- 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, September 8, 2007
A Lot Can Change in a Week
Posted by on 9.8.07 @ 5:23PM
Huckabee on NPR
Posted by on 9.8.07 @ 12:51PM
I just heard Mike Huckabee on NPR's snarky liberal game show, Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. After eight years of George W., and Presidential campaigns back beyond memory, it's almost amazing to hear a candidate who is genuinely nimble and charming in speech.
A couple of years ago, the show had Barack Obama on as a guest contestant, and he made much the same impression.
If the election were to pit Huckabee against Obama, it would be great entertainment.
N.B., Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, week in and week out, can be counted on to display the absolute worst of current liberal arrogance. Host Peter Sagel today said that President Bush had said the country would have to wait for General David Petraeus's report to know exactly how things were going in Iraq. Said Sagel, "This is kind of like Edgar Bergen saying we'll have to wait and see what Charlie McCarthy has to say."
This breathtakingly ignorant insult follows the week's line from Democrats, of course, that the General's report is really "the Bush report."
Re: Federalist Fred on Marriage
Posted by on 9.8.07 @ 12:59AM
Phil, I think I'm with Glenn Reynolds on this one. I can't think of anything less federalist in spirit than the Constitution being amended to tell STATE courts what to do. But I confess that I have never been a fan of court "stripping" measures like some that were kicked around the Reagan Justice Department to deprive courts(federal ones in that case--they never would have dreamed of messing with state ones) of jurisdiction over items like busing. There are far better remedies for the excesses of the courts(especially in state systems where lifetime appointments are rare) than mucking with an independent judiciary. I liked the old Thompson and current McCain and Rudy position: a constitutional amendment at this stage is a solution in search of a problem. For now, let's see if the good courts of Iowa for example can straighten this out or those fine voters who all the candidates fawn over can fix this through other means.
The weakest candidate in the Race
Posted by on 9.8.07 @ 12:28AM
Thompson is, according to the esteemed Rick Brookhiser at NRO. The comment of the week:
"Fred Thompson came to the offices of National Review
some years when he was still in the Senate. I liked him fine. He
has done nothing, anywhere, ever. The Hubble Telescope could not
find what he has done, because he has not done it."
Re: In the Company of Implications
Posted by on 9.8.07 @ 12:17AM
"I guess we were mistaken to think that Sen. Thompson actually wanted to have a debate and discuss issues and not just read a script for the cameras. We're still willing should he decide he was serious. As for his comment regarding Bill Richardson and Gov. Huckabee, we're not at all offended since Governor Richardson is also willing to face real questions. Like Governor Huckabee, he has actually served as the CEO of a governrment and understands that the job requires getting results."
Rudy on OBL
Posted by on 9.8.07 @ 12:08AM
Spokewoman Maria Comella sends on this transcript of Rudy"s comments in Largo, FL on the tape released today:
MAYOR GIULIANI: I haven’t seen it yet, so I don’t know what he said. I think that it’s, look it’s inevitable if he makes and sends it out it’s going to be released, that’s what a free press is all about. We can all get angry about that, but in a way, better that we hear what he has to say and evaluate it. I think that it indicates somethings, as all these do, some good things and bad things that emerge from it. The good part that emerges from it is he’s obviously in hiding and obviously restricts what he can do. That’s a good thing. The bad thing is we haven’t captured him yet and we haven’t brought him to justice. And, I for one think that’s a very important thing to do. I think it’s very important, and I have to separate myself here from my own personal feelings about it, which are very strong because of firsthand seeing what he did and losing so many friends. But the second part of it is-- I think even if I were removed from it I’d realize that the way Islamic terrorism works, individual figures are enormously important. There’s a charismatic impact they have, a perverse one, but a charismatic impact they have, so that if you could take them out, prosecute them or remove them or get them out of circulation, I’d think you’d have an impact on their ability to function. Particularly if you could take out some of his lieutenants with him. So we shouldn’t push this aside as a secondary objective. It’s a very, very important objective to capture him and take him out. And finally, the other thing that emerges from it is, I think there are people who want to minimize the threat of Islamic terrorism. There’s a Time Magazine article about me that I’m encouraging people to read, because although it’s critical of me, I’m actually proud of it. It says that I exaggerate Islamic terrorism. I don’t. I don’t. I think, in fact I don’t think I or anyone else has the ability to explain it to you in quite the way that it should be explained. It is a threat. It isn’t the threat that the Russians or the Soviets were during the Cold War. It’s a different kind of threat--that was a more pervasive threat. This is a more aggressive threat and you’ve got to react to it at the level at which it sits. You can’t brush it under the rug and when I listen to the Democratic debates, I’ve said this for some time now, they don’t mention the word Islamic terrorism. There’s a whole tendency going on in some of the academic world and in some of the political world, of a certain kind of ideology to want to minimize this. Let’s go back to when it considered only a criminal act like we did during the
Friday, September 7, 2007
David Broder Won't Like This
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 8:13PM
Remember when David Broder got all excited that Thompson was going to tackle entitlements and talk substantively about the huge trainwreck ahead. Well, never mind. From Thompson on the bus in Iowa: I have no plan, let's convene a committee. No, really.
"Asked whether he thought payroll taxes should increase, benefits should decrease, or the retirement age should go up, Thompson demurred. He talked about the need for a strong economy and said the next president should promise to convene a group immediately after being elected that will commit to tackling the social security issue and other entitlement reform.
'It would have to be in the context of discussions about everything else. By everything else, I'm talking about our whole entitlement situation. Social is not really as imminent. It has to be a global deal,' he said. 'It's not necessary at this stage of the game exactly what you would insist upon or not insist upon at this stage of the game. That would probably be counterproductive.'"
Thank goodness we have Thompson to tell us we have an entitlement problem and it's not so good to talk specifics now. And a committee--who would have thought.
Re: Fred in Hot Water
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 6:38PM
Grover Norquist
elegantly responds to Thompson's excuse for supporting the issue ad
ban: "Participation in writing, voting for or speaking nicely about
the Feingold/McCain campaign finance reform is something to
apologize for. Not explain."
Fleeing (McCain) Feingold
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 6:27PM
I do think the fact that all the top-tier Republican presidential candidates once supported McCain-Feingold, and that all of them except for McCain seem to be changing their position, makes the campaign finance issue less of a problem for Thompson.
Campaign Duels
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 6:10PM
A Thompson opponent sends this to point out his toughening stance on immigration:
"[B]ecause we allowed ourselves to wait until we woke up one day and found 12 million illegals here, there's no easy solution. And I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)
Meanwhile, the Thompson folks are mum so far on any response to Club for Growth on the issue ad ban but say the other guys changed their position on campaign finance reform. [I'm lost on this defense -- so Thompson is still in favor of issue ads and McCain-Feingold??] :
WHERE THEY'VE BEEN ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM...Then And Now - A Study In Conflicting Statements
MITT ROMNEY
Then
1994: Romney Wanted To Abolish Political Action Committees (PACs)
And Implement Campaign Spending Limits. "Romney also said he
advocates spending limits on congressional elections, even
suggesting that the current race against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
should have a $ 6 million spending cap...As for campaign finance
reform, Romney called for abolishing political action committees
and tightening regulations of the process by which limits on
campaign contributions to individuals can be legally bypassed."
(Frank Phillips, "Romney, Vowing To Live It, Touts Congress Reform
Plan," Boston Globe, 7/7/94)
2002: Romney Proposed Taxing Political Contributions To Finance Public Campaigns. "...he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately." (Richard Nangle, "Clean Election advocates keep pushing; Common Cause to ask Romney's assistance," Telegram & Gazette (Massachusetts), 11/14/02)
Now 2007: Romney Opposes McCain-Feingold, Calling It "One Of The Worse Things In My Lifetime." (Alexander Bolton, "Romney's About-Face On Campaign Funding," The Hill, 2/8/07)
RUDY GIULIANI
Then
2000: Giuliani Said He Was A "Very, Very Strong Supporter Of
McCain-Feingold For A Long, Long Time Now." "...Giuliani is an
ardent supporter of campaign finance reform as well. As he was
contemplating a run for the Senate in 2000, Giuliani told Wolf
Blitzer that he was a 'very, very strong supporter of Campaign
Finance Reform,' adding that he'd been 'a very strong supporter of
McCain-Feingold for a long, long time now.'" (Tom Bevan,
"Deconstructing Giuliani," RealClearPolitics, 8/10/2006).
Now 2007: Giuliani Supported The Supreme Court's Decision In The Wisconsin Right To Life Case Which Struck Down Part Of McCain-Feingold. ("More on WRTL: Reaction Roundup," LatestPolitics.com, http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/06/more-on-wrtl.html, accessed 7/19/07).
Arthur Branch or Eeyore
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 5:50PM
Re: In the Company of Implications
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 5:12PM
Huckabee has taken Thompson at his word. His campaign says he sent Thompson a letter which reads: "I am aware of your comments on Fox News that you would like to participate in a series of Lincoln Douglas-styled debates. I would like to officially accept your offer." No word yet on how Thompson will say "never mind."
UPDATE: That didn't take long. Todd Harris from camp Thompson
replies to my inquiry: "He ought to get together with Bill
Richardson and have a potential running mates debate." Cute or
condescending? You decide.
Is OBL Gunning for the Green Party Nomination?
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 4:43PM
Reading through the Osama bin Laden transcript, it's amazing how much it reads like a rant from a Berkeley undergrad or member of the Green Party. It's complete with attacks on neoconservatives as well as Democrats for perpetuating war because they are just as beholden to big corparations. He criticizes Bush's decision to pull out from the Kyoto treaty and praises Noam Chomsky by name. Crazy stuff.
McCain on Bin Laden Video
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 4:08PM
He was first out of the gate as far as I can tell:
"The release of the purported bin Laden video starkly reminds us that there is no greater responsibility for a president than to protect America from attack and to command our military forces in a time of war against a barbaric enemy -- an enemy plotting every day to kill Americans.
"Osama bin Laden and his henchmen must be hunted down -- and as president, I will. Al Qaeda terrorists and the violent, aggressive ideology they propagandize must be defeated across the globe, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, which bin Laden's top lieutenant calls al Qaeda's central battlefront against the United States. My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare.
"This is no time for equivocation and waffling from politicians on the need to succeed in Iraq. As Ronald Reagan would say, now is a time for choosing. With General Petraeus set to testify before Congress next week, we can choose to continue to support the new strategy and the real progress -- not apparent progress -- our troops have made against our enemies in Iraq. Or, we can choose the path of surrender by undermining our current military campaign through funding cutoffs and congressionally mandated troop withdrawals.
"You know where I stand. I believe you can't be serious about fighting the war on terror unless you are serious about fighting and defeating al Qaeda in Iraq. We can succeed if we don't lose our resolve."
Look for Democratic candidates to come out saying that this reinforces the failure of Bush's War on Terror policies by pursuing an unneccesary war rather fight the real enemy.
In the Company of Implications
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 3:45PM
None of our regulars, I'm sure, will be surprised to hear that amongst the deluge of media attention Fred Thompson's entry into the race generated it was our own peerless AmSpec captain Wlady who got in the best, wittiest line during an interview with Investor's Business Daily's Sean Higgins. The relevant graph for those who may have missed it:
Wlady Pleszczynski, editorial director for the conservative American Spectator magazine, says the long, slow rollout of Thompson's campaign has backfired.
"So far this year he's been a big tease, and . . . (it has) undermined his implied claims to being a real man. A real man doesn't have things both ways," Pleszczynski said.
The rest lives here.
Fred In Hot Water Over Issue Ad Ban
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 3:25PM
Thompson's testing days are over and he is now into the pool and some hot water over his comments today on McCain Feingold. Fred Thompson went on Laura Ingraham's radio show this morning.(H/T Politico.) She is no thrower of softballs and asked Thompson about his support of McCain Feingold, and specifically the issue ad ban that was an anathema to most conservatives and First Amendment activists. Thompson began to talk about soft money but Laura would not let him dodge. He seemed to deny that the issue ad ban was a big deal at the time and contended "they" put it in the bill, although conceding he voted for it. I asked Club for Growth which has been relentless in their opposition to restrictions on free speech, about Thompson's remarks. ( His record in this regard was a significant blemish in their otherwise mostly positive White Paper on Thompson published this week.) David Keating, Club for Growth's Executive Director, about Thompson's remarks. He said: "Everyone hated the original bill's ban on speech by citizen groups, save for the campaign finance nut groups and politicians." As to the specifics, he provided this detailed rebuttal to Thompson's comments:
"Fred Thompson had an extended chat with Laura Ingraham and at about 9:45 into the program the conversation turns to the McCain Feingold assault on free speech.Thompson says at about the 10:55 mark 'the issue ad thing wasn't even being discussed as far as I remember when the first debates were had and the first bill was proposed. It was a matter of whether you wanted to get rid of soft money.' At 11:45, he says 'they added on something that was a mistake -- and that is the issue ad that you were talking about, and I voted for all of it. So I support the first part [the ban on soft money to parties], but I don't support that.'
Fact: He did support it. You can debate about what you support when you vote for a bill on final passage that has warts, but when you sponsor a bill, it's your work. No one makes you sponsor your own bill. Take a look for yourself at title II of S. 27, the so-called 'Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001.' Title II has limits on issue ads. Now the late Sen. Wellstone offered an amendment, and made the provision even worse. But the original bill still prevented groups like the NRA, NTU and the Sierra Club from running ads to lobby Congress or candidates without going through a ridiculous set of hoops to do it.Fred, yes it was a mistake. But it was your mistake. Admit you were wrong. Call for repeal of this provision that tramples on the First Amendment."
Thompson of course did not just vote for or sponsor or act as Senate floor manager for the bill. He submitted a brief to the Supreme Court defending not only the soft money ban but the issue ad ban. See here. (Keating points out that the lion share of the brief was on soft money although he urges Thompson to "go back and see what he did. Admit the error, and call for a correction. And file an amicus brief on the side of free speech in the next legal challenge to this horrible provision.")
As Keating put it, the "abysmal idea of regulating citizen speech" is a problem for conservatives. Thompson's first crack at the answer is not going to suffice.
Federalist Fred on Marriage
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 2:34PM
Ryan Sager, on the trail with Fred Thompson in Iowa, reports that Thompson has come out in favor of a marriage amendment, though of a different sort than one that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Thompson would support amending the constitution to ensure that state legislatures, not judges, determine the definition of marriage and to make sure that those states that do not choose to recognize gay marriages would not be forced to recognize gay couples who go out of state just to get married.
I'd like to hear more details, but this strikes me as the proper approach to the issue, so much so that I actually wrote a column last year making a similar proposal. The problem with the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment is that it denies citizens of individual states the ability to decide whether their state should allow gay marriage, which goes much further than merely getting "activist judges" out of the decision making process.
Michael Greve, who is the director of the Federalism Project at AEI, has proposed the possible text of a different kind of amendment that would essentially constitutionalize the Defense of Marriage Act. He wrote:
To guard against the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage from sea to shining sea, a constitutional amendment must guard both against the invention of a federal constitutional right and against the undesired exportation of same-sex marriages from one state into another. Such an amendment might read as follows:
(1) The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require the federal government, or any state or territory, to define marriage as anything except the union of one man and one woman.[7]
(2) The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require any state or territory to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of another state or territory.
Not only would such an approach represent a much more restrained view of federal power, but it would have a much better chance of gaining political support.
In last year's column, I wrote:
It's easy for someone to favor state's rights when doing so benefits one's own position, but the true test of whether somebody is serious about state's rights is if that person is willing to tolerate outcomes in other states that conflict with one's own views. By allowing states to define marriage on their own terms, conservatives would be proving that federalism is not a tactic, but a principle.
Kudos to Fred for making a principled stand for federalism at a time when he could have just as easily come out in favor of the more aggressive amendment to appeal to social conservatives.
UPDATE: Here's the video.
Hsu Suicide Talk
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 1:06PM
Drudge has a headline up "Suicide Attempt? Hsu Rushed to Hospital..." but the story he links to has no such mention of suicide, nor can I find any other such reference. It seems premature for such speculation.
Now This Is Smart
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 11:59AM
Romney communications team is active this morning, putting out word of his tax savings plan to allow tax fee savings for Americans earning less than $200,000 and the coverage thereof. A specific plan, a good roll out and a nice riposte to those who think Republicans only like rich people (we're talking about Democrats but also Huck). Despite a rocky debate earlier in the week this is a fine way for Romney to end the week. (Did anyone else notice he has a schedule with 5 Iowa appearances on Saturday? Trying to make a point about an opponent's less than packed day, perhaps.)
The Arthur Branch Problem
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 11:39AM
Re: McCain Survival Watch
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 11:14AM
Phil, I have shared your belief that McCain is far from done. This interview with Charles Black, one of his longtime friends and a GOP guru, makes the point that for a man who has been through what he has, a campaign shake up and drop in the polls is pretty small beans. McCain still may not win -- perhaps an election cycle too late or an immigration reform wound too deep -- but he will be a factor in the race and stands as good a chance as anyone in New Hampshire. The interchange with Romney at the debate should be put in an ad (I know they have no money but how much could an online ad cost?) -- it is the rationale for his run and the reason why some still think he is the most consistent conservative in the race.
McCain Survival Watch
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 10:12AM
Back in July I predicted that McCain would benefit from lower expectations, writing that the "media love stories of a fall from grace, but they also love a great comeback." Well, today the NH Union Leader has an editorial up headlined "McCain reborn: A comeback begun." It reads:
McCain spent two days campaigning here before the debate at the University of New Hampshire. Reporters we've talked with say he is his old self again. Freed from the constraints of a national campaign and rejuvenated by direct interaction with New Hampshire voters, he has found renewed vigor and energy.
That was apparent Wednesday night as McCain emerged from the debate the clear and convincing winner. National pundits have written off McCain. But he is showing that the reports of his political death are premature. And he is breathing new life into his campaign in the only place such a feat is possible: in New Hampshire.
Campaign Spot on Latest Thompson Changes
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 9:54AM
NRO's Jim Geraghty explains the latest Thompson staff changes. Self-explanatory.
Re: Not Just the 202 Area Code
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 6:48AM
If Leno's audience is a cross section of America then about half the viewers are registered to vote. Phil is likely right-- the NH debate probably had more registered voters(who else would suffer through one of these?) watching than did Leno. Here's some more math: 200 X 2=400. According to Des Moines Register, that's the total number Thompson got to turn out in Iowa at the two events. The Washington Post lost no time in pointing out Obama had 15,000 for his first event. But isn't there more to a campaign than raising a lot of money, turning out big crowds, coming up with policy proposals, and keeping staff for more than two weeks in a row? I'm thinking, I'm thinking...
Beyond the numbers, Rich Lowry and David Keene of American Conservative Union raise some questions on the "consistent conservative" line. Keene remarks: "He may not have taken many positions that will be subject to open attack, but neither has his record produced any real bragging rights.The way in which he's tried to handle the conservative criticism of his role in passing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation while he was in the Senate, however, does not make one feel particularly sanguine about his chances." Lowry is more measured, noting of his record: "Thompson has a more consistent conservative record than Romney or Giuliani. But, a product of the moderate-conservative Tennessee GOP, he was never a firebrand either. In the gotcha environment of the primary race, Thompson will have to defend past heterodoxies on abortion, immigration, campaign-finance reform and tort reform. The deeper problem, though, is that what ails the Republican Party isn't a lack of down-the-line conservatism. Republicans need more fresh thinking, and Thompson's devotion to federalism emphatically doesn't count. In terms of domestic policy, the best news in the Republican race so far is that Romney and Giuliani have offered forward-looking health-care proposals. Thompson will have to excel in the ideas race rather than rest on a conservative voting record."
UPDATE: Another report that Thompson improved at his second stop.
Re: Not Just the 202 Area Code
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 5:51AM
The Tonight Show scored a 4.7 Nielsen rating on Wednesday night, which if I'm doing my math right translates to about 5.3 million households. (The Futon Critic is the best place I know to find the Nielsen ratings, but they only have the percentage-of-households ratings, not the viewership data that Drudge quotes. For an apples-to-apples comparison, TVNewser shows the debate reaching about 3.2 million households.) That's high for a non-Friday, about a million more households than Leno drew on the nights before and after, but presumably there's an overlap between the Fox News audience and the people who tuned into Leno just to see Fred; Brit Hume mentioned the Thompson appearance, after all. It's quite possible, even likely, that Thompson reached fewer Republican primary voters than the debate did, but of course there's no way to know for sure.
Norman Hsu Alive and Well
Posted by on 9.7.07 @ 1:23AM
The Wall Street Journal reports the Democratic Croesus was arrested late Thursday in Colorado. Perhaps he'd been sent to the Rocky Mountain state to do some advance work for next year's Democratic National Convention in Denver.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Not Just the 202 Area Code
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 11:32PM
Earlier this week, Todd Harris, Thompson's communications director, defended Fred's decision to skip the NH debate in favor of Jay Leno by saying it was a means to reach "everyday normal Americans who don't live in the 202 area code." Well, Drudge has just posted the ratings of the debate, and it seems plenty of viewers outside the beltway watched:
Re: Reports on Fred in Iowa
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 9:18PM
As we surveyed earlier, Thompson got some tough press from a number of quarters. There seems to be zero honeymoon. I asked Larry J. Sabato for a little historic perspective and whether Thompson underperformed or whether expectations unfairly had gotten out of whack. He answered as follows:
"Both, of course. What did his supporters say all through the spring and summer? Fred Thompson is another Ronald Reagan. We all knew Reagan. He was a President of ours, and Thompson is no Reagan. No one could be. Reagan is iconic and has become a myth.Questions are starting to be raised about his health, his commitment, his fundraising, his high staff turnover. Thompson's opponents made it clear last night that he's a big, tempting target and they won't hold back to allow him to get any momentum. I agree with Thompson that it may not be a good thing for a President to have a lot of fire in the belly; too much ambition can lead to disaster, at least in some cases, and it's rarely attractive. But think back. Other than Gerald Ford, who was appointed to the Presidency, have we really had Presidents without the fire? Not good news for Fred. But maybe there's more fire there than we've seen so far."
It is noteworthy that in the Thompson communications team email sent out to tout their online hits and house party numbers they included this line: "While the press has been quick to state that Fred Thompson's campaign is lacking, the campaign's political department, in concert with the eCampaign team, organized over 220 house parties, spread over 40 states."
When knocked back a bit on your heels it is easy, and often accurate, to blame the media. But you still have to fill up venues, fundraise and make your case. If you don't do that, the media is the least of your worries.
UPDATE: The second event of the day may have been better.
Fred Filing
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 6:16PM
I and some others have speculated that Thompson might jigger his annoucement and filing dates to avoid filing his Third Quarter FEC disclosure until the end of January. Last night by e-mail communications director Todd Harris ruled that out and confirmed he will file on October 15. Hiding the ball from press and potential donors would not have been a good tactic at this stage. The danger: he comes in with a number below Huckabee or McCain.
Reports on Fred in Iowa
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 5:40PM
This and this don't sound so hot for the Fred folks. The one number that sticks out is 200 --the crowd for the first event. It's not Brownback size but it's not so big, especially for the opening day. I think Wlady gets the prize for cautioning me not to suggest that Fred do a live start in a throng of supporters because they might have a tough time turning out the throng. More later as reports come in.
UPDATE: A more positive account. And a neutral one indicating he focused on terrorism and immigration but left out the entitlement theme today and maybe shouldn't joke about getting by with just a film debut. And one more-- commenting on the smooth delivery but so-so crowd. But the one that counts from the dean of the Iowa press corps David Yepsen( H/T Marc Ambinder) :
"It wasn't very impressive.The crowd of a few hundred didn't seem enthused. Thompson's oratory didn't soar but was somewhat rambling. . .[A]s the Thompson campaign winds it's way across Iowa for the next two days, the actor might want to work on his lines. Punch up the message. Lose the note cards. Pump up the volume. Give us a little stump oratory. And how about a specific policy initiative or two? Otherwise, Republican activists won't be impressed. They'll be disappointed. Thompson won't live up to their expectation that he could be their savior. They'll start drifting to other candidates."
Fred in Iowa
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 4:22PM
Here's some video. Substantively, nothing we haven't heard before. But he seems to have kicked up the energy level a few notches.
Enslave Jon Chait!
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 4:16PM
"[I]f tax rates were 100% I would still work anyway," he writes. "Why not? It beats sitting home all day. I wouldn't work as hard, but I'd work. The government would get revenue from me."
Except that it wouldn't, because no one would pay him. Writing hit pieces for a magazine that doesn't care if they print lies is easy and fun work. Actually distributing those magazines is less fun, and many of the jobs that readers, ad buyers, and other magazine benefactors do -- not to mention the jobs that keep all those people fed, clothed, and sheltered -- are less fun still. The idea that Chait's job would exist in an economy made up entirely of people who would happily work for free is sheer lunacy.
There's a vigorous cross-blog debate going on over Chait's new book, with Megan McArdle generally taking the side of the angels. I do have some quibbles with some of Megan's points, but why bother wading in? Arguing over a book on economic policy seems unlikely to be an edifying exercise when the author obviously understands about as much about economics as I understand about quantum physics.
Re: Club for Growth on Fred
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 3:33PM
Re: Reason 999
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 3:13PM
Jennifer, now THAT is funny! I do think that forcing Mills out was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of indicating that the Thompson team wasn't merely in flux as it organized, but seems in permanent flux, right up to and probably at least a little bit past the announcement itself. As far as I can tell, everybody likes Mills. I've only met him once -- had a burger with him about 10 years ago -- but I remember being very impressed with him. Meanwhile, the departure of Corallo, who ran the non-campaign from his back pocket when it was getting so many raves (raves in part because of Thompson's own substance and performances and in part because of Corallo's brilliant tactics), quite evidently in response to the shabby treatment of Mills, is another bad sign. Corallo enjoys great respect in this town. (Full disclosure: Corallo has been a good friend of mine ever since college days 20 years ago; but I also have friends strongly supporting/involved with several of the other candidates.) I repeat that I think Thompson still offers great potential. I am rooting for him to reach that potential as a candidate, just as I have been wishing good things for a number of the candidates. But I think the announcement left much to be desired. I have confidence he can do better.
Okay, now I go back to my above-the-horse-race stance that I have briefly abandoned for the past two days..... (I just couldn't keep myself from commenting on the long-awaited FT entrance once he actually got in!)
Rudy and the Garden State
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 3:08PM
Over at TNR, Peter Keating (an ironic name to any Ayn Rand fans) has argued that Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama have gotten their electoral strategies all wrong. Specifically regarding Rudy, he writes:
In the most recent polls conducted by Survey
USA , Hillary Clinton is crushing Giuliani by 22 points inNew York and 17 points in. Even in California , there's really no hope for Rudy. Jersey Democrats have nominated a parade of dispiriting candidates for statewide office in recent years: the closeted Jim McGreevey; the corrupt Bob Torricelli, replaced by the 147-year-old Frank Lautenberg; the ruthless gazillionaire Jon Corzine; the machine hack Robert Menendez. They all won going away. New Jersey New Jersey , like, just isn't competitive. Illinois
I agree that winning New York and California would be a longshot for Rudy just as it would for any Republican, but I find Keating's argument that "there's really no hope for Rudy" in New Jersey rather weak. First, while he cites the lopsided polling data to make his case against Rudy in New York and California, he ignores polling in his analysis of New Jersey in favor of anecdotal evidence of Democratic success in the state. However, a number of polls have Hillary and Rudy statistically tied there (Quinnipiac has Rudy slightly ahead, and a more recent Rutgers-Eagleton poll has him slightly behind).
Also, Keating misconstrues Giuliani's play for New Jersey as "staking a '9/11 changed everything' claim on voters who have either a geographic or cultural proximity to Ground Zero." However, Giuliani's appeal in the Garden State goes back much further than 9/11. The New Jersey suburbanites who commute into New York City for work or leisure are exactly the kind of people who appreciated Giuliani for cutting crime and cleaning up the city as mayor. Many pockets of northern NJ are demographically and culturally close to the outer borough voters that helped get Giulaini elected mayor twice. Furthermore, in percentage terms, NJ has the third highest Italian-American population in the country at 17.9 percent.
Giuliani's detractors may argue that NJ is ultimately too Democratic, that it's proved a tease before, that Italian Catholics won't vote for Rudy, and that ultimately he won't carry the state. But to say he has "no hope" is quite a stretch in the absence of empirical evidence to support such a claim, and the presence of empirical evidence disputing it.
Reason #999 Why The Press Loves Jim Mills
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 2:44PM
Fred Thompson did himself no favors by firing (or forcing out or however he does it) Jim Mills, a delightfully funny and enormously well liked newsman. Jim had this to say via e-mail about his experience at the Thompson camp: "As far as I can tell -- the only people who haven't worked in the Fred Thompson press shop this summer are Larry Craig and that woman astronaut who wore those diapers cross country." What is he doing next? "I am currently checking in with my Catholic friends to see if they can recommend for me any local priests who still perform exorcisms." Oh my. Jim will do just fine after this --now there's a fellow who should go on Jay Leno.
Why Didn't Rudy Bring His 12 Commitments to NH?
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 2:23PM
Just double-checked the debate transcript to make sure I was not mistaken, and it turns out that in last night's debate Giuliani made no mention of his 12 Commitments. This strikes me as odd. He spent the summer rolling out details on his commitments and has gotten positive reviews. This seems like something he would want to discuss at every opportunity, especially among Republicans in
It Comes With Being In the Top Tier
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 1:35PM
Hunting Hsu
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 12:46PM
Flip Pidot visits one of the addresses attributed to fugitive Democrat fundraiser Norman Hsu.
Why Not Duncan Hunter?
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 12:17PM
It occurs to me that if the pundit class's expectations game weren't so effective at defining the race, the candidate who should clearly be very much ensconced in the top tier is Duncan Hunter. He has performed well at EVERY debate. He has a superb record dating back more than 26 years of supporting a strong defense, cutting taxes, standing up for life, and fighting illegal immigration. In the straw polls where he has had a chance to really do one-on-one campaigning -- Arizona, South Carolina, Texas -- he has done well, indeed very well. He's a superb one-on-one campaigner. He also has a good mix of issues in terms of how they should play in New Hampshire and South Carolina. He can grab a lot of California delegates in the new, NON-winner-take-all system there. He is one heck of a nice guy. There's nothing fake about him. He is a veteran and the father of a soldier (or is it a Marine?). He knows his stuff. And he does terrifically on talk radio.
No, he's not perfect. He's a little too protectionist for my tastes -- although he explains his position quite well. He hasn't proved a serious ability to raise money -- but then again, that's largely a result of having no pundits take him seriously enough to give him much press. And occasionally (but not often), he falls into the Bob Dole habit of Congress-speak, talking too much about amendments and bill numbers and legislative process, etc. But if life were fair, he would be considered a top-tier candidate.
Re: Late in the 4th Quarter
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 12:10PM
You are right, Wlady, but forgiveness I think must follow and not precede recognition and remorse by the wrongdoer and Craig has done neither. In addition to his terrible political judgment Arlen Specter has done his colleague a great moral and psychological disservice. By encouraging this bizare "clear his name" gambit he has only prolonged the self-reckoning and then the forgiveness which must follow.
Re: C-Plus for Thompson
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 12:04PM
At the risk of making this a habit, I agree with 99% of what you say, Quin, with one quibble and one addition. Given all you say I don't see how Thompson might be the best candidate against Hillary. His opponents have problems too but he doesn't strike me as the fellow to convince others beyond the core GOP base that he's the one to get the country on the right track. In addition to all you note about his Jay Leno appearance, I go back to the setting -- a cheesy late night show(Johnny Carson it ain't). If you are trying to be the gravitas guy it seems a classier setting would have set a better tone. Hawking Newt's ideas to make the debates more substantive lost some credibility when delivered from Jay's couch (really it is a chair). More for those who haven't heard it all by now, here.
UPDATE: Rush agrees on the setting.
Re: Late in the 4th Quarter
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 11:03AM
There's also a great tradition of forgiveness. It keeps wretched man from turning into a permanent lyncher.
Club for Growth on Fred
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 11:01AM
Their report on Fred Thompson is out. It praises him for his record on spending and taxes, but criticizes him on tort reform and McCain-Feingold. Here's the summation:
His record on spending (save the occasional pork project) is generally impressive, as demonstrated by his votes to restrict the growth and reach of the federal government. On regulation, too, Thompson voted generally against government intrusion in the private sector. Many Republican politicians talk about limited government and the principle of federalism but Thompson exemplified those ideas, often voting against bills that would have made it easy for a political opponent to paint him in a negative light.
While this strong federalist philosophy casts a redemptive light on his opposition to tort reform, it does not fully excuse or explain a number of his votes. His persistent federalism also makes his role in the passage of McCain-Feingold all the more disappointing. It is difficult to reconcile Thompson's fervent belief in a limited government with his enthusiasm for increasing government regulation on political speech. Thompson has never adequately addressed this contradiction and will have to do so. His recent doubts over the legislation's efficacy are encouraging, least of all because all politicians make mistakes, and rare are those willing to admit their own.
C-Plus for Thompson
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 10:47AM
Fred Thompson had a chance -- several chances -- to make a great entrance into the race. He failed. Instead, he made merely a fair-to-middling entrance. His Leno appearance started well, but he has a serious problem with filibustering without good reason. His answers ramble way too much and go on way too long.
His TV commercial and his announcement speech both suffered from serious Bobble-Head-Doll-itis. My gosh, I almost got seasick watching his head jiggle all over the place. And while his substance in all three appearances (Leno, commercial, web speech) was solid, sober, and thoughtful, it also was a rather themeless pudding. It desperately needs better organization, better pacing -- and far less monotone. His voice is just terrific for short answers and for one-minute radio commentaries. But over the course of longer answers or of longer speeches, it becomes almost soporific. He DOES keep hitting good points throughout, from a philosophically reassuring position, and a viewer gets the overall impression that he is a man of common-sense and good judgment. But there's also something a little grating about the overall effect -- the monotone, the bobble-head, the huge circles under his eyes, the occasional jowliness that approaches a hang-dog look.
I like him. He has tremendous potential. I think he has the raw material to win the election, and I think his issue stances and thoughtfulness would serve him well in office. I think he's basically a good man. But he still has yet to prove that he can actually run an organization. His record in the Senate was one of decent voting but only modest accomplishments. I remember being disappointed by his performance in the Senate. Meanwhile, his staff turnover has gone beyond initial growing pains into a serious indicator of something not-quite-right -- at the very least, of a callousness about the lives of individuals who would otherwise serve him. If President G.W. Bush can be accused of being TOO loyal to his inner circle, Thompson can rightly be accused of the opposite fault: It's-all-about-Fred-itis. If people aren't mere cogs to him -- AND if organizational/executive ability is something that he actually possesses -- then Thompson needs to show that he knows how to attract AND KEEP good people, and that he knows what he is looking for in the first place so that he doesn't hire good people who he then kicks out the door merely because he didn't know what he was looking for.
I think he is a good addition to the race. He might be a good nominee, perhaps the one with the best chance to beat Hillary. He might be a good president. But so far he remains an example of only-partially-tapped potential. And his announcement speech wasn't flat-out bad, but it was definitely a let-down.
Damascus Dennis
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 10:26AM
Kucinich visits Bashar Assad in Syria and praises the country for taking Iraqi refugees. It's one thing for an American to be opposed to the Iraq War or U.S. foreign policy in general, but it never ceases to amaze me that alleged pacifism often leads people to embrace violent foreign dictators, in this case the leader of a nation that is one of largest state sponsors of terrorism, which is disrupting peace in Lebanon and Israel by funding Hezbollah and assassinating any strong independent leaders in the neighboring country. The only explanation is that it isn't pacifism that drives people like Kucinich, it's contrarianism.
Fenty And Miller, Sitting In A Tree...
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 9:55AM
...making up nonsense to keep handguns from you and me!
That pretty much describes the effort of our esteemed mayor and district attorney in the WaPo yesterday. For example, they state:
The central meaning of the Second Amendment has long been settled in the courts. The last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the provision -- which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- was in 1939, in a case called United States v. Miller. The court said that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" is to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right to own weapons for one's own purposes.
Actually, U.S. v. Miller didn't settle things at all. Rather, it sends mixed messages, suggesting that an invididual right to own guns is vital to ensure the continuation of the militia. For example, the decision notes "that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Furthermore, in U.S. v. Miller the Court looked at the right to own a short-barrel shotgun. The Court stated that it could find no Second Amendment right to own such a gun because it was "not within judicial notice that this weapon [was] any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." By implication, then, such a weapon could be protected by the Second Amendment if it was part of ordinary military equipment.
Fenty and Miller want you to believe that U.S. v. Miller settled the matter in favor of people not having an individual right to own guns, when it does no such thing. You can bet that they won't be the last to distort that decision for the purpose of upholding the D.C. gun ban.
And, of course, gun control advocates like Fenty and Miller can't resist making an argument for which there is no evidence:
Against this backdrop, the D.C. Council decided in 1976 to ban almost all private possession of handguns, while allowing residents to possess properly registered rifles and shotguns. The council's reasoning was as right then as it is now. Because handguns are involved in crimes, accidents and suicides far more often than other firearms, it makes perfect sense to ask that residents who want firearms at home choose something other than handguns.
If that was true, the areas with high rates of handgun ownership should have high rates of gun deaths and areas with hadgun bans should have lower rates of gun deaths. There is no evidence supporting that.
Then there is this howler:
The handgun ban has saved countless lives, but this fundamental part of the District's public safety laws will be no more if the Supreme Court does not review and overturn this year's decision by the D.C. Circuit.
Once you've picked yourself up off the floor in hysterics, you can quickly point out that D.C. has had one of the highest murder rates in the nation. So how many lives has the handgun ban really prevented? My guess is that it has actually caused more deaths than it has saved by preventing law-abiding people from defending themselves.
Finally, Fenty and Miller state, "Although handguns might still be trafficked into the District illegally from other jurisdictions, the last thing the District needs is even more handguns."
No, the first thing the District needs is more handguns. We need them in the hands of law-abiding citizens so they can defend themselves. When criminals are afraid that the people they intend to murder, rape, assualt or burgle might be able to shoot them, they will commit less murders, rapes, assualts and burglaries.
But you can count on the likes of Fenty and Miller to never understand that.
Well, We Know Where the WaPo Stands
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 9:25AM
If this article is any indication, expect completely biased coverage from the Washington Post on the D.C. handgun ban. If you can find a single sentence containing a remark from a person critical of the the District's "reasoning", then you see something that I missed.
Re: He's in the 4th Quarter
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 8:58AM
There is a great tradition of shunning. It transcends many faiths and it seems like a good time to invoke it.
The Surge
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 8:53AM
This take is a good one on the Romney-McCain surge stand off. Is Romney adopting a Lugar like stance-- let's just get out with grace but don't set an immediate deadline -- or does he just not demonstrate the same depth of understanding and passion as McCain does? Romney's argument that we should wait for Petraeus seems an argument aimed at the Democrats from the summer: don't pull the plug when we don't know the facts. Soon, if not now,candidates should be expected to say what THEY think, whether the surge's military successes should translate into a policy shift and what the ultimate definition of "success" is. (Thompson on Leno says making sure Iraqis can vote safely and live a free life. Others have a more American-centric answer.) Romney would do well to give an address and show he has some foreign policy chops.
He's In The 4th Quarter...
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 8:43AM
...there is about 1:06 left, and he's losing 56-10. But he still thinks he can win.
Re; Fred's Entrance
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 6:35AM
The video I thought was fine but not exceptional. The head jiggling thing is worse than in the ad and is quite distracting, especially early on. I don't know why he didn't do a retake or two. The video raises a few issues: 1) He makes a strong case on federalism once again. If this is indeed the source of his issue with the Arlington group on gay marriage then it wouldn't seem this is a problem that could be overcome since it falls into his category of "first principles." 2) His Congressional career got scant mention and there was absolutely no reference to McCain Feingold or the Chinese finance abuse hearings. His opponents will talk far more about his record than he will I predict. 3) His mention of education was a bit tricky since he decried the federal take over of education but voted for No Child Left Behind. Again, this will be fodder for rivals. 4) He talked about both healthcare and entitlement reform and it is here he may do something different than he competitors if he offers some real proposals. This may be the most novel thing about his campaign. 5) He did urge Americans to come together and solve problems. He said, "Americans are once again ready to achieve this great good: security, prosperity and unity of our country" but this was not the soaring optimism of Reagan or the bouncy can do sense you get from Mitt Romney. Today he leaves the studios literally and figuratively. When you take your campaign out for a spin all sorts of things can happen-- good and bad -- and the voters finally get to kick a tire or two. Should be a fun day.
Fred's Entrance
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 1:28AM
After months of buildup, Fred's entrance into the race was mixed. Judging by how slowly his Website was loading, traffic was probably through the roof, so that could be seen as a vindication of the Leno strategy. On the other hand, the appearance on Leno and the announcement video were rather underwhelming. I thought he was perfectly likeable, but not necessarily presidential. He didn't do anything to live up to the enormous expectations by emitting the star power, charisma, or communication skills that have been the basis for much of the enthusiasm about his candidacy. His defense of skipping the debates, by shifting to making fun of the 30-second answer format and giving a nod to Newt Gingrich for his ideas about returning to a Lincoln-Douglas type format, resonated with me as a general comment. However, such high-mindedness seemed silly coming from somebody who chose to launch his candidacy on a Hollywood comedy show. Also, I'm not sure how well this comment is going to be viewed by New Hampshire voters: "For those who talk about that New Hampshire situation, I'm certainly not disrespecting them, but it's a lot more difficult to get on the 'Tonight Show' than it is to get into a presidential debate."
As for the video, a few things struck me. No doubt an attempt to stave off laziness charges, he said early in the announcement that he's going to "give this campaign all I've got to give." There was a lot of talk about national security and economic issues in the announcement, but not social issues. I found that rather odd, because one of the primary rationales for his candidacy is that social conservatives don't have a viable candidate among the current field. This is reinforced by his campaign slogan: "Security-Unity-Prosperity," which could have just as easily been adopted by Rudy Giuliani. Don't get me wrong, I agree with just about everything Thompson said in his video--but from a political perspective it's odd that he wouldn't want to stress social issues more. Stylistically, I found it jarring when the camera would cut back and forth at different camera angles, because it gave the video a staged, over-produced quality that reinforces the style over substance criticism of Thompson. I was happy to hear him discuss Social Security and entitlements, and it looks like that's one issue he'll introduce to the debate, which I think is long overdue.
But overall, I'm just thrilled that he's finally in the race so we can have actual campaign appearances and policy positions to discuss rather than this will-he-or-won't-he and how-will-he parlor game we've been playing for months.
Tonight Show
Posted by on 9.6.07 @ 12:40AM
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Waiting for Fred
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 11:59PM
Having to sit through this mindless "person on the street" sketch about the MTV Music Awards is not making me any more bullish about Fred's decision to ditch the debate in favor of Leno.
McCain's Night
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 11:34PM
At the height of the McCain-is-on-the-verge-of-dropping-out talk, I argued that once the intensity of the anger over the immigration bill died down, and the conversation shifted to Iraq, McCain would have an opening to recover, especially because he was facing lower expectations. I think we saw that tonight. Most of the immigration fight was between Rudy and Romney, and when the debate shifted to Iraq, McCain's emphatic rejoinder to Romney, by saying the surge isn't "apparently" working, it is working, was strong. For months now, the McCain camp has been trying to draw a distinction with Romney, who is hedging his support for the war in Iraq, giving himself some wiggle room to argue for a pullout down the road. McCain got his oppourtunity tonight. Also, the low expectations. In the earlier debates--especially during the immigration battle--the other candidates teed off on McCain. But in this debate, they went out of their way to compliment him, because he wasn't seen as a threat. I still believe that McCain has angered too many conservatives in recent years to ultimately win the nomination, but his strong debate performance tonight shows that he's a survivor who isn't going anywhere. And while his position in the Senate was a liability during the immigration debate, because he was actively pushing for legislation that conservatives opposed, it will be an asset in the coming weeks during the debate about Iraq, when he is fighting passionately on their side.
As for Giuliani, I thought he had another solid performance, which probably won't affect his standing one way or another. He had a series of strong answers, but none of the memorable moments that he had in the earlier debates. The debate enabled him to defend himself against a lot of the issues that people have raised about his candidacy.
I thought Romney did fine, and continued to try and draw a contrast with Rudy. As I noted below, I thought he lacked heart his response to the tough question criticizing his statement about his sons serving their country by trying to get him elected. Also, I'm curious to see how his hedging on Iraq plays out in the coming days and weeks.
I'm going to take a break before the Fred show on Leno. Jim Geraghty already has the transcript, but I prefer to hear it from the horse's mouth, so I'll hold off on reading it.
Wrap
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 11:22PM
McCain helped himself tremendously -reminding us why it is better to have an experienced, sober adult at the helm of American foreign policy. Rudy did nothing to harm himself and helped himself considerbly by explaining why he won't take the ATR pledge( "one oath to the Constitution") and giving the best answer he could to the family values question. Romney needs to react in a human way to voters -- the military father was mad and asked for an apology and Romney seemed indifferent. His "I only raised fees $260M" also didn't help matters. As for Fred, I had the exact same reaction as several other bloggers-forgot him after the initial bashing. The debates are getting duller but they still offer candidates a chance to shine --and McCain shined. And Quin, you don't have to worry about Huck getting the nomination.
Luntz Panel
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:48PM
Sees McCain as the big winner for being direct and straight forward, Rudy as the loser for touting his accomplishments in NYC too much.
Huckabee on the Iran Question
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:42PM
He shows his limited knowledge of international affairs by turning a question about Iran into another one of his homespun lessons about how a president should balance character and the Constitution. It was especially glaring after Duncan Hunter's detailed answer. Another reason why I don't buy this spin about Huckabee being in the top tier. Not only is he sticking a dagger to economic conservatives, but he's absolutely out of his element when discussing foreign policy.
Iran Scenerio
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:42PM
Huckabee seems to be saying the question is too hard, won't answer a hypothetical and get good advisors. OK-this is why he won't be president but he does get the punch Ron Paul award. Rudy says Iran is not going to be allowed to go nuclear and quotes McCain. Rudy mentions Ronald Reagan --first time I think -- winning Cold War by pointing missiles at the Soviet Union. Romney says sign up Democrats first and Hume says "what if they don't?" (So far Chris Wallace and Brit Hume could get a primary state or two.) McCain's tone is sober and solid, lists bill of particulars against Iran and generally sounds like he knows what the heck he's talking about.
Rudy on His Personal Life
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:30PM
His answer that people should judge him by his professional performance, which he achieved despite his private life, is an answer he's given before, and I think it's the strongest response he has when asked about his messy personal life. Some voters will simply be two turned off by the three marriages, and all the tabloidy stuff, but among those who are in play, this is the best possible way to respond.
Cameron at the Diner
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:29PM
He's holding up what looks like a nice brownie. Giuliani asked about family values-- think voter is saying his family isn't as nice as Romney. This is from a poli sci major(what school would it be rude to ask??) Rudy says look at my public life and record. What is noteworthy is his tone-- doesn't bat an eye or get miffed. Says he's running as a "human being" and works in Mafia, reducing crime and managing NYC. On debate points, how you work in facts and how do you steer the question your way he is remarkable. Overall tonight: McCain has helped himself immensely, Romney is just off, Rudy is very solid and has done nothing to harm himself and Huckabee got some play care of Ron Paul. And until now I didn't think of Fred Thompson-- no gaping hole in need of filling it seems.
Rudy
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:22PM
He seems off his game tonight. He keeps returning to stump speech lines about he record as mayor. They're good lines, but he often sounds like he's ducking the questions.
RELATED ADDENDUM: Jennifer says below that Rudy's tax pledge answer was solid; I think it would have been a lot better if he'd actually addressed the commuter tax part of the question.
No Tax Pledge
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:21PM
McCain says he stands on his record which is an issue for him since he opposed Bush tax cuts. Goes back to spending and cutting pork.
Rudy asked about commuter tax increase and signing tax pledge. Says he takes one pledge to uphold the constitution but says he has the strongest record of lowering taxes. "Made supply side economics work in city that didn't understand it." Very solid answer.
Romney asked about 1/2 billion increases in fees. Says only 260M in fees. This is not a good initial response. He jumps over to future plans to lower taxes. In comparison to Rudy's answer just before it seems "eh" on his past record.
Romney and Sacrifice
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:11PM
After Romney was scolded by the NH voter with children serving, who was angry about Romney's comparrison of his sons' trying to get him elected with serving the country, he gave a response that revealed one of the major drawbacks of him as a candidate. He doesn't seem to have the ability to show emotion and convey empathy. The answer he gave was a general one about sacrifice, not tailored to the specific voters. He came off as cold and cerebral, I thought.
McCain on Torture; Rudy on Guantanamo
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:11PM
Says General told him never worth it and would be used as an excuse to torture Americans. Thanks Huckabee. Rudy asked about Guantanamo. We can't close Guantanamo because no one will take them. Other countries won't take them. There is a reality liberal media and Democrats don't get. Gets in his line about never setting a timetable for retreat. He is best when he weaves common sense and attacks on Democrats.
We Broke It
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:06PM
Huckabee says mom told him to pay for it if he broke it. McCain gets major salute for his honor from Huck and calls out Ron Paul too. That'll be on the McCain clips. Unfortunately Ron Paul is given chance to respond and says a small group of Neo-Cons made a mistake. Huckabee retorts-no we are one country.Back to Ron Paul and then to Huckabee defending America's honor. Is Paul on the Huckabee payroll now? In the Iraq debate McCain, Huckabee and Hunter have a level of passion and focus --why Romney focuses on getting out in a GOP primary debate is lost on me.
Carl Cameron in the diner gets a question for Romney on an end game and says he didn't hear end game. Voter says Romney doesn't understand how offended they were by comparing sons' running his campagin to his son serving. says Romney should apologize. Romney says there is no comparison and salutes military service. But, never apologized and seemed strangely remote. Brit Hume pressures Romney on whether he thinks surge is working. Seems to come alive when talks about not giving into Democrats. A little rocky.
Huckabee vs. Paul
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:59PM
Ron Paul is proving a useful foil for other canddates, with Huckabee now using a firey exchange with Paul to burnish his own hawkish credentials.
The Paul Brigade
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:58PM
A huge portion of the audience seems to be behind Ron Paul (who, in case you missed it, just denounced the war in Afghanistan). With all the cheering and booing I half-expect the audience to break into a fight.
The moderators wisely let Huckabee and Paul argue back and forth a bit -- wisely, I mean, because it's great TV.
Ron Paul Strikes Again
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:57PM
Notice that Ron Paul pointedly screamed, "No!" when Chris Wallace followed up rhetorically asking him if he wants to follow Al Qaeda's talking points. That was a contrast to the first uproar Ron Paul caused earlier in the debate when he failed to say "no" when asked if U.S. foreign policy was responsible for 9/11.
Foreign Policy
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:52PM
Does Rudy have foreign policy experience? McCain does not directly take him on but talks about his own role in opposing Rumsfeld and supporting the surge. When chips are down McCain has class, you ahev to give him that. Says he knows war and how the government works and lead largest squadron. Very effective. Rudy says he'd support McCain if he wasn't running but he's better. I'm not running on 9-11 but as Mayor of third largest city. List all he did : facing fiscal crisis, crime crisis, reduced taxes, most conservative government, etc. Romney have a time table? If surge works and says no timetable. Will eventually be in a standby role. See support role in 2008? Romney hesitates, says we should begin to see if surge working and hope for best. McCain says "Governor, the surge is working." Romney tries to interrupt with 'apparently." McCain cuts him off. McCain 1-Romney 0 on that. McCain repeats "Not apparently." This is where McCain shines. Now Chris Wallace is arguing with Ron Paul. Boos.
Marry Who You Love?
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:42PM
Brownback gets booed for saying we should have a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Break Time: McCain looks relaxed but lost ground replowing immigration. Romney is clearly going after Rudy on sanctuary cities but it just sounded goofy to say sanctuary cities were what border guards complained about. Rudy looked like he was having fun and got to talk crime which is always a political gift. By dragging Fred Thompson into the crime and gun question Rudy got to focus on NYC accomplishments rather than directly saying whether it is a good idea to arm college students.
Amnesty
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:35PM
Rudy takes question about amnesty and says this proves his point on failure of Feds to deport illegals. Physical fence and technological fence,which didn't have 10 or 20 years ago, and tamper proof cards. Then we can have legal immigration. McCain says "not amnesty" because his bill required fines and return to their home country among other things. Everytime he goes back to this is lost time and votes for him. Praising greencard holder who fight. Romeny says the "Z" visa allowed everyone to stay and that was amnesty. Back to sanctuary cities as magnets(this is the problem?) and also employers who hire illegals. Back to hitting Giuliani on welcoming illegals.
Sen. Craig question: Oh Brownback is here. Makes family values pitch. Hunter gets a chance too. This seems like a good moment for a hand raise( a tap?) and move on.
How allow abortion in some states asked of Romney if it is murder? Says not where the country is now and this is our aspiration. Is a taking of a human life. Says we have to have concern for the mother and change hearts and minds. Very nicely done. Huckabee avoids bait to take on Rudy and makes his whole life pitch.
Giuliani asked about Fred's claim Va Tech students should have been allowed to own guns and that he didn't feel safe in NY. Giuliani knocks out of ball park on crime--beginning with jab that "FBI would disagree." States have right to decide gun laws and people have a right to own guns. Focus of our laws should be on criminals.
Where's Johnny?
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:32PM
Is it just me, but in the photo Drudge has posted of Fred on Leno tonight, Thompson looks like Don Rickles.
Here's The Craig Question
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:30PM
Brownback: He oughta stick with resigning. Hunter: Ditto. No surprise there.
More Immigration
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:28PM
Rudy was a lot stronger when talking about the security and practical aspects of ending illegal immigration, and Romney clearly isn't letting up on his attacks on sanctuary cities, digging New York at every chance.
Rudy vs. Romney on Illegal Immigration
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:22PM
Pretty much ended up as a recap of a few weeks ago, with Romney
emphasizing he's against amnesty and sanctuary cities and didn't
have power as governor to end it, and Giuliani emphasizing why
practical considerations forced him to uphold the policies he did.
It was a jab at Romney when he said he had to make an intelligent
decision and didn't have "the luxury of
political rhetoric." However, a lot of conservatives agree with
that rhetoric, so Romney may get the better of this issue by taking
the harder line against citizenship now, regardless of whether
he's playing politics or what he said or did in the past.
Start
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:19PM
Huck "gave up" Leno slot to be here with good people of NH. Ron Paul welcomes Thompson for diverting the pro-war vote. Riggght. McCain on Fred- We're up past his bedtime. People expect to see you. Invokes Morris Udall-- "only met him twice" joke-- and tells him to get out into the open. Romney says take more time off. He'll bring a lot to race and "entertainment." Nothing like getting to know the folks. Done 462 events in early states. Rudy says he likes Fred--did good job of playing my aprt on law and Order but I prefer the real thing. Need to earn the nomination. Comes down to experience. Need executive experience and not the time for on the job training. (Does something smart: use funny time question to make a point).
Wallace asks Romney about three sanctuary cities and illegals on his own lawn. Romney says Governors not responsible for mayors. Says he and Giuliani disagree and we should cut federal funding for sanctuary cities. Says Giuliani invited illegals and opposes amnesty. Gets big applause. Wallace asks equally tough question about Giuliani's papst. Giulinai explains executive order and says he had to do something intelligent to fight crime so he allowed illegals to report crimes. Points to low numbers of deportations and says he made NYC the safest large city. Now McCain-- Wallace repeats the varmint gun joke he told about Romney. McCain looks good tonight and relaxed. Says he didn't favor amnesty. Acknowledges American people have lost faith in government. Says committted to securing the border. Huckabee asked about accusing illegal immigration opponents of being "racists". Says we should outsource to "FedEx" who can track people but says he won't be mean spirited. All did well on this.
Fred-Bashing Fest
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:13PM
Hume starts off with a question about Thompson, and everyone takes a jab. Fun.
Debate
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:06PM
Opening at the University of New Hampshire. Cullen Fergus, NH GOP state chair, does the intro and slams Fred -- although not by name -- off that bat by praising debaters and saying better than a 30 second ad. Says candidates have been working hard to earn votes. Major ouch.
Awaiting Campaign '08 Kickoff
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:05PM
Tonight's debate, for all intents and purposes, should be considered the start of the regular season for the 2008 campaign. Now that the summer is over, voters in early states will begin to pay more attention, and so what more fitting way to start things off than a debate in New Hampshire? Fred Thompson, in this context, should be viewed as a preseason contract hold-out who misses the Opening Day. He's at a disadvantage because he hasn't spent months honing his message, working out kinks, and building his organization. There are plenty of stars who miss the training camp and the start of the season and still are able to scrape off the rust and turn out great seasons, and Thompson is no exception. So, we shall see.
As for the participants in the debate, I'll be looking to see if Rudy and Romney mix it up on immigration in each others presence. In the past, Romney has criticized McCain and Rudy in interviews, speeches, or through surrogates, but backed off when given the oppourtunity to criticize them directly in the debates. I'll be blogging he debate live (though not giving a blow by blow of each question in rough transcript form).
Fox O'Reilly
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:00PM
Dennis Miller did a segment. Maybe he should run -- funny and no political correct restraint on naming Muslim terrorists what they are-- Muslim terrorists. And he already does Leno regularly. Commercial starting with jogger through the woods for a moment appeared to be a Mitt Romney ad but no it's a Land Rover ad. Fred ad --looked paler and less made up than on internet version and head bobbing thing is a bit weird.
Other Than That Mr. Harris How Did You Like...
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 8:05PM
Some days are just bad days. Todd Harris, Communications Director for Thompson, will have better ones than today. As noted below it was raining on Thompson over at NRO earlier. Now they dump more cold water, pointing to comments from Rush and more Fox coverage. Far be it for me to be the voice of restraint(or maybe I'm a contrarian at heart) but it's all either wiped away in a week by a fabulous start or everyone shakes their heads and says: "Wes Clark." It will have much more to do with what he says, the crowds he gets, and the energy he shows than anything that happened today. (Unless of course, this is not the end of the departures or all these disgruntled ex-Fredheads keep talking.)
Re: Tom Hagen and Rudy
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 7:45PM
So does Giuliani win points with social conservatives for having a genuine, Holy Ghost, Jesus-filled preachin' machine on his side?
Re: Clinton "Pulling" For Craig
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 7:37PM
Must ... resist ... obvious ... joke ...
Re: Tom Hagen and Rudy
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 7:36PM
So many quotes, so many possibilities. Does Duvall go to Romney
if he loses New Hampshire to deliver this line: " When a plot
against the Emperor failed... the plotters were always given a
chance... to let their families keep their fortunes. Right? " Good
thing Duvall didn't sign up with Thompson or on a day like today
when aides were being let go he'd have had to say this: "Why do you
hurt me, Michael [FRED]? I've always been loyal to you." He could
be a stabilizing influence on the Rudy team and remind them when
things get nasty : "Even the hit on your father was business, not
personal Sonny!" But you can all come up with your own, I'm
sure.
Clinton "Pulling" For Craig
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 7:23PM
Though the former president can't resist a dig about Republican hypocrisy. I can't imagine that this will help Larry Craig with his GOP colleagues, though Arlen Specter might tell me that's "not proven."
RE: Social Conservatives and Rudy
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 7:02PM
But the facts you mention concerning judicial appointments, the Hyde Amendment, etc. don't represent a strategic shift on the part of social conservatives (who have actually been pretty pragmatic about who to back for the White House for a long time). These are concessions from Giuliani aimed at convincing social conservatives that he will in effect govern like the Republican presidents they have supported in the past.
Re: Social Conservatives and Rudy
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 6:24PM
James, my full piece -- as opposed to my rebuttal to specific points raised by Ms. O'Beirne -- attributes many factors to Rudy's success including his promises on judicial appointments which he has used to address the concerns of social conservatives. He has done this precisely because abortion remains an issue for many primary voters. How much of an issue and whether he has done enough (e.g. Hyde amendment, partial birth abortion ban) we'll find out in a few months. As to the problems with his opponents, and specifically for Thompson, they only seem to increase and increase and increase. You know if McCain hadn't imploded over immigration...
RE: Social Conservatives and Rudy
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 6:11PM
Jennifer, I agree with your argument in part and disagree with it in part. I think that it is correct that 9/11 increased the salience of national security issues and general hawkishness among conservative voters, and this change has benefited Giuliani. But I don't think it has provoked much of a shift in what social conservatives expect from a Republican presidential candidate -- the casting about for a "true conservative" candidate and rank-and-file dissatisfaction with the current GOP field owe largely to social issues.
A bigger factor (which you mention in your piece today) that has helped Giuliani is the split in the conservative vote. Fred Thompson grew in popularity when it appeared Mitt Romney's candidacy was stalled. While Thompson was testing the waters, Romney recovered somewhat. Now they are both doing reasonably well competing for the same pool of voters. On top of that, Ames has at least temporarily raised Mike Huckabee's standing in several state polls. Huckabee is now a third candidate splitting these voters. And a few social conservatives are sticking by John McCain.
Moreover, all of these non-Giuliani candidates have their own problems with conservatives. For some, it is that their conservatism is of a recent vintage. For others, it is that their positions on issues like taxes and campaign finance reform have not been anymore reliably conservative than Giuliani's social stances. So Giuliani is doing better than one might have expected in 2000, but social conservatives haven't coalesced around a rival candidate. Whether they ever do may be what decides the contest for the nomination.
Tom Hagen For Rudy
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 5:52PM
Giuliani locks up a key endorsement. I look forward to Romney arguing that Hagen was no wartime consigliere. The real question is, who gets endorsed by Genco?
Paul Gillmor, RIP
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 5:34PM
The Republican Congressman from Ohio died last night, apparently of a heart attack. The Hill says the special election to fill his seat "will likely be costly and an added burden to the GOP." But Gillmor's district voted 61% for Bush in 2004, so unless the Democrats recruit an extraordinarily good candidate I doubt the seat is in danger.
Craig Now Wants To Finish His Term
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 4:12PM
He told Mitch McConnell this morning. No word on what McConnell threw across the room after that phone call.
Is Craig intentionally trying to screw over the GOP? Michelle Cottle wonders.
Only Rich Libs Have School Choices
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 4:07PM
Courtesy of Rob Bluey and the Heritage Foundation, a report on how congressional Dems think their own children deserve more school choices than the hoi polloi are afforded. It really is incredible that the Left is still so wedded to "government knows best" for everybody else, while they themselves seem to think they are above all that.
Why Do Conservatives Support Rudy?
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 3:22PM
The great Kate O'Beirne takes exception to my piece in the NY Observer as to why conservatives seem to be approving of Rudy's candidacy. Just a few thoughts: 1) The conventional thinking was that he wouldn't make it out of the box and social conservatives would descend on him. Perhaps they are in a state of shock but they have not yet done so. He leads in polls among all Republicans, social conservatives and Evangelicals. The piece is not predictive of his ability to win, and Romney -- who is looking very strong -- may in fact be the three-legged stool proponent some conservatives are searching for. However, a lot of conservatives, and a lot of social conservatives, do like Rudy (or at least tell pollsters they do) and there are reasons for it, many of which I discuss. 2) Contrary to Ms.O'Beirne's contention, I do not "condescend" to social conservatives. Indeed I give them credit for knowing what Rudy's positions are. I do not assume that they are ignorant of his widely known views. I do think they are considering their support strategically in light of the available options and the prospect of a Hillary presidency. 3) Ms. O'Beirne's conclusion that Rudy may win but it will not be "because conservatives have grown up" raises an interesting possibility that a Rudy win may represent a fundamental readjustment of the GOP and the relative strength of social conservatives. 4) I do heartily agree that the race is fluid and there are multiple roads to the nomination.
More Hsu
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 2:42PM
The NY Times has additional details on Hsu's disappearance--his lawyer said Hsu's whereabouts are unknown, and the judge revoked his $2 million bail and issued a warrant for his arrest. But Hsu was supposed to turn over his passport at today's hearing, which means he could already be out of the country.
Flashback:
A
Clinton campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said in an email: "Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic party and its candidates, including Senator Clinton. During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question."
As quoted in the Wall Street Journal, last Tuesday, August 28, 2007.
Re: Fox and Friends
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 2:03PM
Phil, I was inclined to write something very similar and then I saw this. (H/T to Jonathan Martin). This is now personal on multiple levels-- at Fox and with departing Thompson folks. Quin is correct(don't fall over in a faint please--we do agree sometimes): how you treat people does count, even in politics.
Re: Fred's ABC and Consistency
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 1:53PM
All those C's --consistent, complete, conservative -- Thompson folk were throwing out yesterday, but they missed a real "C" --that is the letter grade received on immigration which Marc Ambinder turned up from an immigration watchdog group after Thompson folks started playing defense on the Washington Times story we blogged about here this morning. One problem with so many staff changes and the long hello at camp Thompson: the press and opposing campaigns know Thompson's record as well if not better than Thompson's new(est) team.
Re: Fox and Friends
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 1:50PM
I don't think it's really fair to say that Fox has been especially hard on Fred Thompson. It was Fox that first began reporting on him as a potential presidential candidate in early March; it was on Fox with Chris Wallace that Thompson publicly floated that he was thinking about running, triggering the initial burst of Fred-mania; Hannity has repeatedly offered Thompson an oppourtunity to sit down for softball interviews, including after a Republican debate, at which point Thompson announced the launch of I'mWithFred. If Fox seems more negative now, it's just because his delayed entrance into the race has frustrated a lot of people, and his decision to skip the NH debate in favor of appearing on Leno, has generated controversy. I'm sure once the campaign gets underway, and if he's performing well, he'll be treated to plenty of adoring stories by Fox.
The Mysterious Norman Hsu
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 1:18PM
In the course of writing this post, Norman Hsu has failed to appear at a bail hearing scheduled for today and may once again be a fugitive.
I spent yesterday digging for some answers about the mysterious Democratic fundraiser and confessed grand thief Hsu and wound up with more questions.
In campaign finance reports, Hsu's companies are listed as: Next Components Ltd., Cool Planets Ltd., Because Men's Clothes, and Dilini Management. But none of the companies have online footprints or appear in fashion industry directories that I have searched. The only official recognition of any of these companies that I have found is Next Components, in the form of a filing for a certificate of corporation with the New York Department of State, Division of Corporations -- but even that doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny. The filing was from May 6, 2005, and when I called the Division of Corporations, a representative there told me that the filing needed to be renewed every two years for a fee of $9, but Next Components never responded to the renewal notice.
The filing lists 561 Seventh Ave., Suite 1301 as the address for Next Components, but I called Handro Properties, the management company that runs the building, and was told that not only have they never heard of Next Components, but "Suite 1301" doesn't even exist.
As I reported yesterday, it turns out that an address Hsu listed in his campaign finance filings—455 Fifth Ave.—is the site of the Mid-Manhattan Library. I had a friend of mine who is a real estate broker in
UPDATE: Blogger Flip Pidot, who has done some excellent posts following the Hsu money trail, writes in that the 455 Fifth Ave. address could have been a data entry/transcription error, because in other filings Hsu lists a 445 Fifth Ave. address, which is a legitimate apartment building. That could be a plausible explanation for why one of his addresses turned out to be the Mid-Manhattan Library.
Fox and Friends
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 1:03PM
One contributor to the ongoing Fox negativity on Fred Thompson: While Thompson clearly has friends at the network: Cavuto and Hannity to name two, there are others at the network much more heavily invested in other candidates. A biggie: Roger Ailes, who is well known for providing support and advice to Rudy Giuliani and his presidential campaign.
Fred's Ad
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 12:37PM
It's not running during the debate, but just before it, in the last ad block of The O'Reilly Factor. It's just a teaser for his web announcement:
Foiled German Terror Plot
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 12:31PM
Pajamas Media has a roundup of news and commentary. It may have been keyed to the anniversary of 9/11 -- which would mean they were caught with only days to spare.
Solitary Sam
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 11:50AM
This picture, now viewed by millions after being posted on Drduge, is absolutle devastating to the Brownback campaign by reinforcing the fact that he hasn't been gaining traction anywhere. With Huckabee's rise and Thompson's entrance, it's difficult to see how Brownback believes he can turn his fortunes around.
Rudy-Barbour '08?
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 11:38AM
The Giuliani campaign is circulating this video of Gov. Haley Barbour introducing Rudy in Mississippi yesterday. "What a lot of people don't realize is that as mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani did almost everything that any conservative Republican would hope could get done in New York City," said Barbour, who was chairman of the RNC the year Rudy was first elected mayor. Giuliani was in Mississippi to discuss emergency preparedness, a topic that both leaders are familiar with given their experiences with 9/11 and Katrina. Both were praised for their leadership during crisis.
Giuliani's visit also sparked speculation that Barbour could be tapped as a VP, because as a solid Southern conservative with strong Washington connections, Barbour would seem to fit the mold of the type of running-mate Giuliani would need to choose in order to help pacify those conservatives who have a beef with his candidacy.
Asked about the possibility by the AP, Barbour, who is running for re-election, was predictably dismissive of speculation that he may not serve out his full second term. "I don't think anybody's going to ask me to run for vice president with them," Barbour said. "If you're the Republican candidate for president, why would you pick somebody from Mississippi to be your vice president? If the Republican candidate for president doesn't carry Mississippi, he ain't going to carry three states."
Meanwhile, Giuliani said, "Gov. Barbour will be on the top of everybody's list. But Gov. Barbour is, you know, running for re-election and it would be presumptuous for anybody to be thinking who ... a vice presidential candidate is going to be."
Re: Consistency
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 11:20AM
Phil, I start with the premise that the press and inside Beltway types care more about position changes than regular voters. Voters are less exacting and more forgiving in seeing a change on a few items. (That's why I think the sanctuary city issue was lost on 99% of the public.) But the key word is "few," or in the case of John Kerry, something really big( Iraq) that a candidate still couldn't express clearly. Romney's challenge is to prevent voters from concluding there is an overall pattern of shifting/evolving/flipping. Thompson has a different problem. If you are going to accuse others of changing their stripes, you better not have changed yours. That's why all the bits of helpful news flying from other camps about McCain Feingold (hereinafter McCain Feingold Thompson I'm sure) and more moderate positions Thompson took in the Senate. Rudy and McCain have other issues, significant ones, but given their persona formed over a long time neither is going to be perceived I think as a flip flopper despite a few shifts (e.g. McCain on Bush tax cuts or Rudy on guns). Doesn't mean they get a free pass, just that flip flopping is likely not high on their list of worries.
McCain's "Little Jerk" Comment
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:54AM
Here's the video. As I suspected, it was a pretty light-hearted exchange. And having been on a number of McCain conference calls I know that it's pretty typical for McCain to refer to people jokingly as "jerks," especially to lighten the mood after a tough question.
Re: Consistency
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:21AM
Mitt Romney, more than anybody, would stand to gain from portraying Thompson as having evolved. The more that Romney can point to other candidates changing their positions, the easier it will be for him to fend off the flip-flopper charges by claiming, "Hey, everybody else does it!" Also, if this becomes a contest about who can best pander to conservatives (regardless of prior positions), that would seem to favor Romney, who has shown that he has no qualms about saying whatever he needs to.
But keep in mind that while Thompson's views may have evolved on a number of issues, he's been solid on gun rights in a field where you have Giuliani who supported gun control measures as mayor of New York City and Romney, who signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts. As the campaign progresses, took for Team Fred to hammer home the gun issue, because gun owners are a significant, and very politically active, constituency that currently has no major candidate to rally behind.
Huckabee Ready
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 10:05AM
Huckabee got a toehold in the race through good debate
performances. He's been the new "it" candidate since Ames, enjoying
a poll bump and, according to his report in last week's media call,
some fundraising and organizational improvements. He has the most
to lose by Thompson's entry but, he has argued, poses a danger to
Thompson whom he leads in several early state polls.(Coming in
behind Huckabee in Iowa for example would be a problem for
Thompson.) Here's what his spokeswoman Kirsten Fedewa relayed from
Huckabee about tonight: "The debates are an important forum for
people to judge us for themselves--not from a highly tested and
consultant-driven tv spot, but the actual candidates having to
answer questions they may not expecting. I always look forward to
the challenge."
Mean Ol' Fred
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 9:52AM
As everybody here knows by now, I am not big on early horse-race analysis. And I have been a bit disdainful about what I considered to be over-analysis of the staff "turnover" in Fred Thompson's NOT-EVEN-DECLARED campaign. But the report on yet another departure, this time of Jim Mills, formerly of Fox, does bring up this common-sense response: Regardless of what all the turnover means about a candidate's organizational abilities (I say it means very little this early in the game; hence my earlier disdain for the over-analysis), there comes a point when you see so many people leave so soon after being recruited to come on board, and you start to think that somebody there must be awfully cavalier about other people's livelihoods. People aren't expendable like manufactured goods. They have lives and families and sometimes (as in Mills' case) entirely different careers that they give up only upon certain assurances. Whatever the turnover says about Thompson's campaign organization, it is perhaps starting to say that he's not as nice a guy as he has been portrayed, or else that he is oblivious to a lack of human decency of whomever is making the decisions around there. Does it mean Thompson is or isn't the best candidate for the GOP to nominate? No. But it does raise a least some little questions about his character.
But did he cry?
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 8:50AM
Now we are reduced debating whether Souter moped or actually cried after Bush v. Gore. Believe me, many have shed a tear over Souter.
Consistent or Squishy?
Posted by on 9.5.07 @ 7:54AM
Yesterday Thompson folks were positioning him as th complete, consistent conservative. The Washington Times today has a peek at two not so consistent areas-- immigration and tort reform -- in his Senate record. Expect his opponents to bring out others --the biggest McCain Feingold -- and argue that he was a moderate Howard Baker type. So many candidates, so much evolution.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Revolving Door
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 11:22PM
I for one am entering no more contact info for Fred Thompson communications folks into my Blackberry. The charming and professional Jim Mills is out. (Contrary to what the Thompson camp told me Sunday when I inquired about his absence from a press shop list.) Unlike Linda Rozett (whose old job at the Chamber of Commerce was taken by another terminated Thompson staffer) Mills hopefully can get his job back.
Beyond Parody
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 9:38PM
On advice of Arlen Specter, Sen. Craig is reconsidering his decision to quit. No honest. Really. And Mark Foley is coming back. (No, that I made up.)
UPDATE: Politico reports: "Top Republican strategists were neither delighted nor amused by the senator's decision to rethink retirement after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct following his arrest in a Minnesota airport men's bathroom." But nauseous perhaps.
Fox Hits Fred
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 7:29PM
Carl Cameron, who pointed out Thompson's Gucci loafers and golf cart ride in Iowa awhile back, strikes again with a very tough report (which someone who'd prefer a Thompson opponent passed on) about the debate skipping Thompson. The report features both McCain and Romney getting in their whacks. Is this Fox just annoyed their debate is getting snubbed or is Fox reflecting gathering MSM and blogosphere opinion that the New Hampshire debate duck wasn't such a good idea? Since Fox is hosting the debate I'm figuring a few of the candidates tomorrow get a softball down the middle on what they think of Fred's absence.
Gore Watch
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 6:11PM
Via Marc Ambinder, I see that Al Gore has told a mag of his alma mater that he'll likely endorse somebody else in 2008 rather than make a run himself. Given Gore's polling numbers, there's no doubt his endorsement will be widely coveted, though it didn't do Howard Dean much good.
Crime Pays
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 5:22PM
The economic incentives of burglary are eloquently laid out in a Theodore Dalrymple essay in the Times of London.
Millions of crimes a year are committed by people already on probation or just released after short sentences, and such sentences let every victim know that the State does not take his victimisation seriously. They make burglary and other crime a rational choice, especially given the low rate of detection. (One burglary in every twelve reported ends in conviction, and one conviction in thirteen ends in a prison sentence, which means that burglars, on average, serve about one day per burglary in prison.
More here.
Hsu Listed Library as His Address
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 5:03PM
When disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu made a series of contributions to the Andrew Cuomo campaign for Attorney General, he listed as his address: 455 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. That sounds like the type of posh address that would be fitting for a rainmaker such as Hsu. But unfortunately, the location has another tenant: the Mid-Manhattan Public Library.
Fred's ABC's
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 5:00PM
Thompson's wordsmiths are throwing out C's-conservative, consistent, and complete. Just as I was thinking this is the sort of thing that gets mocked, in chimes (another "c") a rival strategist with: "Customarily cackling on a couch." We have a whole alphabet of alliterations but there is a point, sort of. The other candidates had a few months to define themselves when all their opponents were doing the same and not immediately going negative. Thompson won't enjoy that breathing space and will have to play offense and defense simultaneously. His adjectives seem aimed exclusively at Rudy and Romney but two others will be after him-- the humorous Huckabee and the maverick McCain. Yeah, enough already with the letters.
Are There Scandals Brewing? Continued
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 4:52PM
In response to my post this morning, a couple of people have passed along today's Washington Post profile of outing specialist Mike Rogers. "In the coming months, he plans to post the names of 'a few more' closeted Congress members on his blog, he says, all of them Republicans." Without actual misbehavior, though -- as opposed to the "hypocrisy" that Rogers imagines himself to be exposing -- it's easy to imagine gay-baiting attacks backfiring.
We Interrupt This Debate For a Message From Fred
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 4:26PM
The Thompson campaign is running an ad on Fox News tomorrow night.
Re: Euphemism Watch
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 4:22PM
Wow, Jim, you just brought back a long-buried memory. As a child I had an Oscar the Grouch book with a picture of a grumpy man's face; when inverted, the eyebrows and furrowed brow became a mustache and downward-curled mouth, and vice versa. Oscar implored: "Turn a frown upside down -- and keep on frowning!" When your world is filled with pre-school teachers and day camp counselors imploring you to sing "If You're Happy and You Know It," that's a delightfully subversive message. No wonder it made an impression.
Now where's my Play-Doh? I'm hungry.
Re: DC Handgun Ban
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 3:51PM
I discussed this a bit in March, when I highlighted Eugene Volokh's musings on the timeline. Since the cert petition is in, that means that the case will be heard (unless the Court asks for the Solicitor General's input, which Volokh thought was unlikely) in early 2008, and will be decided by June.
RE: Euphemism Watch
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 3:30PM
And a smile is just a frown turned upside down, John.
Euphemism Watch
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 3:21PM
Apparently, a hasty retreat is now an "invasion in reverse."
DC Handgun Ban
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 3:16PM
D.C. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court today the ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court striking down the District's handgun ban. Chances are the Supreme Court will take the case. It's a measure of how far we've come that Laurence Tribe agrees there is a Second Amendment right for individuals to own a handgun. This seems the worst possible case for handgun restriction proponents -- a flat out ban denying under siege District residents the right to defend themselves in their own homes. Also, not a good case for Democrats to have floating around during the 2008 presidential cycle. (Bill Clinton for one thinks gun rights lost Al Gore a number of states in 2000.) A bit of background and analysis is here.
Fred's Leno Defense
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 2:36PM
In the wake of Thompson advisor Mary Matalin's unfortunate declaration that doing Leno is more important than debating issues in front of New Hampshire voters, Bill Sammon quotes the latest from Camp Fred's communication's director, Todd Harris:
“There have been a million debates already and there are going to be a million more,” Harris said. “And people are going to see Fred Thompson out there, mixing it up with the other candidates, mixing it up with the media, engaging the voters. They are going to see months and months and months of that.”
In the meantime, Harris said, “it makes a lot of sense” for Thompson to appear on the Leno show instead of the GOP debate because the candidate will reach “everyday normal Americans who don’t live in the 202 area code.”
This doesn't strike me as a smart course of action for the Thompson campaign. It's bad enough that they have riled up New Hampshire Republicans by skipping the debate, but it's even worse to go out of their way to insult them by insisting that, somehow, appearing on a late night comedy show in
But in a sense, this incident encapsulates everything about the Thompson candidacy, both good and bad. His appearance on Leno will no doubt accentuate his star power, while his absence at the debate will reinforce fears that he is lazy and lacks substance.
That Close
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 12:09PM
According to Jeffrey Toobin's new book Justice Souter almost resigned after Bush v. Gore in a fit of pique. (And who talked him out of it you want to know? Me too.) The book also says he "loathes" Washington and doesn't much like the Court. There's a second rate intellect to go with a second rate temperament (to muddle the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes description). When you start listing all time bad decisions by a Bush president Souter ranks fairly high. Just another reminder that presidents and their judgment matters -- a lot.
Newsweek
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 11:26AM
Some think Thompson got off easy on the Newsweek story. I think there is a little for everyone -- more folksy talk and plenty about his Tennessee roots. He comes off as genuinely a nice guy--so much so his ex-wife campaigns for him. But there is also some fodder for his opponents, particularly on his Senate past. First on the fizzled Chinese funraising scandals (how little things change) which Republicans viewed as a way to sock it to the Clintons:
"Thompson wound up losing control of the investigation, and the support of his own party, when the committee turned its attention to Republican campaign abuses as well. Thompson has said he wanted to make sure the inquiry was fair, and not just a Republican hunting party that would be viewed with suspicion by the public. But Republicans thought he was a weak chairman who was outmaneuvered by committee Democrats. The investigation fizzled and eventually shut down; Thompson was a near pariah among some Senate Republicans."
Then there is this:
"Thompson's popularity among his Republican colleagues took another hit in 1999, when he broke with the party and voted against convicting Clinton on perjury charges during his impeachment trial (he voted for conviction on obstruction of justice). But by then Thompson had one foot out the door. He had long complained that he found Senate life suffocating. 'I don't like spending 14- and 16-hour days voting on 'sense of the Senate' resolutions on irrelevant matters,' Thompson said in 1998. It was, he said, 'very frustrating.' He may have wished the Senate spent its time on more-important issues, but Thompson himself didn't have the patience, or the desire, to do the kind of ego stroking and horse trading it takes to get bills to the president's desk. Of the 90 bills he introduced in his eight years as a senator, only four became law."
No wonder Romney is pushing the "I'm the Everyready Bunny" theme this week.
Brookings on Iraq
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 11:18AM
Michael O'Hanlon & Co. have a brief op-ed in the New York Times today, brief because the meat of it is in the attached graphic, which provides a comparison of the data from Iraq each August (which is the proper analytical framework, as Iraqi violence tends to wax and wane seasonally). The progress isn't earth-shattering, but in several areas it is notable.
Rudy's Web Makeover
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 11:15AM
The Giuliani campaign, which has been criticized for having a weak Web presence, has relaunched its Website today, with an increased focus on social networking sites (his groups on MySpace, Facebook, etc. are no longer inexplicably set to "private"). There will also be a "Running with Rudy" video feature that promises to give people an "insider's look of life on the campaign trail." The site upgrade was overdue. Now if only they could find a better address than www.joinrudy2008.com, voters may actually be able to find it.
Romney on Iraq
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 8:47AM
Are There Scandals Brewing?
Posted by on 9.4.07 @ 7:56AM
A good question in Bob Novak's downbeat column today:
The apparent disgrace of Sen. Larry Craig, a former member of the party leadership, is all the worse because several Republican senators and Senate staffers were not a bit surprised. That raises two questions. If so many people knew Craig was an accident waiting to happen, why was he not eased out of office? How many other examples of scandalous behavior are known but hidden?I hope Novak is just spitballing, but he has so many good sources that I can't help but worry that he has something specific in mind that he just hasn't gotten on the record yet.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Enough Summer Fun, Let's Get Serious
Posted by on 9.3.07 @ 8:59PM
Debating the New Hampshire Debate
Posted by on 9.3.07 @ 5:42PM
Will Thompson's absence at the debate hurt? Thompson's opponents are crowing over the clip of Thompson advisor Mary Matalin declaring that Leno is more important because more people watch. (But are they Republicans and do they vote in early primary states?) Romney today emphasized the supposed slight and his own rigorous schedule. Gurus are mixed in their evaluations. Professor Andrew E. Smith, Director of the Survey Center at University of New Hampshire says via email: "They will set up the stage with a podium for Thompson, just in case, but won't leave it on the stage if he doesn't show. I don't think he has helped himself by not showing up - the Union Leader has already criticized him for that. In 1999, the beginning of Bush's decline in NH was when he skipped the first debate at Dartmouth in October." Others like Charles Arlinghaus of the Joshia M. Bartlett Center for Public policy sin't buying it and says that " no one will care. Personally, I think it would be better if we could get two candidates a night on Leno and two on Letterman. Normal humans actually watch those shows." One potential outcome: Thompson may now need to devote a bit more time than he otherwise would have planned to in order to mend fences and to show he really does care about that state.
Re: Tabin in the Pack
Posted by on 9.3.07 @ 12:29PM
The primary system may be crazy, but calling it "a bastardization of the Founders' vision" is a little silly. The Founders didn't even envision political parties. (Here's a brief history of the nominating process, which I think is correct even though all the usual caveats about Wikipedia apply.)
As for Iowa, the Straw Poll became important because George H.W. Bush won it in 1979 -- the first year it was held -- and went on to win the caucuses. It's doubtful that he would have otherwise been vice president. Since then it hasn't been all that reliable an indicator. The Hucka-boomlet may have legs, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it.
Me, on Cold Cash Case
Posted by on 9.3.07 @ 12:23PM
For those interested in the case involving the FBI raid on William Jefferson's congressional office, here's my take on it in the DC Examiner.
Tabin in the Pack
Posted by on 9.3.07 @ 11:27AM
John, please don't tell me that YOU are part of the pack! Just kidding. But, seriously, the only reason Iowa matters is because pundits say it matters. And the Iowa STRAW POLL means next to nothing. It sure as heck hasn't been very predictive of ultimate winners in the past (actually, please correct that statement if I am wrong: I write that from memory, but haven't done fact checking -- which is the right of the lazy blogger rather than the formal journalist, if the blogger decides to be lazy but at least has the integrity to acknowledge as such). But my point is that LOGICALLY, Texas' straw poll of actual leading party activists SHOULD mean more than Iowa's straw poll organized as a pay-to-play system -- because of the states' sizes and because the pay-to-play is an outrage. In truth, though, NEITHER straw poll should matter, and frankly, I think it is an outrage that ANY of this is going on 14 months before the friggin' election. It's just plain crazy, and a bastardization of the Founders' vision.
Re: Hunter Wins Texas
Posted by on 9.3.07 @ 10:40AM
Quin: I'm baffled by your post. The Iowa caucuses kick off the campaign. They require an organization that can get people to the polls. Ames is a test-run of campaigns' Iowa organization, which is why candidates make an effort to compete. And it matters a lot to both the Iowa GOP and to Iowa voters, which is why Huckabee has gotten a bit of a bump in the Iowa polls (a bump that one poll shows spilling over into New Hampshire.)
Texas is nothing like that. It's not a caucus state, so the organizational dynamics are different; the primary is in March, so it isn't key to momentum. No one cares about the Texas straw poll (any more than they do about than they do about the Illinois Straw Poll), which has a turnout a fraction the size of Iowa's (1,300 vs. 14,300). None of the major candidates turned out; Hunter basically won because he and Ron Paul were the only candidates, besides guys too marginal to even make it in the television debates, who bothered to show up.
If you think Iowa's outsized influence on the presidential process is unhealthy, you'll get no argument from me. But the problem isn't "pack mentalities and conventional wisdom," it's the primary schedule.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Who Is Consistent
Posted by on 9.2.07 @ 11:41PM
Hunter Wins Texas
Posted by on 9.2.07 @ 6:03PM
So, here's a perfect example of why all this crazy, year-in-advance horse-race analysis is both so silly and so arbitrary: Last week (or was it two weeks ago? -- I forget), Mike Huckabee finished a fairly distant second in a pay-to-play caucus competition in small-state Iowa, yet he garners all sorts of attention for it and is proclaimed the newest guy with "momentum," etc. Yesterday, Duncan Hunter wins a HUGE (percentage-wise) victory in caucuses in mega-state Texas, leaving everybody else way in his dust in voting by the most stalwart party activists (those who were delegates to previous state or national conventions), and he barely gets any attention, much less credit, for it. This is just crazy.
Let's compare Huck with Hunter. Both have done consistently well in debates so far. Huck is a former governor of a small state, where he did some good things with roads and schools but was neither a fiscal conservative nor a tax cutter, and was plagued by minor but numerous ethical imbroglios. Hunter is a 27-year member of Congress from mega-state California who has chaired the Armed Forces Committee and been a consistent conservative vote across the board (except, quite arguably, on free trade). Yet Huckabee gets celebrated for his fair-to-middlin finish in Iowa while Hunter gets no attention for flat-out winning in Texas.
Why? It's all about pack mentalities and conventional wisdom. And, frankly, it is no way to choose a president, and it's absolutely sickening.
Fred Thinks New Hampshire Will Forgive and Forget
Posted by on 9.2.07 @ 3:21PM
Fred's new Communications Director Todd Harris says New Hampshire voters won't hold his absence at the debate next week against him. He said "looking forward" that Thompson will be "spending a lot of time in New Hampshire." He continued: "I don't think that many New Hampshire voters will say he's an authentic conservative, he shares my values and was part of the 1994 Republican Revolution but he won't get my support because he got into the race a few months late." Voicing what will certainly be Thompson main pitch to primary voters, Harris says primary voters will come to appreciate that Thompson is a "consistent conservative" and that Thompson "is more in line" with their beliefs than some of the other contenders. As for the past, Harris recalls that he didn't arrive in New Hampshire with John McCain's campaign in 2000 until mid-September. When I reminded him that McCain cleverly exploited Bush's absence at the Dartmouth debate and went on to win the New Hampshire primary, Harris parried back with a reminder that Bush nevertheless won the nomination. This tells me a couple things: Thompson at least for now isn't throwing in the towel on any early primary states and he's going after Romney (not as "consistent" as Thompson, he would say) to be the conservative alternative to Rudy.
Fred's Pollster
Posted by on 9.2.07 @ 12:39PM
Fred's pollster argues that his late entry into the race isn't a problem because so many voters make up their mind late in the race. To an extent this is true. As long time GOP strategist and McCain supporter Charles Black pointed out in an interview earlier this summer, only about 10% of voters actually follow politics outside the immediate election period. However, the argument in this case seems to be a nonsequitur. The issue isn't when people decide, it's whether the delayed entry has made it too hard for Thompson to put in place an organization and campaign that will be there to help people decide -- whenever they do -- that he has what it takes to win. In caucus states like Iowa that window may have already opened and closed. There is a better argument that in large states where media plays a larger role --Florida and Super Duper Tuesday states -- the entry date makes little difference provided you have enough money to buy ads. If money is once again the key we'll know more perhaps if Thompson does indeed release his numbers for July, August and September with the other candidates in about 45 days.
- Strange Newt Respect
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
