaking the rules. I don't know for sure that he is -- I'll leave it to the milbloggers to hash that out -- but it's probably unfair to blame anyone else in the room for Soltz's freak-out.
So Which Is It?
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 12:54PM
My schedule didn't permit me the, um, pleasure of watching the latest Republican debate, but one item from the debate write-ups has me confused. Romney both claimed that his campaigning as a pro-choice candidate was his biggest mistake and that he is tired of people who have been pro-life longer than him being "holier than thou" about it.
How can these two statements be reconciled? If Romney's past abortion stance was a grave error, why shouldn't other candidates who been pro-life longer be allowed to chastise him for it? If his old pro-choice stand is something only "holier than thou" obsessives should be concerned about, then why was it such a big mistake (other than politically)?
Debate Wrap up
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 11:38AM
The top three all looked solid. You can argue Rudy wins because nothing happened to undermine his frontrunner status. He weaves his command of detail and his NYC experience into answers impressively. You can make a case that McCain reminded everyone of this national security credentials. Romney supporters will be pleased since he was assertive, relaxed and in command and none of his Ames challengers looked all that impressive. (I do think his abortion answer was not helpful. He sounds best when he talks about his personal conversion after his 2002 election. Why not say "I regret I didn't see the light earlier"? Is he confessing he was hiding the ball in 2002? ) And Fred Thompson? Each of the top three was entirely credible as a potential nominee so he'll have to show he is a better, more credible, and more electable choice. Not an easy task.
Over at the Corner, KLO seems to agree on the Romney abortion answer.
Debate 7
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 11:26AM
Question about mistakes each has made? Huckabee says didn't take care of his health.(He lost 110 lbs.) Romney says he was "deeply against" abortion but ran on pro-choice platform. Rudy gets a big laugh by saying he couldn't list them in 30 seconds and he'd tell his faults to George's father, a priest. McCain talks movingly about his capture.
Note: Think Romney answer could have been phrased better. Sounds like he was confessing to faking or hiding his views when he ran in 2002. He does get points for candor perhaps.
Question about what key thing they would do. McCain talks about transcending fight against terrorism. Rudy talks about restoring hope and how he can accomplish great things. He talks about executive experience and that his --you got-- NYC experience shows he can accomplish things. Romney talks about strengthening military, economy, and American family. (This is his Reagan three legged stool.)
Debate 6
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 11:15AM
A video question about VP Cheney. (Great question you'd never get from a reporter.) McCain says he was considered as a VP and his only two jobs are to cast a deciding vote in Senate and "inquire daily as to the health of the President." Gets a nice laugh. McCain says he'd delegate only select duties and be careful "people understand there is only one President." Pretty close to a nasty dig. Giuliani says has to work out arrangement with his VP but in age of terrorism the VP has to be able to take over. Rudy looks to Reagan and Bush balance. Romney says depends on each president and then defends Bush and Cheney for keeping us safe. Brownback says flat out that too much was delegated to Cheney.
Taxes: George talks about fair tax which repeals income tax in favor of sales tax. (You will recall Fred Thompson got ambushed by the fair tax advocates last week.) Huckabee in favor of it. Romney says attractive features and we'd like to get rid of IRS but throwing out tax system is difficult thing. Points out problems like impact on home building. Rudy advocates getting rid of death tax and simplifying and reducing taxes, and says flat and fair tax are intriguing but too complex to get there now. Points out you still need an IRS to administer fair tax. McCain says he favors reforming Alternative Min. tax needs reform. Tancredo likes fair tax and Brownback the flat tax.
Debate 5
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 11:00AM
On bridges, Rudy says accusation that raising taxes would give us safer bridges. Cites his -- you got it, bridge experience in NYC -- and talks about his success in lowering tax rates (which increased revenue) and properly funding bridge repair. Goes after Edwards for proposal to raise capital gains taxes. Romney talks about strong economy and priorities in spending. McCain gives it to Congress for porkbarrel spending rather than infrastructure maintenance.
At commercial break. There is a reason why they are in the top tier. McCain, Rudy and Romney look knowledgeable and assertive. McCain is a bit grim in tenor but shines when he reminds us of stakes in Iraq. Rudy shows most command of detail and is making his case effectively that NYC experience matters. Romney looks more at ease and less scripted than in the past.
Debate 4
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 10:51AM
Obama quote on invading Pakistan. Rudy says he didn't agree with Obama despite what George says. Rudy repeats that he would maintain his options but talks about importance of past efforts to work with Musharraf. Romney repeats that it is silly to say we're going to invade unilaterally on national TV. George replays Bush's inauguration speech touting democracy and then mentions problems with elections in Middle East. Huckabee says wouldn't force democracy on others and shouldn't be focus of foreign policy. Rather than realism sounds isolationism. Ron Paul similarly argues to spread democracy by example. Again chiding the "neo-cons" and nation building. Rudy says democracy is not immediately going to elections and requires rule of law and stability. Says sometimes it is a long-term goal and going to elections so quickly may be a mistake. Works in reference to New York City -- people don't have civil rights if afraid for their safety. McCain agrees with Rudy that rule of law is key and naive to say never use nuclear power or invade Pakistan (referring back to Obama). Quotes JFK on bearing any burden and importance of advocating human rights. Romney agrees that democracy not defined by a vote. Does say he's not a carbon copy of Bush on view of democracy but talks about importance of values. Criticizes Ron Paul isolationism.
Debate 3
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 10:38AM
After more back and forth on Iraq. (Ron Paul thinks Vietnam worked out just fine. No mention of boat people and genocide. McCain sounds like a grown up.). On health care lots of talk of preventive care. Romney surprisingly endorses his Mass. plan. Surprising because word was that it was not likely to be his national plan. Rudy has his best answer so far -- sounding knowledgeable on reasons not to expand SCHIP and touting his own plan.
Debate part 2
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 10:23AM
The other Thompson delves into the "pro-choice" position, saying it is a problem for the Catholic church. (Gotta think this is a loser argument and turns off far many than it persuades.) McCain asked about importance of abortion. McCain says abortion has to do with "national security" because it goes too our respect for life. He gets back on firmer ground saying national security is the key and he is the most qualified and needs no on the job training. Ron Paul sounds like Nancy Pelosi advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Lots of Ron Paul cheers. Duncan Hunter analogizes to Cold War. Mentions progress in Anbar and Democrats failure to "pause in rush to the exits" despite improved news. Huckabee makes pitch for oil independence. George asks McCain about failure to meet benchmarks. McCain says of course we stay and expresses disappointment with Iraqi government. Says we "are winning." Argues we will win debate in September and we won't set a date for withdrawl. Rudy reminds us again that Democrats never say Islamic fundamentalism. Restates we should seek victory and mentions Brookings op-ed editorial noting "we might just win." Makes the argument that if we can bring stability [no appeals to democracy here] we will have won. Romney echoes McCain and Rudy. Has a very funny Obama joke, saying he went from "Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove."
Debate Part 1
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 10:10AM
George goes through the poll numbers as he introduces the candidates. Fred Thompson's poll numbers mentioned. He starts with Brownback's ad attacking Romney's pro-life credentials. Brownback stands by it. Romney says nothing true in the ad. He says he is pro-life (but doesn't address his earlier embrace of pro-choice provisions). He avoids the particulars of the past and restates his current views. He does concede at the end of the exchange he was pro-choice but forcefully restating his current views and gets a hearty round of applause. Then, Romney gets asked about Rudy Giuliani attacks and seems to back off comments in an earlier interview. On balance I think he comes through well. Rudy responds that he supports Second Amendment and opposes gay marriage. Emphasizes record in reducing abortion but says still pro-choice. He gets a big round of applause too.
Debate
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 10:02AM
Here in the D.C. area the debate will begin airing at 10 a.m. so for those of you with a New York feed you get the instant replay here with some color commentary.
Political Odds and Ends
Posted by on 8.5.07 @ 9:35AM
1. The Washington Post-ABC news poll shows Romney 26%, Rudy 14%, Fred 13% and McCain now tied with Huckabee at 8%. The internals are even more interesting showing Romney gets credit for having worked the hardest (49%) and leading in honesty (21%). However, Rudy leads in strongest leader, experience and best chance to win in November. This shows the power of Woody Allen- 90%(well, 49% in this case) of life is showing up. Organization and effort count for a lot. On internals McCain leads in one category- best able to handle the situation in Iraq. Thompson comes in second in honesty and third or fourth in everything else. The good news for candidates other than Romney: if they work hard too their numbers may go up.
2. The Washington Post has an article on Jeri Thompson. It does confirm the degree to which she is involved in the campaign. It also suggests her "high powered GOP operative" image is overblown. At least according to the Post, her Washington experience lasted only five years at relatively low profile jobs. ( I think this is not just the Post being snide. None of the campaign rivals or unaffiliated consultant types who I spoke with when this all started knew of her or had dealt with her other than as the wife of Fred Thompson.) It does not appear that she ever worked on a campaign. As I wrote earlier, presidential politics is tough stuff and those without experience proceed at their peril.