- 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 18, 2007
"Grist for the Cynics," Indeed
Posted by on 8.18.07 @ 5:39PM
Ron Paul wins the Alabama Straw Poll, which puts him on track to match the electoral success of Alan Keyes.
Re: Populism Cont'd
Posted by on 8.18.07 @ 4:47PM
My current Brainwash column also deals with Huckabee. Main thrust: Fair Tax activists who think Huckabee is the guy to turn to for radical tax reform are fooling themselves.
Re: Tongue Tied Thompson
Posted by on 8.18.07 @ 1:00PM
I don't disagree at all with the position but the delivery is a real problem, so bad in this case they had to offer a formal clarification. I actually caught the video which certainly sounds like he was endorsing a constiutional amendment, beginning his answer to whether he favored a constitutional amendment and reversing Roe with "yes, yes." ( Hence the NRO correction.) There is a great benefit to communicating through blogs as he has done --you can be clear and edit to your heart's delight. The campaign, however, is largely verbal and you just have to be clearer and more understandable than what we've seen. The retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire is generally not scripted and very interactive. If you watch a townhall with Mitt or Rudy they move fairly seemlessly from one topic to another with nary a "hmmm" or "ahhh." They've been practicing for months now and each is frankly startling good in these forums. Huckabee is charming and glib and although I find his meeage unattractive is also an excellent communicator. It's going to be a big challenge for Fred.
Tongue Tied Thompson
Posted by on 8.18.07 @ 12:37PM
I don't know, Jennifer. While Thompson's eloquence was more on par with George W. Bush than Ronald Reagan, I think I understand what he was saying. He favors the Defense of Marriage Act approach to same-sex marriage and is willing to support a constitutional amendment to that effect if it looks like the federal courts might overturn DOMA or otherwise facilitate the national imposition of gay marriage. On abortion, he says that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.
Both positions are so reasonable I favor them myself. Although I prefer bolstering DOMA through jurisdiction stripping rather than through a futile constitutional amendment. In the last Congress, the House passed then Rep. John Hostettler's bill that would do just that, with the Bush administration's blessing.
Populism Cont'd
Posted by on 8.18.07 @ 12:10PM
As promised, I have a longer treatment of Huckabee and the recent history of economic populism in Republican primaries running today in the Politico.
Fred and Lobbying
Posted by on 8.18.07 @ 10:53AM
Fred talked to AP about his lobbying career, saying "I have no apologies to make about it" and saying of his pro-choice group client and Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide( who he seems to have done very limited work for), "It has nothing to do with one's political views. Lawyering is a profession and it's also a business."
Just a few thoughts. Being a lobbyist is a real problem is you are attempting to feign the role of Washington outsider. Although he initially sounded those themes I suspect that notion has gone by the wayside so the lobbying record may not be the issue it otherwise would have been. As for the lawyering defense, there are two problems. First, he wasn't lawyering; he was influence peddling and not engaging in any legal advice when he was phoning Sununu or speaking to his former Congressional colleagues. This is simply not the same as a criminal defendant constitutionally entitled to representation. Second, everyone makes choice about how they want to use their time and make money. If it is indeed this is a "business" you as an individual can choose how to spend your time and who gets the benefit of your services. Finally, do I think this is the biggest issue or problem his campaign faces? No, not even close.
Re: You Think I'm Tough
Posted by on 8.18.07 @ 3:00AM
When the NRO folks think you are generating less enthusiasm and are repeating insider predictions of a "fizzle" it's not been a good day.
You Think I'm Tough
Posted by on 8.18.07 @ 2:14AM
It was a cringe inducing day for Thompson in the MSM and blogosphere coverage. There was Carl Cameron picking up on the Gucci loafers and the golf cart ride through the Iowa fair. Politico picked up on the lukewarm reception and the crowd's disappointment that more substance wan't offered. MSM coverage echoed the same. He then gave a remarkably muddled interview with John King, leading to guffaws at Campaign Spot and confusion about what he meant with this response to a question on abortion and gay marriage:
"I think with regard to gay marriage you have a [ inaudible ] issue. I don't think one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along under full faith and credit. There's some exceptions, exemptions for that. Hasn't happened yet, but I think a federal court very well likely will go in that direction. And the constitutional amendment would cure that. I think Roe versus Wade was a bad decision. There were things that are bad law and bad medicine. You don't just get up one day and overturn the entire history of the country with regard major social policies without any action by Congress, without any action by the American people or a constitutional amendment. And that's what happened. Shouldn't have happened. It ought to be reversed."
If you don't have the foggiest what that's all about neither did CNN. This caused him to offer this clarification picked up at NRO:
"In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson's position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens. He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states. Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."
The John King interview also had this answer to a query about what we should do in Iraq:
"You can't deal with it on a hypothetical basis. Right now we need to make every effort to make sure that we don't get out of there with our tail between our legs before we've done our job securing that place and stabilizing the place so that the whole place doesn't go up into chaos and tens of thousands more innocent people don't get killed and the whole place becomes a nuclearized on -- on a sea of oil as it were. Bad, bad results for America. And we shouldn't even be talking about anything else except sustained activity until we get a report back from General Petraeus in the middle of September. I think they're making progress there. I think we have to come to terms with the fact that Iraq is only a part of a global problem that's going to be with us for a while. It's going to take a lot of time, effort, and money. We need to face up to that fact, because the security of America and the next generation depends on it."
You might not be surprised that throughout the day opposing camps and their supporters were lobbing transcripts and YouTube coverage of Fred's rocky day. Are the Guggis and golf cart minor things? Yes, but surprisingly tone deaf for a candidate trying to put behind him a lobbying snafu and a laziness issue. As for the lack of substance with the crowd and the King interview Thompson can't afford any more of this. He needs to have crisp, understandable answers to standard press questions and something to say other than chit chat when he meets with voters. Otherwise Romney and Huckabee will be looking at him in the rear view mirror.
And time and political momentum are not his friends. The latest Gallup has Rudy leading him 33% to 19% -- Fred down 2 pts from the last poll, Romney up 6pts and McCain down 5pts.
UPDATE: And in Florida Rasmussen Rudy has gone from 22 to
30% while Fred has gone from 21 to 17%. Romney has edged up to
15%.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Populism Revisited
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 3:43PM
Reihan Salam has a characteristically thoughtful post about Mike Huckabee and conservative populism. Among other things, he asks if I might not have a "rather narrow reading of 'economic populism'" when I point to Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer as past Republican candidates who mixed economic populism and social conservatism. I'll have more to say about this topic this weekend, but a few thoughts.
While Buchanan, Bauer, and Huckabee differed on policy specifics -- I'd argue that Buchanan favors a smaller government than George W. Bush -- their approaches to running for the Republican nomination were similar. All three candidates tried to make a bread-and-butter appeal to the kind of voters who agree with conservatives on values but don't see themselves benefiting from conservative economics. All three were openly critical of Wall Street, viewed the blue-collar social conservative as the salt of the earth in the same way that some conservatives view businessmen, and were willing to criticize corporations.
That may not be all there is to populism -- and on issues like immigration Huckabee is barely more populist than the frontrunners -- but it is a distinctive strategy. It has yet to win anyone the nomination. Bauer didn't do as well in appealing to social conservatives as Steve Forbes or Alan Keyes, much less Bush. But maybe he was just a bad candidate. Buchanan came closer to blowing open the 1996 Republican contest than people tend to remember, but stopped winning primaries/caucuses after the field narrowed to a two-man race.
Huckabee's approach seems especially audacious (and, in my view, unlikely to work) because he is specifically attacking tax-cutters. That's something neither Buchanan nor Bauer did. Bauer didn't deviate that far from supply-side economics. Buchanan wanted the revenue raised by tariffs on foreign goods to pay for tax cuts for American businesses and individuals.
Here We Go Again
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 3:27PM
Seems the news reports were incorrect on the Massachusetts sanctuary cities. A "rival campaign" says there were not three, but four, sanctuary cities in Massachusetts during Romney's tenure. Brookline Massachusetts passed a resolution declaring itself a sanctuary and, and among other things, rejecting the use of the term "illegal" and calling on the Department of Homeland Security to "declare a moratorium on immigrant raids, at least until the US Congress comes to an agreement on comprehensive immigration reform, so that the debate can be carried out in good faith rather than against a backdrop of fear, repression and intimidation." Once again, state aid to this city was not affected nor is there any indication Romney expressed his displeasure with Brookline's actions at the time. As I have said before, I think this sanctuary city tactic has not been the most fruitful for the Romney camp and they would have done better to put out their own plan or to focus on the arguments Phil has addressed. In the age of google and YouTube, casting about in opponents' records is a risky proposition especially for a candidate who got elected and had to govern in a very liberal state.
Thompson in Iowa
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 3:11PM
Fred is getting a cranky reception according to one report. Meanwhile, Marc Ambinder digs out a quote from Fred saying he'd rather not spend two months in Iowa talking about abortion. The former may be an issue if the report is accurate and other crowds continue to feel slighted on substance (it's not just me who's noticed he's a little light on policy, although the David Broder column gives me hope) but the latter may be turned around by the Fred team as evidence he hasn't wanted to be president his whole life. By the way, I think there's nothing wrong with having a Type "A" personality presidential candidate(although I doubt in their wildest dreams ten years ago did any of the current crop think they'd be in this race) who set that as a goal for himself. There is no virtue, nor is there any sin, in coming to that determination later in life.
Race and Education
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 2:57PM
A Quinnipiac poll shows that Americans share the view of the majority of the Supreme Court justices that race should not be used as a basis for assigning kids to schools. Romney picked up on a similar theme talking about colorblindness and education as the true civil rights issue of our day. (Spokesman Kevin Madden also points to Romney's record of success in improving minority children's school performance, saying: "More than 60 percent of 10th graders in every ethnic group earned their CD [competency determination] on their first try: 68 percent of African-American students, up from 58 percent in 2005; 88 percent of Asian students, up from 84 percent; 61 percent of Hispanic students, up from 53 percent; 89 percent of White students, up from 87 percent.") Rudy also has a strong record on opposing racial quota and preferences. With Republicans pushing educational reform and a colorblind society and Democrats insistence on maintaining a cottage industry based on racial preferences there will be a clear contrast in November. Is it the hot button issue it once was? No, but with Ward Connerly trying to qualify initiatives in five states to ban racial preferences it will get some attention next year.
I Dream of Sarkozy
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 1:02PM
Via Jonathan Martin, I see that Rudy in New Hampshire today is recounting a "recurring dream":
"Sarkozy is on this airplane and he's flying from
France to theUnited States ," Giuliani explains, and "he's thinking about these American principles that he can put to use in." France "Then I see another airplane crossing it over the mid-Atlantic," Giuliani continues, "and there are three people on the airplane and they're waving at him. They're going from the
to France -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. And they're trying to figure out how to take the principles in United States France that haven't worked and how to bring them here to the." United States To which the crowd laughed heartily as they applauded and Rudy headed out.
The Economy, Stupid
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 12:36PM
In the wake of our debate last week on the proper policy for the Fed, I have been meaning to do a post on how an economic downturn would impact the 2008 presidential election, though I noticed that Marc Ambinder beat me to the punch.
We should never forget that Bill Clinton swept into office because of a rather mild recession that we were already climbing out of by the time the November election hit. The 2008 Republican nominee will already have his hands full trying to deal with public dissatisfaction with
I still disagree with Quin's idea that the Fed should cut rates, and I don't think it is wise for the Fed to make its decisions based on short-term market fluctuations, especially when the threat of inflation is so legitimate. And I'm not even predicting doom for the economy. I'm just speculating as to how it may affect the election if, in fact, the current stock market volatility does prove a leading indicator of a coming economic downturn.
Kudlow Says It Better
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 11:11AM
Last week I fought a lonely fight here, arguing that the Fed needed to lower its targeted Funds rate while reassuring people that it hasn't given up the LONG-TERM fight against inflation. Events that bean the day after I first started making the argument have borne out my case exactly, about how the Fed REALLY needed to do something to ward off a panic that I sense was coming. Now the panic has demonstrably arrived....and the great Larry Kudlow explains the proper response, exactly what I was trying to say, but far, far better than I said it. Inject money into the economy and let the Funds rate float (which in this case would mean letting it drop).
Footsteps, No Footprints
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 11:06AM
The journal Science reported yesterday that scientists "for the first time" have mapped out the evolutionary steps taken by a protein that connects a 450-million-years-old sea creature to modern humans. The News & Observer of Raleigh reports:
"Re-create?" "Could have led?" Where I come from they don't call this science; they call it "makin' stuff up."
Free free to use your own word substitute for "stuff."
Bill Simon
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 10:24AM
My interview with Bill Simon, Rudy's Policy Director, is out today. Simon, a soft-spoken and wonkish fellow, talks about the origin of the 12 commitments. I would contend this was the single smartest move the Rudy camp made. It gave him an opportunity to tout his conservative policy proposals and gave a structure to the campaign. Every week or so he rolls one of these out, gets some press and sends out surrogates to explain them. It keeps us(the media) busy with substance and gives the voters the impression his campaign is about something. It is also apparent that the Rudy camp is using the 12 commitments to highlight his "accountability" theme and rigorous management style. Simon declined to offer criticism of the current Administration but I personally doubt we'd be hearing so much about executive management skills both from Rudy, and more so I think with time from Romney, if the current Administration hadn't taken the country through Mr. Toad's wild ride of incompetence on a host of issues.
Never Mind
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 10:03AM
I saw this
article indicated that Mitt Romney had suggested that the
minimum wage be tied to increases in inflation. There are a number
of problems with this including what conservatives have long argued
-- the adverse affect on employment particularly at the entry level
if minimum wage continues escalating. One can imagine that in a
stagflation situation such a proposal would be especially harmful.
Andy Roth, spokesman for Club for Growth, hates it even as a
political strategy to try to remove it as a political weapon for
liberals to bash conservatives, contending "It's a horrible idea,
even as a political maneuver. Once you give liberals an inch,
they'll take a foot." Well, Romney seems not very enamoured of it
either. According to his spokesman, Romney did not mean this
comment to be taken as a policy proposal that minimum wage should
be tied to inflation. According to spokesman Kevin Madden, Romney
continues to believe that "economic indicators should be considered
as part of any discussion about raising the minimum wage" and that
he would oppose any proposal which would cause an "abrupt change or
a disproportionate increase that would threaten eliminate jobs,
especially at the entry level." I'm not sure why he threw it out
there but I am relieved the idea is apparently not part of his
economic agenda.
RE: Immigration Continues
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 10:02AM
Jennifer, while I personally think that there is a reasonable explanation for Giuliani's immigration policies as mayor given the reality he was facing, while his stellar law enforcement credentials lead me to believe that he would be the candidate best-suited to figure out a way to secure our border, and while I think Mitt Romney's, shall we say, holier-than-now attitude is absurd, I am under no illusions as to the political reality. And to borrow a favorite phrase of Rudy's, the reality is, he took positions as mayor that are quite different from much of the conservative base. People who care about immigration follow the issue very closely and are quite aware of those positions. I have received plenty of emails and comments from folks over the years about how Rudy "ran an Amnesty City for illegals."
Romney no doubt is portraying his credentials on immigration as being greater than they actually were, because no matter how you spin it, cracking down on illegal immigrants simply was not a major concern of his until his final weeks in office (i.e. weeks before he launched his presidential campaign). Nobody is going to remember him as an anti-illegal immigration crusader as governor, but he was not a lightning rod on this issue by actively making the pro-immigration case as Giuliani did in the 1990s.
Furthermore, in light of the YouTube that came out the other day, Jennifer made the argument that "most voters care much more about what a candidate is presently saying." If that's true, than I think it will make things difficult for Giuliani. Right now, he wants to deport criminals, but still supports a pathway to citizenship (with penalties) for those who come here to work, assuming we can actually get control of the borders. While that seems perfectly reasonable to me, I know that to immigration hawks, that is just a roundabout way of describing amnesty. And yet, we know that Romney will have no qualms about moving as far to the right as he needs to on this issue, and shouting "No Amnesty!" has become a fixture in this campaign appearances.
The point is that while I may not see the world the way
immigration restrictionists do, I think I have a pretty good idea
of how they see the world. I think that given his record, Giuliani
has handled this issue brilliantly, but I know that he still has a
long way to go to convince conservatives that they can trust him on
this issue.
Slate on Rudy
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 9:09AM
My take on Giuliani's Foreign Affairs
article is up on the main site. It's worth noting that the piece
has already been savaged by liberals trying to portray him as a
cross between Attila the Hun and Jughead. Via
TPM I learned that "Fred Kaplan offers a comprehensive analysis
of Rudy's ridiculous Foreign Affairs
article." But Kaplan's
analysis over at Slate left me with the impression that he
either intentionally responded to arguments Giuliani wasn't even
making, or he has a serious reading comprehension problem. Though I
don't have time to refute each one of Kaplan's misleading
assertions, I'll pick out a few to demonstrate what I mean. Rudy's
statement in italics, followed by Kaplan's commentary:
Why? The biggest worry about al-Qaida after 9/11 was that it had
essentially taken over a nation-state, Afghanistan. Giuliani's (and
President George W. Bush's) stated fear now is that it might take
over Iraq. The rise of transnational terrorist movements adds a
twist to the system of nation-states but hardly supersedes it or
nullifies the main assumptions about conflict. Giuliani contradicts
his own point halfway into the essay when he writes, "There is no
realistic alternative to the sovereign state system."
Kaplan seems to read Giuliani's statement as if he's arguing that nation-states were no longer a threat post-9/11, but if you look at the context of Giuliani's remarks, what he's arguing is that because terrorism is an asymmetric threat posed by irrational actors, we can no longer count on some of the stabilizing forces that we have in past conflicts such as the Cold War in which our enemies participated in the international system and were interested in self preservation. This should be clear from the sentence following the one Kaplan quotes in which Giuliani writes, "Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy." If that's not clear enough, a few paragraphs later, Giuliani writes, "These enemies wear no uniform. They have no traditional military assets." And further down, when he declares, "America can no longer rely on Cold War doctrines such as 'mutual assured destruction' in the face of threats from hostile, unstable regimes." As for Giuliani's comment about sovereign states that Kaplan sees as a contradiction, viewed in context, the point that Giuliani was making was that we need a strong sovereign state system, because terrorists tend to thrive when the state is weak.
Here's another point of Kaplan's analysis (again with Rudy first
in Italics):
…. It is unclear what Giuliani means by his last
sentence-that "the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end." Are
we to penalize or attack other countries simply because they don't
like us?
Any honest person reading Giuliani's paragraph will understand that Giuliani is talking about no longer allowing anti-American attacks to persist abroad without U.S. refutation. At no point does Giuliani come close to suggesting that he wants to attack countries that don't like us.
Kaplan concludes his assault by writing:
It seems that for Kaplan, "imagined" is the operative word.
Immigration Continues
Posted by on 8.17.07 @ 2:27AM
Randy Mastro, former Deputy Mayor under Rudy (and also a prosecutor for Rudy in the Southern District of NY) wades into the immigration fight with this from the NY Observer:
"We have a word here in New York for what Mitt Romney is trying to do here -- it is called chutzpah. Mitt Romney as Governor of Massachusetts had three sanctuary cities in his state. And he rewarded them $320 million in state aid. That stands in sharp contrast to the program that we had here in New York City under a longstanding executive order that went back over 16 years before Rudy Giuliani became mayor that recognized we have more than 400,000 aliens here. And that was in fact a policy that promoted public safety and public health."
The article continues:
"Mastro said the policy ' permitted aliens to come forward with information about those committing crimes and it required local authorities to then cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of aliens suspected of committing crimes.' He added, 'It was one of the many polices that helped reduce crime in the city and changed us from being the nations' crime capital to being the safety large city in America.'"
Meanwhile, the Washington Post carries the back and forth, ending with a pro-immigration spokesman saying Romney was "kind of a non-factor" in the immigration wars before the primary. ( Not until this week, by the way, did I ever hear people running for president attributing so much responsibility to state and local officials for immigration control. Only in a country where the federal government has so abdicated its role in controlling the borders could this discussion even be going on.)
I do have to say that from a pure communications standpoint with the very feisty Peter King op-ed (as compared to the rather mild column by Lamar Smith on behalf of Romney) and the immigration ad going up in early primary states the Rudy team has been extremely forceful in pushing back. They do have the benefit of having an actual immigration plan Rudy can talk about and describe in an ad.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
A Post-Bush Foreign Policy
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 8:07PM
I finally got to the Rudy piece in Foreign Affairs. I would agree with Rich Lowry that it seems to strike a balance between traditional conservative themes-- America's unique role in the world, strengthening our military and the importance of understanding our enemies -- with an appreciation that we need help from allies and international organizations to defend our interests and promote peace and stability. His view of democracy building seems restrained and modest at best. I think all the GOP candidates will be faced with questions about the limits on our ability to promote democracy and the necessity of hard nosed diplomacy and alliance building. Castigating the U.N. and some of our less than enthusiastic allies can be a full time occupation but it seems smart to set out a guide to what a post-Bush foreign policy might look like. One other observation: Giuliani makes a much needed plea for improved public diplomacy. He writes: "The time has come to refine the diplomats' mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the rest of the world. Reforming the State Department is a matter not of changing its organizational chart -- although simplification is needed -- but of changing the way we practice diplomacy and the way we measure results. Our ambassadors must clearly understand and clearly advocate for U.S. policies and be judged on the results. Too many people denounce our country or our policies simply because they are confident that they will not hear any serious refutation from our representatives. The American ideals of freedom and democracy deserve stronger advocacy. And the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end."
If there is one thing most Americans can agree on is that from President Bush on down we have done a simply awful job of explaining our foreign policy goals, advocating our objectives and encouraging others to follow our lead. GOP primary voters should seriously evaluate who among the contenders will be the best and the most persuasive advocate for America's interests both domestically and internationally.
Iowa Dean
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 3:45PM
No, not Howard Dean, "the Dean" of Iowa reporting, David Yepsen who has a solid analysis entitled "It's the Electability Stupid." A few excerpts with comments from me:
On Rudy: "Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the GOP race, which
is surprising to many who thought he would fade as socially
conservative voters became aware of his pro-choice positions. But
with conservatives continuing to split their votes among several
candidates, Giuliani has maintained his lead in polls.
It is also true that we media types may be placing too much focus
on the importance of social issues such as abortion and gay rights
as driving factors in the GOP race. (That may be reporting the last
war.) After 9/11 and the conflict in Iraq, those questions move
more voters than someone's pro-life credentials. . .Giuliani has
credibility on terrorism and security, thanks to his handling of
9/11, and Republicans looking for a winner are looking beyond his
abortion stance."
On Romney: "He has an executive style and runs a precise, corporate campaign. He's a former CEO with a reputation for fixing the Olympics and building a successful business. He's a Republican who won in heavily Democratic Massachusetts. All of that creates the image of a winner. He oozes electability." [My only quibble here with Yepsen is that I think his policy changes allow Hillary, who I'm betting the farm will be the nominee, to make the race about him rather than her.]
On Fred: "The former senator and actor also carries a presidential style. But the early days of his campaign have had some fits and starts, and he's late to the race.If he can show activists he can win in November 2008, he could rally conservatives and take votes away from Romney and maybe Giuliani. But if he fumbles his opening act, he'll go the way of presidential candidates who peak on the day they announce."
As for Hillary, he shares my view that in the debates: "She has given crisp, focused answers, while Obama has been too meandering and lawyerly and Edwards too angry. Americans don't elect angry candidates to the presidency." He goes on to note concerns among Democrats about her electability and her high negatives. On this point I think many underestimate how skillful she has become as a candidate. ABC ran a special last weekend on Billy Graham and the presidents he pastored to. She and a number of presidents were interviewed. She was breathtakingly good-- eschewing the chance to take a political jab at Republicans, speaking of how Graham counseled her and Bill, and showing every evidence that she believes that religious faith is a positive thing in America. After sitting through more debates performances and speeches of hers than I care to count I can only say that the Hillary people will see in November is not the Hillary easily lampooned by Republicans. That is what will make this race so tough.
Rudy and McCain's Path to 2008
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 2:32PM
This exchange on immigration has made me reflect on the differing political fortunes of McCain and Rudy in this race and, specifically, think of something that has come up in conversations Jim and I have had before.
One of the things that has benefited Giuliani in this race has been that even though he and McCain have both taken positions over the years that were at odds with the conservative base, McCain (thus far) has paid more for his deviations. One could argue that this could all be traced back to the late 1990s, when both politicians began to undergo shifts that would end up allowing Giuliani to become the frontrunner in this cycle, while leading to McCain's apparent implosion.
During the 1990s, Giuliani played the role of the moderate Republican who generated press for being willing to challenge party orthodoxy on issues such as immigration, abortion, and gun control, and to even cross party lines to endorse Mario Cuomo. By the end of the decade, however, Giuliani began to downplay his differences with the party, and generate national news for events such as the Virgin Mary elephant dung controversy, on which he was fighting side by side with social conservatives. After 9/11, of course, he became "
With McCain, it was the exact reverse. During the 1980s and for most of the 1990s, he was generally well regarded among conservatives, but starting in the late 1990s, he began to challenge the party on tobacco and most notably, campaign finance reform. This carried over into his bid for the presidency in 2000, all of his subsequent scraps with conservatives from the Bush tax cuts to the "Gang of 14" compromise, and, most recently, immigration.
So, basically, you end up with a situation whereby videos emerge of Giuliani taking on immigration hawks in the 1990s, contrasted with his current get-tough-on-border-security proposals. Whether his pro-enforcement strategy will prove politically effective or not, we will have to wait and see. But there's no question that McCain was far worse off politically for aggressively trying to push for comprehensive immigration reform in the heat of a presidential campaign.
People may have differing views on what contributed to these shifts, and clearly political reality played into Giuliani's current positioning. But just looking at this from a purely analytical perspective, it's worth entertaining the idea that the seeds of McCain and Giuliani's campaigns were planted almost ten years ago, and their divergent paths has thus far worked to the detriment of the former, and the benefit of the latter.
Re: Rudy and Immigration
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 1:52PM
James, I agree with your conclusion that it will likely work. Indeed we have some evidence already from the immigration reform fight earlier in the year. The GOP voters were enraged at McCain for his support and authorship of the immigration bill and didn't much care for his contention that Romney was being an opportunist and had flip flopped on the issue. Romney by being vocal and opposing the immigration reform bill got on the right side of the issue and convinced voters he was an amnesty opponent. Unlike all of us, unless the problem of flip flopping is pervasive and verging on a parody, most voters care much more about what a candidate is presently saying. Whether he had timed it this way all along or whether he rolled out the immigration committment to blunt Romney's attack, it is smart of Rudy to put out a get tough plan. The fact that the ad on his plan is going up in South Carolina and he is talking up his plan in Iowa suggests his campaign thinks they can sell immigration as a law and order issue. At some point Romney will put out his own plan and voters will get to compare whose proposal is more credible.
More Huckabee, Plus Romney's Stool
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 1:26PM
Jim Geraghty takes issue with my post about Huckabee not being in the top tier, arguing "if high polls nationally are necessary to clear that bar, Mitt Romney's not a top-tier candidate." To be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that high national poll numbers are the only measure of whether a candidate should be considered in the top tier. I also cited polls in the early states, and money. Romney may not be threatening Rudy or Fred in national polls at this point, but he is ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he has raised a ton of money (if you include his personal wealth, he could be viewed as the money leader). So, Romney satisfies at least two of three possible criteria for being considered a top tier candidate, whereas Huckabee, for now, doesn't satisfy any of them.
Geraghty goes on to argue that "Huckabee looks like he's going to be the breakout candidate on the Republican side" a la Buchanan in 1996 and McCain in 2000. I'm not denying that this is a theoretical possibility; all I'm saying is that Huckabee's performance in Ames in and of itself is not sufficient to earn him a place in the top tier, given the lack of additional empirical evidence to support such a claim. As for whether Huckabee can get the nomination, Geraghty writes that "The other four all have, to one extent or another, flaws that make the religious conservatives hesitate. If that faction of the party unites behind Huckabee, he's got a heck of a lot of resources heading into the final matchup."
This brings up another point that has been floating around my head in recent days. One possibility we have talked about is that if Huckabee emerges as a top tier candidate, it would hurt Romney by further splintering the social conservative vote. But there's a way of looking at it that could theoretically help Romney. If a Giuliani vs. Huckabee battle turns into a battle between economic/foreign policy conservatives and populist/social conservatives, it may allow Romney, using his three-legged stool argument, to emerge as the compromise candidate who recognizes the importance of all wings of the party. Just like Goldilocks, Romney could argue that while one candidate is too socially liberal and another candidate is too economically liberal, he's just right.
RE: Rudy and Immigration
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 12:56PM
Giuliani is pulling a Romney on immigration, pure and simple. The technology argument is the equivalent of Romney becoming pro-life in response to Dr. Melton using the word "destroy" in his presence. The facts on the border simply haven't changed that much due to technological innovations over the last 11 years; neither have the economic costs of enforcement versus non-enforcement. (And he was right in 1996 that you can't totally control immigration; that remains true today.) The biggest difference is the constituency Giuliani is trying to appeal to.
Even reading a longer transcript of the speech, Giuliani's throw-away lines about illegal immigration are clearly of a piece with his comments about "hating" abortion. He is throwing people who disagree with him a bone while telling them tough luck. Giuliani devotes more space to attacking the "anti-immigrant" movement than he does to the problems created by illegal immigration.
And pace Peter King, Giuliani did not just make due with an already bad illegal-immigrant situation in New York City in the interest of public safety, though certainly some of his actions can be justified on those grounds. Giuliani gave speeches declaring that illegal immigrants were welcome in New York City and likening those who wished to curb illegal immigration to Know Nothings. Maybe he didn't push the city council to adopt a Cambridge-like resolution declaring New York a sanctuary city; maybe he didn't send out engraved invitations. But he took affirmative steps to ensure that New York City was in effect a sanctuary city under his watch.
If Giuliani had cited 9/11 as the reason for his shift, I might be more inclined to believe him (though the 9/11 hijackers came in through our failure to properly enforce visas rather than our failure to protect the borders). But Giuliani is relying on his (deserved) image as a tough guy to give him credibility on immigration enforcement that isn't justified by his record. It will probably work.
More Context for Rudy's 1996 Immigration Speech
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 12:39PM
I've been looking for a full transcript of Giuliani's 1996 speech to the Kennedy School of Government that has generated the recent YouTube, and the closest I could find was this, which as far as I can tell, is a partial transcript of the speech. It doesn't contain the section that was featured on the YouTube clip, but I do think it provides a fuller picture of Giuliani's thinking at the time. And I don't think he comes across as badly.
Giuliani said:
Illegal immigration is a different matter. I do not defend it. No one should break the law. But preventing illegal immigration is the job of the federal government. The
has to do a lot better job of patrolling our borders. If we can't stop illegal immigration, then we can't stop drugs and weapons from entering the country, either. United States But in a country as large as ours, with our protection of individual liberty, and with a huge border that spans sea, deserts and mountains, and given the strong desire that people have to come to this country, the federal government may never be able to stop illegal immigration completely. At best, all we can expect is that the federal government will do a better job of patrolling our borders.
The reality is, people will always get in. And the reality is, the federal government does not deport them. In
, which has 400,000 undocumented immigrants, only about 1,500 a year are deported. Under the new federal legislation, that number would -- at most -- double to about 3,000 out of 400,000. New York City So illegal and undocumented immigrants are going to remain, and even increase. And nothing that is now being proposed in W
would realistically change that very much. ashington
Kudos For Fred- I think
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 11:34AM
David Broder's column indicates that Fred Thompson is going to focus on entitlement reform. This, I think, is precisely the type of specific, meaty policy proposal he needs to communicate he is a serious contender. Will he just talk about the problem or will he put forth a full blown, concrete plan for reforming entitlements? If the former (or some variation of "I will set up a commission") it's a waste and will just repeat what McCain (perhaps others, but I am not certain) already have said. If he throws caution to the wind and offers a real plan he deserves real credit.
Sunshine Poll
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 11:19AM
Some stark evidence for the missed window of opportunity. A new Strategic Vision poll shows Rudy up 34-18% in Florida which reflects movement of +4 for Rudy and -6 for Thompson. Romney edges up +2. As I have written elsewhere, Florida remains crucial state for Rudy and his best chance for a win before Super Duper Tuesday which comes a week later. He has been spending more time there and recently announced 32 county chairs. The state is diverse, expensive to advertise in and has a lot of transplanted Easterners but also Midwesterners. Perhaps the most important endorsement of the primary season: Charlie Crist, the overwhelmingly popular Governor. He and McCain have been close but with McCain's difficulties it is not likely I think that Crist would throw he weight there. If I had to bet I would guess that Crist, who advises Republicans "not to tell people what to do every minute of their lives, but to give people choices " and has marked a moderate change of tone if not policy since Jeb Bush, will eventually back Rudy. Had Thompson entered several months ago and begun laying the groundwork for his campaign it might be a very different race. For now, I'd put my money on Romney to give Rudy the toughest time --his organization(with the brilliant former Jeb chief of staff Sally Bradshaw and former GOP Chair Al Cardenas) is solid and he has money to advertise in the multiple media markets which make up the state.
Huckabee Is Not A Top Tier Candidate
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 10:57AM
Ever since his surprisingly strong showing in Ames on Saturday, there has been some debate over whether Mike Huckabee deserves to be considered a top tier candidate. Huckabee even described himself that way when speaking to reporters in Washington yesterday. This is wishful thinking. In national polls, he still registers in the low single digits, trailing the margin of error. In the early states, even Iowa, he still remains in the single digits. In the first two quarters of the year, he has raised just $1.3 million--combined. Will he get a bump in the polls as a result of his showing in Ames? Most likely. Will he receive a fundraising boost? Absolutely. But we don't know how substantial, or how sustained, that boost will be. Let's revisit this issue in a few months, when we know how much Ames mattered. If he's steadily climbing in polls into the top cluster of candidates, and if his fundraising is substantially improved, we can renew the debate over whether he's earned his place in the top tier. But for now, at best, you can say that post-Ames, it's no longer inconceivable that he can make that leap.
RE: Rudy and Immigration
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 10:05AM
If you look at this YouTube clip of Rudy Giuliani talking about illegal immigration this week and in 1996, it's abundantly clear that he has changed his position on whether the border can be controlled, and I don't think it does any favors to Giuliani for supporters to argue otherwise. The campaign points out that technology has improved over the last 11 years. Fair enough. And, if you take them at their word that this is the source of his change in position, that explains the part of his 1996 speech where he says, "We're never, ever going to be able to totally control immigration..." and, "I don't know that there's any technological way to totally control it." However, it does not explain the part of the quote where he predicts disastrous consequences that would occur if you were to control it ("If you were to totally control immigration into the United States, if you were to totally control the flow of people in the United States, you might very well destroy the economy of the United States because you'd have to inspect everything and everyone in every way possible.") Now, you could also argue that 9/11 made him change his views about whether we should seek to control the border. I know, personally, that 9/11 changed my view of this issue. Before that, whenever people spoke about securing the border, I heard the thundering voice of Pat Buchanan vowing to build a wall around America, and it was a scary thought. After 9/11, I've come around on that view, and though I remain a very strong proponent of legal immigration, I firmly believe that we need to gain control of the border and monitor who comes in and out of the country. So, it's understandable, to me at least, how somebody could change his mind on this issue. But clearly a change has taken place with Giuliani. And I don't think it would be helpful for him or any of his supporters to suggest otherwise.
Re: One More Day of Immigration
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 1:30AM
Make that two more days. In today's Washington Times Rep. Peter King, a Rudy supporter, has a blistering editorial entitled "The two Mitt Romneys." He explains Rudy's immigration approach as NYC Mayor as follows:
"When Mr. Giuliani took control of New York City in 1994, it was ridden with crime, was home to 2,000 murders a year and 10,000 felonies a week. It was also home to 400,000 illegal immigrants, of which the INS, in spite of Rudy's persistent protests, would deport no more than 2,000 a year. The security of the citizens of New York was, as it had to be, his primary concern. And so, to protect his citizens' public health and safety, Mr. Giuliani continued to allow illegal aliens to report crimes to the authorities to ensure criminals were taken off the streets. He also allowed illegal aliens to seek medical care so infectious diseases were not spread throughout the city, and children were allowed into the schools rather than left roaming the streets as unsupervised truants. It worked. As happened so often during his tenure in New York, Mr. Giuliani solved a problem others deemed unsolvable. Crime decreased by 57 percent. Murders fell by 67 percent. And New York became a city second to none in terms of crime, safety and dealing with illegality of all different kinds. It was, and remains, America's safest large city."
He then blasts Romney with this:
"Mr. Romney's story is a different one. When the immigration issue came before him, he simply ignored it - whether it be Cambridge, Orleans, Somerville or even a rally of illegal aliens demonstrating at the state capitol. His immigration bona fides rest on the 'deputization' of the state police that would allow them to arrest illegal immigrants - a law signed less than three weeks before he left office and was never implemented. As governor, illegal immigration clearly wasn't on his radar screen. Now, he is running for president, and it clearly is. But Mr. Romney's candidacy, and the political significance of illegal immigration in today's America, should not excuse his exploitation of a very important issue on which he has no record - save empty, shifting rhetoric - to speak of."
Ouch. Whether intended or not Romney opened the door to the first true blast from the Rudy camp about Romney's experience in Massachusetts. I think this is about more than just immigration. Romney tried to find an issue on which he could get to the right of Rudy(other than abortion which is probably better left to one of his opponents) while team Rudy may see this as an opening to compare the record of the two and test who governed as a conservative on a host of issues. This will be one good debate.
One More Day of Immigration
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 1:04AM
The immigration battle between Rudy and Romney continued today. First Read picked up this:
"I was the governor of the state. I'm not critical of [former New York] Gov. Pataki for not cracking down on Mayor Giuliani. I'm critical of cities that call themselves sanctuary cities that say they are going to enforce the law," Romney said. "I don't know why Mayor Giuliani just won't say he made a mistake and that he's changing his mind. But cities that call themselves sanctuary cities and say that they are not going to enforce the law of immigration are making a mistake. As governor, I was responsible for my state. I was not a mayor. Had I been a mayor, I wouldn't have been sanctuary mayor."
Sympathizing with other governors who also did nothing about sanctuary cities may not be the strongest card for Romney to play.
Marc Ambinder points to a change in Rudy's tone if not his substance on immigration and posits that "Perhaps 9/11 is responsible; perhaps the events of that day convinced him of the imperative of finding a solution to this insoluble problem. Perhaps he has adjusted his tone for political reasons." He then raises the dilemma for Romney: "it might be tougher for Romney to try to turn this particular issue into an example of Rudy's flip-flopping, given the reams of YouTube videos purporting to document his own evolution." Ambinder then suggests Romney go after Rudy for being weak on immigration rather than contending he has changed his position. There seems to be two problems with this approach: 1) Rudy just came out with a law and order, pro-enforcement plan and 2) Romney hasn't offered his own plan. The latter is curable (and I've suggested Romney come out with his own plan promptly to head off the claim he's all talk), but it's hard to argue that national i.d. cards, a national data base and a real fence constitute a weak immigration policy.
Re: More Huckabee
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 12:47AM
Huckabee poses a challenge for the other candidates but I see no scenerio in which he could actually win or come close to winning. I just don't see the GOP choosing a tax an spend populist who does not adhere to the low tax, limited government, and free trade policies that been the basis of the GOP's philosophy, not to mention the country's economic success, for a generation. You just can't attack free market capitalism with a dollop of class envy and win the GOP nomination. But if one accepts that he can't win he can make things difficult for his opponents. In that regard he may help determine the winner. As others have commented he fragments the social conservative vote. He also gets to taunt his opponents. Romney benefits when Huckabee takes aim at Fred (whose lobbying past will be fodder for Huckabee's populist attacks), but will suffer when Huckabee reminds voters that he has always been pro-life. He is thoroughly amusing but I suspect his opponents will not be amused when the barbs start flying their way and they will need to consider carefully whether to return the jibes and risk elevating his profile further.
RE: Huckabee and Buchanan
Posted by on 8.16.07 @ 12:26AM
To be fair, I think there are several advantages Huckabee has as a candidate over Buchanan. For one, Huckabee's populism is homespun, woven with folksy humor, and delivered with a spoonful of sugar. The concept of Buchanan supporters storming the castle with pitchforks, combined with his fiery rhetoric, turned away a lot of people. Also, unlike Buchanan, Huckabee was actually elected to political office. With that said, it remains to be seen whether Huckabee can energize his supporters, let alone consolidate conservative support in New Hampshire, like Buchanan did in 1996.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
RE: More Huckabee
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 8:31PM
I'd also point out that the fusion of economic populism and social conservatism has generally been a losing strategy in Republican politics, though Pat Buchanan did make a splash with it in 1996. It worked less well for Gary Bauer in 2000, however.
More Huckabee
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 6:41PM
Aside from his comments on Fred Thompson during his briefing with reporters in Washington, Huckabee discussed the boost he has gotten from his performance in Ames. He said ever since his strong showing, phones have been ringing off the hook at his campaign headquarters, hits on his website are surging, and high profile conservative fundraisers who wouldn't take his calls are now calling him to pledge their support. Although Huckabee wouldn't disclose names, he said once the names become public, the media will be impressed. He'll also be on Stephen Colbert tomorrow.
As far as Jim's post earlier, Huckabee did say a lot of his new support was coming from those who are concerned about social conservatives splintering their vote, and he recommended as "brilliant" Rich Lowry's column today urging Sam Brownback to get out of the race.
Perhaps most interesting is that Huckabee made it clear that he was running as a populist and directly against the business wing of the Republican Party. "I'm appealing to a group of Republicans who really feel disaffected by what is best termed as the Wall Street Republican," he said. "I'm not a Wall Street Republican, I'm a Main Street Republican." Huckabee said he grew up in a working class background, and unlike traditional Republicans, he didn't grow up in a country club, and never even set foot in one until his 10- year high school reunion. "That's resonating with people who have felt like the Republican Party has sort of moved away from rank and file working people who are Republicans because of some convictions and or values and have become the party of the affluent and the elite." Sounding almost like John Edwards, he said, "I'm not afraid to take on our party and say that if we are the party that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street and all we do is cater to the people who are getting $100 million bonuses and not the people who are losing their jobs because of it, we're not going to just lose next year, we're going to lose elections for the next generation." I followed up to ask whether his populism was a recipe for Bush style compassionate conservatism (i.e. big government) rather than Reagan style small government, and cited the Club for Growth attacks on his tax and spending record as governor of Arkansas.
He referred to the group as the "Club for Greed" and rejected their portrayal of his record, arguing that his gas tax hike was approved by the citizens of Arkansas (and necessary to fix the roads) and that he didn't have control over the spending that increased because it was mandated by the federal government.
In my view, his populist strategy may make some waves, and I have no doubt that the media will eat up the idea of a Republican criticizing the GOP for being the party of Wall Street. But ultimately, taking on the small government, pro-business wing of the Republican Party at a time when a lot of conservatives are enraged about runaway federal spending is not the pathway to the nomination.
Huckabee Pokes at Fred
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 5:42PM
This afternoon, I attended a session Mike Huckabee held with reporters, and he had this to say about Fred Thompson's delaying his entry into the race, using his own brand of folksiness:
The Right Party?
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 5:39PM
Next Tuesday, August 21, I'll be on panel discussing the complicated relationship between conservatives and the Republican Party. My fellow panelists will be Human Events editor-at-large and syndicated columnist Terence Jeffrey, longtime conservative activist Richard Viguerie, and the author and Elizabethtown College professor Paul Gottfried.
We'll be discussing prospects for pushing the GOP to the right, third-party movements, and the possibility of conservatives pulling up stakes and going home. Discussion starts at 8 p.m. in the Fillmore Room at the Boulevard Woodgrille in Arlington, VA. The sponsor is the Robert Taft Club. If interested, RSVP to Daniel McCarthy.
A Whole New Meaning to Getting Lucky
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 4:31PM
The Russians have come up with an alternative to importing a new population to replenish your old, less than fertile one:
Have a big procreation holiday, give prizes, and look for a spike nine months down the line!
Pro-Lifers vs. Pro-Lifers
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 3:47PM
Rich Lowry has a column making a point similar to my most recent AmSpec piece, except he focuses on Sam Brownback while I focused more on Mike Huckabee. With a pro-choice social liberal leading the Republican presidential field, the decision by social conservatives and pro-lifers to cannibalize one another is probably not a good strategy.
Bravo for Hillsdale College
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 2:06PM
Hillsdale College takes another stance against public funding. This is very impressive.
Freedom and Authority
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 1:06PM
Radley Balko links to an old speech that was given by Rudy Giuliani in 1994, which libertarians have been circulating for years, but is evidently new to Balko:
Balko concludes that, "Rudy's entire career, going back to his days as a U.S. attorney and Justice Department drug warrior, has been about accumulating more power for government, and fostering an authority fetish in the governed."
Quite the contrary. Giuliani's entire career was based on making sure that government properly performed it's primary (and only truly legitimate function), which is to protect individuals. From taking down the mob as prosecutor, to transforming a crime-ridden city as mayor, that's what his career has been about.
The statement "freedom is about authority" sounds ominous when taken completely out of context, but put in context it's perfectly rational and prudent. When Giuliani made those comments New York City was a cesspool of crime-with about 2,000 people being murdered each year. A large part of the reason was a liberal attitude that had predominated since the 1960s that went so far in the direction of protecting the criminals and handcuffing law enforcement that government could not carry out its core function of protecting its citizens. To Giuliani, freedom was just a theoretical concept if people were too afraid to exercise their freedoms for fear of being raped, beaten, mugged, or killed. So what Giuliani was saying in this speech was that freedom requires authority. I don't think that's a controversial statement. It's what separates a truly free society from a state of anarchy.
Also, Balko's assertion that Giuliani's entire career has been about "accumulating more power for government" is utter hogwash. In the very speech that Balko links to, Giuliani said, "We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve." He also said, "We're going to come through this when we realize that it's all about, ultimately, individual responsibility."
As mayor, Giuliani did go a long way in instilling this responsibility and reducing the role of government in people's lives. He cut taxes and slashed welfare rolls, and focused his attention on protecting individuals. Sounds, dare I say it, libertarian.
Polls
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 11:40AM
Some recent polls are going to support Phil's theory of a missed window of opportunity for Fred. The American Research Group Poll has Rudy leading over Thompson 27% to 16% with Fred down 1 pt. from the last poll and Romney moving up from a prior poll 4 pts. to tie Thompson. McCain is fourth at 13%. Over at the Quinnipiac poll, Rudy again leads with 28%. Fred is at 12%, down 3% from the last poll and now in third place with Romney now in second at 15%, up five pts from last time. McCain is in fourth, down 4 pts from the previous poll. Overall we can see that Rudy is holding or increasing his lead (his poll average is up to 10.3%), Romney has clear momentum and we'll have to see if Fred regains traction when he enters the race in a few weeks.
Re: More on the GOP Border War
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 11:23AM
As I mentioned last night, Rudy did appear on O'Reilly and he had the opportunity to spell out the specifics of his plan. He went through some of his immigration plan's proposals-i.d. cards, the fence and BorderStat (a variation on his CompStat program for measuring crime fighting results). He ended with this: "Americanization, at the end of the road, everybody who becomes a citizen, no matter what their status was before or how you're dealing with them, what penalties they have to pay, has to speak, read, and write English. … [The] purpose of immigration, remember, as you and I always understood it is--immigration, wonderful, I'm the biggest advocate of legal immigration you're going to find, but it's part of assimilation." I agree, Phil, that Fred is a great storyteller, but especially on this issue politicians have been talking for years and voters are going to demand to know what each of the candidates is actually going to do. The New York City analogy doesn't work for everything, but the comparison to driving down crime and measuring results there and the task of dealing with the utterly out of control border and measuring progress with that undertaking has some logic to it.
Obama Digs Himself Deeper
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 11:16AM
In the course of a candid interview with the Washington Post about the presidential race (in which he admits he's struggled with the 60-second debate format) Barack Obama had this to say about his position on meeting with leaders of hostile regimes:
Romney on Hannity and Colmes
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 11:10AM
Romney made an appearance on Hannity and Colmes. His demeanor was a little looser and his mood was jovial than in some prior appearances and debates. A solid performance. It is also clear he's sticking by his Massachusetts health care plan. There was this exchange following guest host Bob Beckel's claim that Romney had not been talking about his health plan:
GOV. ROMNEY: You have not been going to my meetings. I talked about health care plan every time. This is a way to get people insured without expanding government programs. Without expanding Medicaid and instead helping people to get private market based insurance. It is one of the things I am most proud of. I hope I get to debate Hillary Clinton.
BECKEL: Well I do follow closely... The one thing you to leak out of your proposals is the part that I thought was courageous which was that if you could not afford it, the state would pay for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: The plan I put forward said that nobody got free insurance. Everyone would pay what they could before. We have a sliding scale based on your income and the state will help to pay a portion of the premium cannot afford for the poor. The good news is that it costs us less to help them buy their own private insurance that was costing us giving up free care at hospitals. I do talk about that. I will be giving a speech to the Florida medical association describing our plan in some detail. I insisted that everyone pays something. Our legislature overrode the idea and people at the very low and got a free and I think that was a mistake.
In this exchange you see the outlines of the debate on the GOP side. Will voters recognize that Romney has done something others have only talked about? Or will his plan strike GOP voters as too much government and too much regulation of health care? Will be interesting to watch.
More on the GOP Border War
Posted by on 8.15.07 @ 10:30AM
Much of the attention on this blog has been focused on the Rudy-Romney clash on immigration, but the other day Fred Thompson had his own post on sanctuary cities. Reading Fred's post makes it pretty clear why so many people like him. It opens with a clever analogy:
And after going into details about the problems with sanctuary policies, it closes with a simple truism:
However, when you read it next to Giuliani's description of his specific plans, it's pretty clear who is the one with executive experience, and who is thinking about practical ways to actually secure the border. Here was Giuliani on a South Carolina radio show yesterday:
This is coming from a man who not only talked about reducing crime while campaigning for mayor, but actually did it. I know, because I lived in New York City both before, during, and after Giuliani, and the difference was dramatic. I'm well aware that many conservatives have a problem with Giuliani's immigration policies as mayor, but, given that he inherited a city with 400,000 illegal immigrants, I really don't see how he could have put them on notice that if they reported a crime, they could be deported. That would deprive the police department of crucial information that could be used to help protect legal citizens.
As for the Fred vs. Rudy contrast that I set up, again, I can understand why people really like Thompson. I like him myself. But the reason I prefer Rudy is that I think he would be better at the actual job of being president.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Day in Immigration
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 8:53PM
It's worthwhile to review the day in immigration and the tussle between Romney and Rudy. Early today I asked Kevin Madden, Romney spokesman why Romney hadn't done anything about sanctuary cities in his state when he was Governor. He responded by email:
"Governor Romney worked out an agreement with the federal government to deputize state troopers to enforce immigration laws in Massachusetts, in an effort to NEGATE local sanctuary city policies and lax enforcement of existing laws. Unfortunately, localities like Cambridge and New York City enact these sanctuary city policies in defiance of FEDERAL immigration laws, not state laws. The state funding that went to Cambridge included education funding that is required by statute and driven by a state aid formula. The Governor's proposal on withholding funding pertains to FEDERAL funding since these illegal immigration magnet cities are flouting FEDERAL immigration laws." (Caps from Madden.)
He also cited other actions like vetoing in-state tuition for illegals and opposing drivers' licenses for illegals. But why not cut off funds or speak out against his own sanctuary cities? Madden replied: "State funding is primarily formula driven. Leveraging action against the violation of federal immigration laws is most effectively done by withholding federal funding." He added that the actions Romney took were "more than 'just speaking out.'"
Then came a story from abcnews.com which included this:
While governor of Massachusetts from 2003 until 2007, three cities in Romney's home state -- Somerville, Cambridge, and Orleans -- either declared or reissued declarations stating that they are in essence sanctuary cities.
Why should the American people believe Gov. Romney has the right kind of executive experience for America when he claims he was powerless to take action against the three sanctuary cities in Massachusetts who refused to enforce illegal immigration laws?" asked Jim Dyke, a senior Giuliani campaign strategist. "If there were 'statutes' or 'formulas' standing in Romney's way, then why didn't he take action to change them?"
But it isn't only his Republican opponents who question Romney's sincerity on this issue.
"Romney's being a hypocrite on this issue," said Joseph Curtatone, the Democratic mayor of Somerville since 2004. "I did not receive any mandate, any communication, anything at all from him about this. If it's so important to him why didn't he have the state police enforcing it?"
Curtatone, president of the Massachusetts Mayors Association, adds that his May 2006 declaration of Somerville as a "city of hope" committed to providing services to illegal immigrants was just official recognition of what exists everywhere in his state.
I don't know of any community in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- whether by official declaration or by their action -- who has not adopted the same policy," he said. "I never heard Gov. Romney bring it up one way or another."
We also saw this story from the San Diego Union Tribune which included this:
Whether New York qualifies as a sanctuary city or not, Cambridge, Mass., has publicly proclaimed itself to be one. Romney did not reply directly when asked what action he took against Cambridge when he was governor. Instead, he listed several pieces of immigration-related legislation that he signed or vetoed. As to whether he cut off any money for Cambridge, he said: "It's the federal government's responsibility, of course. If I were president, I would cut off federal funds to enforce the federal immigration laws."
I think the bottom line is that as to sanctuary cities Romney did exactly nothing. He took some other steps aimed at minimizing benefits to illegals but not much. But realistically both Rudy and Romney recognize that immigration is primarily a federal responsibility and the name of the game is to get the Feds to do something.
To that end Rudy came out with his immigration plan today which is a wish list of tough border measures-i.d. cards, national data base, employer enforcement and the like. Rich Lowry had this to say:
"We can end illegal immigration. I promise you, we can end illegal immigration." When Rudy says that, you can believe it. As I've said before, the way Rudy has handled immigration has been nearly flawless. In fact, as J-Pod [John Podhoretz] would have predicted but I wouldn't have, he's running the kind of campaign that McCain projected to run. He's a candidate with problems with the right who's reaching out to conservatives and winning some of them over; benefiting from the perception that he's the best candidate to beat Hillary; raising lots of money; and running with the kind of gusto associated with McCain 2000. The key turning point was the Senate amnesty bill: McCain chose to immolate himself with it, Rudy got out of the way and can now make a plausible play for the tough-on-the-borders right. If you want to lead a party, you have to be where the party is on the biggest, most urgent issues. Rudy realized that when McCain didn't. What Rudy has done on immigration gives me hope on abortion: he still has room to move right on it while staying pro-choice.
So where does this leave us? Stories which fit a narrative to have staying power and I think this story is no different. As Lowry said, Rudy has credibility on law and order issues and since both Romney and Rudy recognize immigration is a federal issue he gets points for coming out with a concrete plan. He is believable when he says he will get it done. Romney? The danger of the story -- highlighted by the Mayor of Somerville -- is that voters perceive this squabble on his part as political opportunism. A GOP advisor on one of the campaigns observes: "Mitt Romney has a fundamental problem -- he lacks core convictions to fall back on and the more voters get to know him the less they like him. People can see through a phony a mile away and that's something Romney is going to need to deal with as he leaves his comfort zone of New Hampshire and Iowa." Take it with a grain of salt from an opposing camp but this is not the first issue on which Romney has been accused of political opportunism.
It is always better if your campaign is about something -- the more concrete the better -- rather than an effort to grasp for post-Ames straws in an opponent's record. The best thing Romney could do: come up with his own border plan and explain why he's the guy to implement it. Until then the coverage will be largely about Rudy's get tough plan.
UPDATE: Not surprising, most coverage both from conservative and MSM news sources (here and here and here for example) gives prominence to the details of Rudy's plan. Others describe both his own plan and detail his counterattack on Romney. Over at RedState is a brief summary of the plan as described by Rudy on O'Reilly tonight. More on this tomorrow when a transcript is available.
Thinking Outside the Theatrical Box
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 3:34PM
I don't know why I don't read The Onion more often. Check out "Unconventional Director Sets Shakespeare Play In Time, Place Shakespeare Intended" here.
The War Over The Word "War"
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 3:28PM
Matthew Yglesias writes:
Late last week, Josh Marshall was noting some rhetorical switcheroos taking place on the right. Mitt Romney, for example, correctly notes that "There's not a global war on terror" before adding "There's a global war being waged by the terrorists and if I am president, there will be a global war waged on the terrorists and we will win." Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, has taken to referring to "the terrorists war on us."
This is totally backwards. War is a kind of organized, socially sanctioned violence. The people who destroyed the World Trade Center weren't soldiers fighting a war against the United States, they were mass murderers. In response, yes, we went to war against their patrons in Afghanistan which the Bush administration proceeded to transmogrify into a horribly misguided "war on terror" but either way we were the side with the soldiers fighting a war. Guys blowing up train stations aren't warriors. Shadowy networks that don't control territory don't prosecute wars.
Yglesias may not think that the terrorists are at war with us, but Osama bin Laden sure does:
--In April 1995, bin Laden said, "I discovered that it was not enough to fight in Afghanistan, but that we had to fight on all fronts against communist or Western oppression. The urgent thing was communism, but the next target was America... This is an open war up to the end, until victory."
--On August 23, 1996, bin Laden issued a "Declaration of War Against the Americans Who Occupy the Land of the Two Holy Mosques." He wrote that "Due to the imbalance of power between our armed forces and the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted, i.e. using fast-moving, light forces that work under complete secrecy. In other words, to initiate a guerrilla war, where the sons of the nation, and not the military forces, take part in it."
--A December 23, 1998 interview with Time, bin Laden said, "The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has, by the grace of God, issued a crystal-clear fatwah calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad [holy war] aimed at liberating holy sites."
This is not just a matter of semantics. By downgrading the struggle against terrorism to a crime-fighting effort against "mass murders," writers such as Yglesias hope to create excuses for inaction. Terrorists may use different tactics, they may not wear uniforms, and they may not distinguish between civilians and combatants, but that doesn't mean that they aren't at war with us.
Holy Cow! A Sad Day for the Yankees Family
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 12:21PM
UPDATE: Rudy out with a statement:
"I send my deepest condolences to Cora and the Rizzuto family for the loss of a truly great Yankee.
"As a lifelong Yankee fan, Phil was one of my childhood heroes. He was also the Yankee announcer I grew up with and it was a great privilege for me later in life to become his friend.
"He was an excellent ballplayer, superb announcer, one of the greatest bunters in the history of baseball and a truly fine person. Everyone will miss the Yankee Scooter."
An Edwards Cheer for Reagan
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 12:12PM
From John Edwards's Foreign Affairs essay:
There was a time when a president did not speak just to Americans -- he spoke to the world. People thousands of miles away would gather to listen to someone they called, without irony, "the leader of the free world." Men and women in Nazi-occupied Europe would huddle around shortwave radios to listen to President Franklin Roosevelt. Millions cheered in Berlin when President John F. Kennedy stood with them and said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain silently cheered the day President Reagan declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
You know that Reagan has entered the pantheon of great presidents when even a liberal populist has to quote him approvingly.
Brownback the Crusader
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 10:59AM
Although I'm a social conservative, I find Sam Brownback tiresome. But the notion, popular in Andrew Sullivan land and other alternate dimensions, that Brownback's politics are aimed at creating sectarian warfare -- because Christianists have the biggest sect, after all -- is almost so ridiculous as to disqualify its proponents as serious commentators. Brownback has never to my knowledge used intolerant language toward people of other faiths, including Muslims, even if some of his supporters and detractors want to refight the Reformation.
Brownback's Christianity may motivate him to care about Darfur and prison reform, or to dissent from other conservatives on the death penalty. But there is nothing on his agenda that could not be supported on purely secular grounds. There is a difference between following the dictates of one's faith in the public square as it relates to objects of proper public concern and trying to convert others by the sword.
If anything, Sam Brownback's attempts to make the government behave according to values like charity take him dangerously close to liberalism. It is one thing to argue that politicians should be sensitive to people of other faiths when using religious language. But to argue that the use of such language, even when quoting other people, is the equivalent of launching a crusade is absurd.
When Shredding Is Not an Option
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 10:32AM
The LA Times reports:
Clinton's calendars, appointment logs and memos are stored at her husband's presidential library, in the custody of federal archivists who do not expect them to be released until after the 2008 presidential election.
Rudy in Foreign Affairs
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 10:15AM
Foreign Affairs continues its series in which presidential candidates lay out their foreign policy views, and the new issue features Rudy Giuliani. I haven't gotten a chance to read the entire article yet, and it isn't online, so I can't link, but here's the opening:
The defining challenges of the twentieth century ended with the
fall of the Berlin Wall. Full recognition of the first great
challenge of the twenty-first century came with the attacks of
September 11, 2001, even though Islamist terrorists had begun their
assault on world order decades before. Confronted with our old
assumptions about conflict between nation-states fell away.
Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under
attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy.
What struck me immediately was the influence of Charles Hill, Giuliani's chief foreign policy adviser, who I spoke with recently. Hill talked to me for a long time about the Islamist war against the international system and noted that even in the Cold War the Soviets participated within the system to a certain degree: i.e. they conducted diplomacy, had embassies, etc.
Giuliani's article is titled, "Toward a Realistic Peace: Defending Civilization and Defeating Terrorists by Making the International System Work."
More to come.
UPDATE: The article is now available online here.
Mommy Problems
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 9:29AM
Ben Stein is so consistently and effortlessly correct that any chance to call him crazy and wrong must be seized at once. So allow me to say Sorry, Ben. No matter how totalitarian is Whole Foods, Britney Spears ain't no normal mother.
The Bush Reaction
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 2:24AM
Rich Lowry's column on Karl Rove includes this observation:
"On top of all this came the crushing charge of incompetence that threatens to overwhelm all else in the Bush legacy. Rove can't be blamed for that. He didn't run the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and he wasn't in charge of Phase IV post-combat military operations in Iraq. But the issue of competence alone ensures that there will be no Bush Republicans next year. The question for the GOP presidential candidates isn't whether to distance themselves from Bush, but how far and how soon."
I have written elsewhere that competence will be a central theme both in the GOP primary and in the general election. I continue to believe that GOP voters will look for a "change" candidate --one who in large part offers a different style of governance. We're going to hear a whole lot about "hands on governing" and "record of reform" and "fixing broken government." "Delegation" will be out and "riding herd on subordinates" will be in. Those with executive records will get to tout them and will have to defend them; those without will have to explain why we should trust them to clean up the Washington mess they decry.
Re: Immigration and New Poll
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 12:23AM
I realize it is CBS but you think they would at least have an accurate headline to go with their new poll. The headline reads: "CBS Poll: Giuliani Maintains Strength." You have to read well into the story and flip over to RealClearPolitics to get the previous poll to figure out that in fact Giuliani increased his lead over Thompson by 12 pts. (from 8 to 20 pts) since the last poll. He also increased over McCain by 8 pts. (from 18 to 26 pts). As for Romney he is fourth in the current poll as he was last time and we finally found a candidate over whom Giuliani "maintained" his lead --25 pts. in both the current and previous poll. You'd think someone might think it significant if the frontrunner increased his lead so substantially against a contender who was having some problems transitioning to a full time campaign. You know, there might be a political news story somewhere in there.
CORRECTION: Romney is now in 3rd in the CBS poll by 1 pt.
Obama Revisited
Posted by on 8.14.07 @ 12:18AM
The longish article about Barack Obama that I wrote for our summer issue is now available on our main site. When I wrote the article I struggled with two potential narratives-either Obama would prove himself to be a lightweight, or he would be able to channel the unbridled enthusiasm of his supporters, present himself as a healer to a war weary nation, and ride the wave of change past the Clinton machine and all the way to the White House. In addition, I raised the possibility that he could emerge as an effective, charismatic, salesman for liberalism in the same way that Reagan was a salesman for conservatism-i.e. put a friendly face on an ideology that made it seem appealing even to those who may otherwise be disinclined to agree. Although we are still in the early stages of the campaign, it is only fair to acknowledge that in recent weeks those who were much more, shall we say, cynical, about Obama are proving wiser than I. When writing my article I believed that with a Democratic electorate angry about Iraq and eager for change, Hillary Clinton was handicapped by her vote for the war and susceptible to the dynasty argument. However, instead of being able to exploit these weaknesses, Obama has come off as naïve and so far every significant news event in the Democratic nomination battle seems to have reinforced the case for Hillary. Instead of being the pro-war, legacy candidate, she has become the responsible, experienced, candidate. My general view of Obama's potential remains the same, and it's still early enough for him to turn the narrative around. But things aren't looking too good for him right now.
Monday, August 13, 2007
RE: Fred's Window of Opportunity
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 10:06PM
If having lowered expectations, Fred Thompson then exceeds them after his announcement, then I think the answer is yes. That's what remains to be seen.
But as I argued on the main site today, I don't think you can have three or four semi-viable conservative alternatives to Giuliani in the race and expect any of those alternatives to prevail.
Re: Fred's Window of Opportunity
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 9:39PM
Open question: if you think belated Fred's window is slowly closing, will his formal entry in September blow it back open?
RE: Bye, Bye Karl
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 8:53PM
Actually, for a while during the Bush administration it was much easier to count on just the Republican base instead of reaching out across the aisle. That's because, unlike during the Reagan years, Republicans had achieved parity with the Democrats in terms of voter identification. That's no longer true.
This reversal of fortunes -- however temporary it might prove -- tempers my enthusiasm for Rove, despite his undeniable talents.
Immigration and New Poll
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 7:26PM
The Rudy campaign put out a fact sheet detailing his past statements and actions on immigration. It is a misnomer to say New York was a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. Several Massachusetts cities -- Orleans, Somerville and Cambridge -- did declare themselves as such while Romney was Governor. It appears Rudy, like all mayors, coped as best he could with the influx of illegals while he was also dealing with crime and other metropolitan issues. Did he publicly call on the Feds to do more? It seems so. As previously posted, Romney did not appear to do anything about his true sanctuary cities and in fact increased state funding for them. As for Romney's "deputizing" of state troopers he did sign on to a joint cooperation and training plan with the Feds just as he was leaving office -- in December of 2006. (His Democratic successor cancelled the agreement.)
Meanwhile, further evidence, Phil, for your theory that Fred missed his window of opportunity. A new CBS poll has Rudy at 38%, up 5 pts. from the last poll, and Fred Thompson at 18%, down 7 from the last poll. Romney shows movement, up 5 pts to 13%.
Re: Bye, Bye Karl
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 7:01PM
Marc Ambinder's take on Karl Rove, his detractors and admirers is worth a read. I think Rove is a cautionary tale for the GOP candidates on a couple of fronts. First, growing the GOP base has been only partially successful and it may be time to revert to a Reagan model-- set out principles that attract voters beyond the base and appeal geographically and politically beyond core constituencies. There simply are not enough core Republicans to allow a GOP presidential candidate the luxury of ignoring Independents and moderates. Second, after you win you have to govern. Republicans who start with a skeptical view of government nevertheless need a vision of what they want to do once they are in power and an interest in reforming and operating the levers of government, cajoling Congress and selling themselves to the public. Criticism which lapses into disdain for government makes for poor governance. Although Republican may not have the same faith in the efficacy of government as Democrats they need to have a committment to making the government we do have effective and minimally competent. Whatever their strengths and weaknesses, at least Romney and Rudy have established track records and an obvious interest in actually governing. That seems an appropriate transition from the Rove-Bush era.
Immigrant Hating in Iowa
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 6:10PM
In the midst of a generally worthwhile piece about Iowa's inflated role in the presidential selection process (especially as relates to 2008), Ryan Sager returned to his usual shtick about Jesus-loving rubes scaring away the Interior West and dragging the Republican Party down to defeat. Perhaps to spice up the routine a bit, he argued that Iowa's version of the GOP is "full of hatred toward immigrants."
Now, I'd be the last person to deny that border hawks sometimes say over the top and offensive things about immigrants as a whole. I'm sure you could find some examples on the ground in Ames. But concern about illegal immigration is a fairly maintream position -- in-state tuition and drivers' licenses for illegal aliens were both unpopular even in Mitt Romney's Massachusetts. And even Tom Tancredo opened his Ames speech with praise for a legal immigrant cab driver he met when he went to speak to the NAACP.
In fact, judging from most reports I've read and my own impressions from C-Span, Tancredo got his loudest applause when he talked about the rules of engagement in Iraq, not immigration. So I'm not sure where the immigrant hatred was, unless anyone who disagrees with Sager about immigration policy is automatically a hater.
Rudy and the Borders
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 5:16PM
In the wake of his spat with Romney over his record on immigration, Rudy is poised tomorrow to expand on his commitment to "end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation." Today, the Giuliani campaign announced the members of his immigration advisory team and also, perhaps to preemptively fend off criticism that he was a soft on illegal immigration as mayor, offered a "Rudy Rewind" detailing pro-enforcement statements he made as far back as 1982, when he was in the Reagan Justice Department. In April of 2006, way before there was even a Giuliani campaign, I wrote that the immigration issue represented a major opportunity for Rudy. Specifically, his record on fighting crime as mayor gives him credibility to argue he's the one to gain control of our borders Even if other candidates are tougher on immigration rhetorically, there's a case to be made that in the real world, Giuliani is the man who could actually get it done. It remains to be seen whether conservatives will embrace his message, or if they'll be dismissive given his support for a zone of protection for illegal immigrants when he was mayor, of which his rivals will be sure to remind conservative voters.
Obama and Daschle
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 5:12PM
Roll Call (subscription required):
Former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.) is juggling several titles these days, but he is devoting a large chunk of his time to just one job -- assisting Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in his quest to win the Democratic presidential nod.Based on Daschle's record, one is tempted to conclude that Obama is doomed.Daschle, defeated for re-election in 2004 while serving as Minority Leader, endorsed the Illinois Senator in February.
Since that time, the one-time party leader has busied himself in the effort -- both publicly and behind the scenes -- serving as fundraiser, coalition builder, staff recruiter and traveling surrogate.
Florida is Determined to Matter
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 4:42PM
If the RNC penalizes Florida for moving their primary early by cutting the state's delegate count in half, Florida will probably become a winner-take-all contest. Marc Ambinder explains. And he notes:
Of the early states, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Delaware are winner-take-all, thanks to the direct intervention of Giuliani partisans on the state committees. If Giuliani's Feb. 5 strategy pays off, he can thank his campaign's behind-the-scenes political maneuvering.
Bush the Tax Man?
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 4:09PM
David Boaz writes "It seems safe to conclude that George W. Bush will go down in history as the biggest taxer and the biggest spender ever." Now, it's one thing to attack Bush's spending record. Count me among the critics. But to attempt, as Boaz does, to portray Bush as the biggest taxer ever is simply absurd. The obvious point is that Bush has never raised taxes, and has signed several massive tax cuts. The crux of Boaz's argument is that tax revenue is reaching a record. But that is only because lower taxes have spurred economic growth, leading to a surge in revenue and the highest GDP of all time. After acknowledging that in terms of percentage of GDP, taxes are not, in fact, at a higher percentage than they ever have been, Boaz writes, "they're getting close. Earlier in the year OMB estimated that revenues as a percentage of GDP would reach 18.5 percent in 2007. But as of a month ago that figure had reached 18.8 percent, approaching the levels that typically produce popular demand for relief." However, if you look at the very OMB report that Boaz links to, you will see that back in FY 2000, tax revenue was 20.9 percent of GDP, and still at 19.8 percent in FY 2001.
It's too bad that Boaz's hatred of Bush has gotten to the point where he ends up making statements that are so easily contradicted by empirical data.
You Say You'll Uphold the Constitution...
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 3:29PM
Well, you know...
Dave Weigel, writing on the Ron Paul presence at Ames:
There are people who sign up for "the Revolution" fully aware they aren't electing a president. Paul's shifting focus onto social issues or his stabs at real ground organizing don't matter to these voters. They're looking for a social network and a traveling carnival, and some chances to wave the middle finger at reporters or the rest of the Republican Party.
Read the whole article here.
Romney's Fortune
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 3:01PM
After two extensions, Mitt Romney today filed his financial disclosure report, and according to the AP, his wealth is in the $190 million to $250 million range. To me, that's not much news, as it was well known that he was worth several hundred million dollars, and I certainly don't think that should be held against him. The only question is whether there is anything in the "dizzying array of investments, that include banks, large investment management firms, foreign export credit corporations and real estate" that will raise more eyebrows than the headline number itself.
Obama on Rove
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 1:53PM
In a press statement:
“Karl Rove was an architect of a political strategy that has left the country more divided, the special interests more powerful, and the American people more shut out from their government than any time in memory. But to build a new kind of politics, it will take more than the departure of a man or even an Administration that constructed the old -it will take a movement of everyday Americans committed to changing
and reclaiming their government.” Washington
If He's Hated by NY Libs,He Can Make it Anywhere
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 1:50PM
I just got finished reading the New Yorker profile on Rudy Giuliani and what I found most remarkable is that though it runs nearly 15,000 words (or 18 pages when printed out), it contains virtually nothing new. Granted, I've read my fair share about Giuliani so I'm a difficult reader to surprise, but I would assume that would also be true for most New Yorker readers. I almost would have preferred a good old-fashioned hit piece. The article rehashes how his father Harold's regret over his own criminal past made him instill in Rudy a respect for the law and a disdain for criminals that manifested itself in Rudy's career as a crime-fighting prosecutor and mayor. It recounts his victories as well as personal and political controversies over the course of his career, and is bookended by highlights from the campaign trail. One of its main themes, which I agree with, is all the things he did to anger New York City liberals are actually what makes him popular in the rest of the country.
The article also explores the the touchy issue of his Catholicism, and quotes him as saying:
“The way to understand me as a Catholic is, it’s my religion,” Giuliani told me. “I have learned a lot from it. I am informed by it. But I am not directed by it.”
And on Catholic leaders:
“They have every right to tell me anything they want,” Giuliani said to me. “But then I have every right to believe anything I want. And, ultimately, that sort of expresses both my political faith and my religious faith. They have a right to instruct me. And then, having my own conscience, and my own mind, and being my own individual person, I have a right to determine whether I agree with that or I don’t agree with it. Now, there are some people that look at religion differently. That’s the way I look at it. It’s a way that helps me understand morality better. It helps me understand God better. And ultimately it’s my relationship with God, my relationship with Jesus, that’s the important one. And I’ve got to figure it out. And if they help me they do. And if I don’t agree with it then I have to go with my own conscience.”
As a Jew, I cannot speak for Catholics on this issue. His answer reflects the attitudes of many less religious Catholics I know, but I can also see how it would be offensive to observant Catholics. That is, the idea that you can pick and choose what aspects of the Catholic faith you agree with and follow your own conscience even if it means ignoring leaders of the Church.
Moving on, one theme that's pretty clear when looking at his political career is that Giuliani is somebody who learns from his mistakes, and who has worked tirelessly to improve on his weaknesses as a politician. After his defeat in the 1989 mayoral election, he devoured policy books, became a regular at the Manhattan Institute, and evolved into a wonk by the time the next election rolled around, with a clear agenda for changing
Many New Yorkers who remember Rudy as a very angry man have been predicting for a long time that Giuliani will eventually buckle under the pressure of the long campaign, and explode in rage over something petty, triggering a total meltdown. However, as the article points out:
It hasn’t happened yet. The Giuliani whom New Yorkers recall isn’t campaigning. With some exceptions, like the debate dustup with Ron Paul, the Presidential contender is all smiles, and holds his tongue even when confronted by the occasional town-hall needler.
The article also quotes Rudy foe and former liberal City Councilman Stephen DiBrienza as saying, “All the things that a lot of New Yorkers, myself included, hate about this guy are the things that are actually fuelling his campaign.” Yeah, the
Ames Plus Two
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 12:15PM
More than one commentator is coming around to the view that the Romney win is a muted one and Huckabee --the fellow who didn't spend gobs of money -- is the real winner.
War and Peace
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 12:15PM
Two quick items of note on war and politics:
1.) Michael Yon's latest dispatch is now posted over at Michael Yon Online -- the conclusion of Bread and a Circus. If you haven't signed up yet for his e-mail updates, you can do so here.
2.) A presidential debate worth watching... sponsored by LIVESTRONG/Lance Armstrong Foundation with Lance as the co-host. The event will take place later this month (August 27/28) in Texas. The focus of the debate (there will be one for each party) is on cancer and how we, as a nation, can battle it. More information here. Definitely more worthwhile than watching fake snowmen on YouTube.
Wehner vs. Scully
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 12:03PM
Speaking of the Atlantic's articles on Bush aides, Peter Wehner has a different take on Michael Gerson than Matthew Scully (subscription required).
Re: YouTube
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 11:57AM
Phil, yes YouTube is about as far from the Lincoln Douglas debates as you can get but the actual questions were not bad at all and in some sense more "fair" than the average snarling question from a MSM moderator. I wonder if Romney is reluctant to join not only because of the debasement issue but because of concern about the miles of YouTube footage out there on his 1994 and 2002 statements on social issues, Ronald Reagan, etc.. Even for him, better to be there to explain it than to let his opponents bang him over the head with the issues in his absence.
RE: Bye, Bye Karl
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 9:59AM
I agree with you Phil, but I'm suprised nonetheless. I've always assumed Rove would stay on til the end. Congressional Democrats will probably step up efforts to subpoena him, hoping that the administration's executive privilege claims will be on weaker grounds when involving an ex-staffer. But my guess is that Rove, like Karen Hughes during her time back in Texas, is going to remain influential behind the scenes.
UPDATE: Coincidentally, Josh Green has a piece on Rove in the Atlantic asking what's so brainy about Bush's brain (sorry, behind subscriber wall). The Atlantic: taking the bloom off senior White House aides, one aide at a time. Or something.
Bye, Bye Karl
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 9:49AM
I always thought Rove should have resigned after Bush's reelection to allow for a fresh start.
More here.
Re: YouTube Debate
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 9:43AM
Call me a misanthrope, but I was one of those who found the YouTube debate absolutely painful to watch--and not just because it was a Democratic one. It was a sad commentary on the decline of political discourse. Republicans may be politically wise to attend so they don't seem like they're rejecting new media or dodging questions from the public, but I'm not looking forward to it.
YouTube Debate
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 1:48AM
It is back on according to news reports. Although I'd like to avoid snowmen questioning presidential candidates I have to admit that the Democrats' YouTube debate was more interesting and had better questions than many of the standard debate formats. Wouldn't be the worse thing in the world to show GOP candidates willing to field hostile questions (could they be any worse than some queries from so-called professional moderators we've already heard?). Rudy and McCain have signed on but no word from Romney yet. (For a fellow who improves when he lets his hair down or gets his dander up he'd be wise to attend, I think.)
Re: Was the Fair Tax Huckabee's Secret Weapon
Posted by on 8.13.07 @ 1:18AM
Phil, not only did he repeatedly raise taxes but he was hardly a proponent of limited government. He spent freely and was a proponent of programs which Charles Murray called "parodies of liberal nannyism." When you look at his fiscal record it bears little resemblance to the record or rhetoric of Rudy or Romney. Aside from the fair tax folk who desperately want to find supporters, most fiscal conservatives will find little to attract them to Huckabee's candidacy.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Was the FairTax Huckabee's Secret Weapon?
Posted by on 8.12.07 @ 10:11PM
While the conventional wisdom is that social conservatives were behind Mike Huckabee's surprise showing at Ames, Soren Dayton makes the case that it was actually Huckabee's support for the fair tax. As Soren points out, while Huckabee didn't have any buses, the FairTax group had 20-30, and Huck is the only candidate to endorse the idea. If true, this would be ironic, as Soren points out, because he has by far the worst record on taxes of any Republican candidate.
CORRECTION: Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter have co-sponsored
fair
tax legislation, and McCain, Paul, and Tommy Thompson said they
would sign the legislation.
Thompson Out of the Race
Posted by on 8.12.07 @ 9:51PM
Calm down Fred-heads, I mean the other guy. (Hey, that's the last time I get to pull that trick, so give me a break!)
Ultimately, Tommy Thompson was a great governor, but made a horrible presidential candidate. He lost at "Hello."
Spin Wars
Posted by on 8.12.07 @ 4:31PM
The spin wars continue. Romney of course wants to portray the win as a sign of building popular support. His critics and some pundits say the straw poll is just a voter buy-athon. On Fox News Sunday there was this interchange:
WALLACE: Let's talk a little bit about the rules of the straw poll, because it isn't just you come and you vote. In fact, you need to buy a $35 ticket. Somebody described to me a loser as somebody who pays for his own ticket because most of the time campaigns like yours and your competitors pay the $35. Some creative accounting I'm sure from some of your rivals when they added up how much you'd spent on tickets, buses, organization, and a $2 million ad campaign they say you paid about $800 per vote.
ROMNEY: Well, they're missing one key thing, and that is the advertising was not for the straw poll. People don't come to a straw poll based on ads. The advertising is helping build the base that I need as somebody that's not terribly well known in Iowa to get better known, to have a message that connects with people and to get ready for the caucuses. The caucus is what you aim for. What I'm pleased about is that the message that I came Iowa with, that I could strengthen America, strengthen our military, our economy with better good jobs and strengthen America's families, that message connected with the voters here in Iowa, and I did it on the air. I did it at the grassroots level. I did over 300 events in Iowa over this last year, and a campaign to be successful has to have the resources, the ground team and the message, and we put that together.
Romney rivals were quick to point out that in fact Romney ran ads with a banner inviting straw poll voters to call an 800 number to get free transportation. Kevin Madden, Romney spokesman responded that the ad with the straw poll invite only ran from Tuesday to Friday and that Romney believed the question "was talking about all the ads." In the Romney camp's eyes the millions was a worthwhile investment. Madden noted: "If you could see the front pages of every newspaper in Iowa, you'd believe me when I said that every dollar we spent was an investment. The front page of the Des Moines register was incredible."
My own view: the one with real bragging rights is Huckabee who spent relatively little and did very well. If anyone can claim the straw poll as a sign of true support it is him.
Where They Go Tells Us What They Think
Posted by on 8.12.07 @ 2:21PM
If you were wondering if Rudy is conceding the early primary states, look at his calendar. Next week? South Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire. Given his strength in the Super Duper Tuesday states, if he can win one or more early states he could seal the nomination, unlike his competitors who NEED those early states to roll into New York, New Jersey, California and the rest of the list on February 5.
Re: Ames Result
Posted by on 8.12.07 @ 2:00PM
James and Phil, I agree with your takes. Although I acknowledge readily that "buying votes" is the game in Ames, you rightly conclude that this is not a formula that works elsewhere. You simply aren't allowed to buy everyone in Florida a ride to the polls. I refer back to my post on favorable-unfavorable ratings and note that Romney needs frankly to persuade -- without the offer of freebie gifts and in the face of opposing media ads -- people to like him. There is a warmth and likeability factor that both Fred Thompson and Rudy have and it will be interesting to see over time who wears best and connects with voters. In addition, we will see how Romney matches up against each of his principal challengers. Against Thompson he will play up his the executive experience, competency and policy detail. Against Rudy he will play the three legged stool, although pushing hard on the abortion front is dicey. I think the foray on immigration was the first of his efforts to take on the frontrunner Giuliani (especially in a week where he was lumped in with the second tier folks). Finally, the math seems to favor Rudy. If you have three candidates now --Huckabee, Thompson and Romney -- vying for the same pool of very strong, if not one issue, social conservative voters it is hard for anyone to catch Rudy. Can Thompson come in and sweep the field? Of course. Can Romney push Thompson off the map with concerns about executive leadership in the post-Bush world ? Yes. One of them will have to wipe out the other, plus Huckabee now, to have a chance against Rudy.
RE: Ames Results
Posted by on 8.12.07 @ 11:44AM
Where Romney deserves credit is that he has managed to do all the right things to keep himself in the top tier. That's not the faint praise it at first sounds like. He is the least well known of the top-tier candidates, he has the fewest past election wins, and he has another better known candidate (Fred Thompson) making a play for the same group of voters he is trying to appeal to.
So his early state strategy has produced leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, along with a win in the Ames straw poll. The big test for Romney will be whether he can maintain a lead in a race where another candidate is devoting comparable resources. Romney has yet to win anything that he hasn't, in a manner of speaking, bought. And even then, when you look at yesterday's results or the CPAC straw poll earlier this year, he doesn't exactly clear the field of competition.
RE: Ames Results
Posted by on 8.12.07 @ 10:55AM
Giving credit where credit is due, the bottom line is that millions of Americans are waking up to newspapers and television reports today with the headline being some variation of "Romney Wins" so in that sense the results were undeniably positive for Romney. Going into the 2008 presidential sweepstakes Romney was less well known than his major rivals, and he set forth a strategy of focusing a massive amount of attention on the early states, and it paid off yesterday.
With that said, the stories attached to the headlines will all add certain caveats, about the fact that his top three competitors were no shows and about the low turnout. Romney did win comfortably, but given that he spent more money to win this event than his rivals raised in the first six months of the year, one might have expected a devastating Ivan Drago over Apollo Creed type win, but he didn't get it. Far from staking an undisputed claim of being the choice of Iowa social conservatives, Romney will now have a fight on his hands with Mike Huckabee for the hearts and minds of religious voters, and that's not even taking into account Fred Thompson's expected entry into the race next month. And Fred gets to enjoy the fact that he did the best of the non-competitors, even though he isn't running.
For Rudy Giuliani, we can't say now whether or not his decision to skip Ames was a wise won. On the positive side, it did deny Romney a more meaningful victory while simultaneously allowing Rudy to save money and use it to beef up his organization nationally. It's already a forgone conclusion that he'll win New York and New Jersey, and he also has substantial leads in California and Florida. Given his overall standing, Rudy didn't need an Ames straw poll win like Romney did. On the other hand, Iowans are touchy about their straw poll, and so his snub will no doubt hurt his chances in the caucus, and if Romney gains enough momentum in the early states, Rudy may be out of serious contention by the time Feb 5. rolls around.
In summary, what's pretty clear is that Romney and Rudy are both effectively executing their strategies for winning the Republican nomination, based on their strengths and weaknesses. We just don't know whose strategy is better.
Hold That Tiger!
Posted by on 8.12.07 @ 9:59AM
Well, Quin. I think it is fair to say that this is not Day 4 of of the PGA Championship. For Tiger Woods, it is 13th Major Day. For every other golfer out there, it is How Big Is The Prize For 2nd Place Day.
Re: Ames Results
Posted by on 8.12.07 @ 4:05AM
ROMNEY: Did Romney blow away the field? No. Did he avoid an embarrassing loss and win comfortably? Yes. Am I surprised he got only 31.5% of the vote in a field without a top competitor? Yes. From Romney's pespective spokesman Kevin Madden says: " The campaigns that didn't compete knew they couldn't win and the ones that did choose to compete finished far behind. We won with a very wide margin, a very positive message and emerge from this effort as the campaign that can carry the conservative mantle for the Republican party here in Iowa and across the country." But the reality is that he spent millions, by some calculations $4.5M to garner just over 4500 votes. It is a huge outlay for a state whose importance in January is now in question. A rival aide's take: "Not only did they have to buy the votes they received, the turnout operation they have been crowing about for months was by all accounts a complete and total failure. " All that said did he win when he had to, organize his team and get in a trial run for the Iowa caucus? Yes.
HUCKABEE: Lives to fight another day and poses a threat to drain social conservatives away from both Romney and Fred Thompson. If he can bring in some real money and develop an organization he stands to be competitive in the newly important South Carolina race.
BROWNBACK: A rival describes his performance : "He went all in at the table and came up with just a pair of fives." Perhaps all those negative attacks on Romney backfired.
THE NON-COMPETITORS: Giuliani and Thompson likely are breathing a sigh of relief that Romney didn't wipe out the field and the turnout was so small as to lessen the importance of the contest.
WARNING: At this stage in the game candidates negatively campaign at their own risk. All those hits on Romney didn't help Brownback and perhaps Romney got a bit off message in the final stretch going after Giuliani on sanctuary cities. Mr. Positive -- Huckabee -- was the surprise of the day. Let's see in the weeks ahead if the candidates agree.
- Let's Return to the Gold Standard
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
