- 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 15, 2007
Re: Keyes Hopes Third Time's A Charm
Posted by on 9.15.07 @ 10:42PM
James, I was beginning to worry we might be getting down to a reasonable number of candidates at the next debate who actually have a chance to win. Not anytime soon I guess.
AG Pick
Posted by on 9.15.07 @ 10:30PM
Keyes Hopes The Third Time's A Charm
Posted by on 9.15.07 @ 7:06PM
Hearing a groundswell that I must have missed, Alan Keyes has apparently filed to run for president again. He is reportedly going to participate in the the Values Voter Debate, joining all the Republican presidential candidates -- even John Cox -- with the, uh, minor exceptions of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.
Keyes finished third in Iowa in 2000 and did pretty well in a few other states (notably Utah) but mostly registered in the low single digits. After two failed presidential candidacies, three failed Senate races in two states, and a series of controversial pronouncements, conservatives might get tired of his shtick. The 2004 Illinois Senate race -- which somebody urged him to forgo --against Barack Obama was probably a bridge too far, even for the people who liked hearing Keyes in debates but never seriously contemplated voting for him.
Proud of a No Nothing Campaign?
Posted by on 9.15.07 @ 2:21PM
He effectively punted on both, saying that he knew that the hurricane-induced insurance crunch is 'an issue,' but that he didn't 'know enough about it yet.'
The matter of whether Congress was right to intervene to save the life of Schiavo was even worse, as Thompson said didn't 'know all the facts surrounding that case.'
'That's going back in history,' he added of the 2005 controversy, forcing his campaign to later plead with The Associated Press to change their characterization of Thompson's answer from not having an opinion to not offering one.
For conservatives, it was another in a string of Thompson statements since his entry into the race that may give them pause. Since his launch 10 days ago, Thompson has indicated that Osama bin Laden should get 'due process,' stated that he doesn't support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and admitted that he doesn't belong to a church at home in McLean, Va."
Friday, September 14, 2007
Sunshine State Update
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 10:55PM
Re: Giuliani and Pro-Lifers/ HillaryCare
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 10:15PM
I really do commend Jan Crawford Greenberg for explaining how GOP presidents went astray and how very smart, conservative lawyers both in and outside the Justice Department fought against Kennedy, for example, and sifted through the good and the near good candidates to raise Roberts and Alito. But nothing, and I mean nothing, is a substitute for the judgment of the President. Figuring out who will be solid on the Court now and in the future and who will play solidly at the hearings is critical. Much of what Rudy is selling is his lawyer skills in helping to weigh the candidates and his proximity to some of the best legal minds like Ted Olson who will help make those choices. "You trust me or the guy who played me on TV to find the best candidates?" is the pitch.
On healthcare, it worked for Romney-- Commonwealth Care?What Commonwealth Care? So maybe Hillary can change her spots too. A prize goes to the first parody ad portraying Harry and Louise fainting away as they learn the "Old Hillary Plan" was small potatoes compared to what the " New Hillary Plan" has in store for them now.
Hillarycare? What Hillarycare?
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 9:59PM
Paul Starr argues that the 1993-94 debacle wasn't really hers, but the one unveiled during her presidential campaign will be the real thing.
I can't wait.
RE: Giuliani and Pro-Lifers
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 9:48PM
Jennifer, I don't think any presidential candidate can or should guarantee how their judicial nominees will rule on any issue. My point is that Giuliani's own views about Roe call into question his legal philosophy and make him the candidate pro-lifers should be least comfortable with even on judges (we're not yet at the general election, where they might get more comfortable). There isn't much point in having public litmus tests for potential judges, but you can evaluate the records of the potential presidents who would be nominating them. And I do think Giuliani should have to answer some questions about the legislation I mentioned.
Can I envision a scenario where President Giuliani turns out to be a boon for pro-lifers? Sure. A Democratic Senate, like me, might consider Giuliani's judicial nominees less likely to overturn Roe than Bush's. They might be more willing to confirm them on that basis. Given Giuliani's closeness with people like Estrada and Olson, and given the existence of groups like the Federalist Society, they may actually turn out to be Scalia and Thomas-style judges.
It wouldn't be the first time a perceived setback for pro-lifers has benefited them. The 1992 Casey decision upheld Roe but also set the stage for pro-life gains in the 1990s by permitting parental-notification laws and late-term restrictions while keeping more sweeping (and less popular) bans off the table. The clinic access law signed by Bill Clinton helped reduce violence at clinics and generally give the pro-life movement a more mainstream image.
So Giuliani could turn out to be a delightful surprise for pro-lifers, even if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming toward accepting him. But given the history of judicial nominees by Republican presidents with considerably more conservative views on abortion and Roe, I wouldn't bet that way.
A Rovian Plot?
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 8:28PM
"Being attacked by the Democratic character assassination machine MoveOn.org is something Rudy Giuliani will wear as a badge of honor. This is, after all, the same liberal group whose website compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler, the same liberal group that wanted no military response against the Taliban in
And this didn't even cost Rudy $65,000. Can you imagine how annoyed the other GOP contenders are not to be MoveOn.org's target?
Re: Giuliani and Pro-Lifers
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 8:17PM
James, I think it is more precise to say Rudy has said he would appoint strict conservative judges like Roberts and Alito who may or may not overturn Roe. The distinction is important. As Ted Olson and Steven Calabresi (founder of the Federalist society) explained in this interview, presidents commited to banishing results oriented judging are wise not to promise certain results from nominees or to insist their nominees make such promises. The following from that interview is helpful in understanding why Giuliani is not predicting nor guaranteeing a Roe reversal: "When asked why social conservatives cannot get a 'guarantee' that Giuliani will ensure Roe v. Wade is overturned Calabresi explains that 'what we have been campaigning for 25 years is for judges to be deciding cases according to the law and not making policy makers.' He cautions that if we ask prospective judges about policy on one matter we will be prevented in the goal of ensuring that judges decide cases without regard to specific policy objectives. He does however offer comfort to conservatives, noting that Giuliani has said he most admires Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia and that Calabresi would be 'thrilled with another.' He does point out that even these conservative icons don't always agree. Rather than predict how a specific judge will rule in a certain case, presidents do best, he says, when they select 'extremely bright, talented lawyers and people committed to judging rather than making policy.'"
Giuliani is right in this regard: I see no guarantee that Roberts or Alito favor a reversal of Roe at this point yet no legal conservative of note opposed them for lack of such certainty. However, if you are committed to appointing justices like these (by the way figuring out who is like them is not an easy task as was pointed out in the brilliant book "Supreme Conflict The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court" by Jan Crawford Greenburg) and avoiding compromise picks or stealth appointees your chances of reaching that desired end result are a heck of a lot better than with some of the recent picks (Kennedy, Souter,etc.) or than with anyone on Hillary's short list.
Re: Schiavo
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 7:57PM
Quin, I agree with nearly everything you say. I would just add one thought. In a week in which conservatives dreaded the President stepping on the lines of a much more persuasive and articulate spokesman for the war --Gen. Petraeus -- there is a good reason to put emphasis on a candidate who is articulate, persuasive and needs little re-write/"clarification" after he addresses key issues. If Bush taught us anything it is that excellent communication skills are not window dressing but are essential to a successful president.
Don't Be A Drag
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 6:23PM
I will defend Giuliani on one point of interest to some social conservatives: He is not a cross dresser, at least not as most people would understand that term. Giuliani has dressed in drag for comedic purposes. This doesn't make him a regular cross dresser anymore than Bedtime for Bonzo made Ronald Reagan an animal rights activist.
RE: Giuliani and Pro-Lifers
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 6:12PM
There's just one problem with the judges argument: Giuliani has already said publicly that upholding Roe can be consistent with his understanding of judicial conservatism. This is no small matter, given that Roe, Doe v. Bolton, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart -- that is, all of the worst Supreme Court decisions from the pro-life point of view -- were handed down by courts with Republican majorities. You don't have to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg to decide stare decisis applies to post-Roe abortion jurisprudence.
Giuliani has said he won't liberalize the rules governing taxpayer funding of abortion. But what if Congress acts first? A Democratic Congress is sure to try to weaken or abolish the Hyde Amendment. One house has already voted to weaken and the other has voted to abolish the Mexico City policy. And Congress passed taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research even before the Democrats took control. Will Giuliani veto these bills? We don't really know.
It may be the case that he would veto all or most of the bills described above. It is certainly the case that conservative legal networks are stronger than before, making it harder to accidentally nominate a David Souter or Harry Blackmun than in the past. Giuliani is personally close to many prominent legal conservatives. But shouldn't pro-lifers want to find out the answers to these questions rather than make hopeful guesses, especially given his actual record on abortion?
If pro-lifers are willing to accept things from Giuliani that they'd never accept from a Democrat, even before the general election when they still have other options, they may well set their cause back. A possible result is a Democratic Party that is opposed to pro-lifers and a Republican Party that is indifferent to them.
Giuliani's undeniable political talent -- and equally undeniable conservatism on other issues -- doesn't guarantee that all portions of the GOP coalition will benefit equally, if at all.
Re: Re: Schiavo
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 5:52PM
Jennifer, I think the Thompson defenders are too flabbergasted to know what to say. Before I get to my main Schiavo point, let me note here that what has clearly been a rocky campaign start for Thompson on a number of fronts should not be seen as a death knell by any means. The man has staying power because he knows how to project an air of being solid and dependable, and because no matter what the complaints about his specifics or lack thereof, he can honestly make the case that on the level of principle he is a committed and consistent conservative. He was an utter disaster at the start of his first Senate campaign (as he has been pretty darn bad on multiple fronts in the past month, including but from limited to the front of common human decency in his treatment of campaign staff and advisors), and managed to win going away. He should not be underestimated, and he still could easily end up as a strong nominee against Hillary.
But enough about Thompson. On Schiavo, there are two issues. One is the legal one I outlined below. I think it is tremendously important for conservatives to fight for Congress' right to define the courts' jurisdiction, not just on cases like this but in general. The Constitution gave Congress the power to check against judicial mission creep (or to make clear that the judicial power does extend to certain areas from which the judiciary shrinks for bad political reasons), and one reason the judiciary is out of control is because Congress has abdicated that power.
The second issue, obviously, is the actual moral issue that drew most of the attention to this case. I believe, strongly, that the law ought to err on the side of life. The Florida courts, though, ruled that Florida law does not err on the side of life. Conservatives who want to avoid cases like Terry Schiavo's in the future ought to elect legislators who will change the laws and then lobby them to so change them. And they should work for the appointment of judges who apply the federal and state constitutions and statutes as written. But they should be wary of turning off the public by agitating for the imposition of a moral judgment that is not supported by the existing laws of the land. That's what liberals do (although many of us would argue that what liberals consider to be moral is actually, time and again, highly immoral). The reason conservatives suffered so badly in the public mind from the Schiavo case is that too many of them sounded as if they believed all existing laws ought to be ignored if that is what it would take for Ms. Schiavo to be kept alive. Their rhetoric was wrong for the situation. The proper objective is to make the moral argument and the legal argument together in such a way that they are clearly mutually supportive. That's hard work.
Back to Fred Thompson: It is easy to see why a presidential candidate, aware of the sound-bite-itis of today's media, would want to punt on such a complicated issue. But the way Thompson attempted to punt was utterly inelegant and ineffective -- just as his speech deliveries have sometimes/often been, and just as his announcement video was. Lesson: Sometimes even actors need to learn how to take direction, and they need the right people around them to give direction. Otherwise, they may have a hard time keeping their careers/campaigns alive.
Re: Giuliani and Pro-Lifers
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 5:21PM
Lawrence, I could have used you last week!
Re: Giuliani and Pro-Lifers
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 4:55PM
Jennifer, a certain esteemed publication also published a column called "It's Giuliani Time" in October of 2005, saying this:
"In 30-plus years, the religious right as a political movement has grown very sophisticated and practical about what it wants and what it can get at any given time. In the legislative arena, for example, pro-life politicos have picked careful battles, on partial birth abortion and parental notification. Meanwhile, elect more and more Republicans. The judiciary has the muscle on all the social issues, and has had ever since Roe.
"Here, the great karmic wheel of politics has turned almost enough to excuse Giuliani social liberalism. After all, what can a President do to affect abortion politics? Most important, appoint judges. By the end of George W. Bush's term, he will have appointed two, perhaps three, justices to the Supreme Court. Would Giuliani appoint a Ruth Bader Ginsburg, either to SCOTUS or a lower court? Given the ex-mayor's bent toward free-market reform and stout crime enforcement, no. A judge conservative on economic and criminal justice matters is likely to take a conservative view of social issues, too.
"Some of my religious confreres will not be able to stomach Giuliani having marched in drag in gay pride parades or his stated pro-choice opinions. But many of us will take a practical look at him and at the office of President and ask, 'How much could he hurt our cause?' The answer would be, 'Not much..'"
"IN POLITICS, YOU CAN'T have everything. But without winning, you don't have anything, nor any prospect of getting any. Support Giuliani loses on the right will be more than offset by votes he can win elsewhere. Importantly, given his strengths in law enforcement, terror response, and welfare reform, those votes will not come from the left. He will not make the Republican Party more liberal. He will make it bigger."
Win the Media Week
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 4:49PM
Swinging Doors
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 3:58PM
Nice to see the editors have brought back The Great American Saloon Series this month (See "Single Malt in the Blue Ridge," by Alfred S. Regnery). The Series has been long my favorite department. Read Mr. Regnery's essay in the new issue and see why.
Re: Schiavo
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 3:06PM
Quin, yours is one of the few forceful conservative responses on this issue I've read. Actually, Michelle Malkin is hot about it too but where are others who felt passionately about this issue? Did social conservatives rethink their views on the Schiavo matter or are the people who spent time defending Thompson against George Will and Bob Novak this week just disinclined to speak up?
Ted Olson
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 2:55PM
Upon hearing that Ted Olson might be the AG pick I had two thoughts: 1) why would he take it ( the grief of a nomination, entering a flagging administration in its last year) and 2) Rudy will be losing a big asset for his campaign (Olson chairs the legal advisors group and has been an effective spokesman on Rudy's potential judge picks). I now think: 1) this will make Olson an even more revered figure on the right and 2) it's going to be another political windfall for Rudy. His campaign circulated this from his KFSO radio interview today:
"He's been my friend since 1981. But beyond that, you know, I'm
a lawyer. I've argued before the Supreme Court once--he's argued
before the Supreme Court 40 times. And he is just one of the best
[lawyers] in the country, and I put in that category Republicans,
Democrats, and Independents. … He's a good man, a really,
really good man. And a man who is not a partisan in the sense that
when he has to do his job as a lawyer or he has to do his job as a
government official, he knows how to separate those things. He
believes passionately in the Republican Party, but my goodness, who
is a Republican President going to appoint? Is he going to go
appoint Democrats? I mean that doesn't make any sense. Every once
in a while you do that, but that isn't generally what you
do."
So provided the President nominates him and the Democrats, despite advice from people like Lanny Davis, go into raving hysterical mode, the President, Olson and his most vocal defender -- Rudy -- all come out winners. And this, James, is the perfect example of why Rudy is making some headway with social conservatives: he knows who to fight, when to fight and what to say to rally the faithful.
Schiavo
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 1:03PM
The flap about Fred Thompson's inexplicable non-answer about the Terry Schiavo case provides an opportunity to try to correct the record about that case -- a record that the media myth has so completely screwed up that even conservatives I have been reading in the past few days have been confused about it, in terms of what the issue actually was. This is the FACT: The Schiavo case was not about federal intervention in a state case. All that Congress did, which is what Congress has an absolute constitutional right to do, was to expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts in order to give the Schiavo family appellate ACCESS to the federal courts to try to make the case that a federally guaranteed right was at least arguably involved enough to warrant a temporary injunction against pulling the feeding tube. It was not an intervention to direct an outcome; it was an attempt, in light of extraordinary circumstances, to ensure rights to due process. (By which I mean actual PROCEDURAL process--forgive the repetition, but crazy modern constitutional "law" necessitates it--rather than the wackily expansive substantive due process that gets bandied about so often in modern times). Congress never tried to make itself a judge in the case; never tried to guarantee an outcome; never overruled a state court...but merely provided an opportunity for the family to ASK federal courts to take a look at a de novo argument about federal rights. As it happened, the 11th Circuit declined the family's request -- a fact that itself shows that Congress' "intervention" was merely a mild procedural safeguard. All other "news" stories to the contrary, to the effect that Congress tried to play doctor or to play judge or whatever, are utter, complete balderdash. (Which is why, by the way, I fully expect to see it reprinted in the news pages or the New York Times and repeated on CBS News for years to come, anytime the case is mentioned.)
Re: The Pro-Life Case for Giuliani
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 12:32PM
I think there are couple of reasons why self-described social conservatives like him in addition to those you mentioned, James: 1) Many of these people are legal conservatives or believe his choice of judges will result in a "win" for their side ( a more modest and defensible version of the argument you take issue with). If the Rudy Supreme Court will have Ted Olson or Miguel Estrada that's going to lead to results social conservatives like. 2) They identify with his good vs. evil view of the world and battle with liberal icons. A fine publication ran something on this a while back.
RE: The Pro-Life Case For Giuliani
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 11:02AM
Eric Johnston's piece is indeed interesting and cleverly argued. Unfortunately, it is based on two propositions for which there is little evidence. The first is that Giuliani is opposed to Roe v. Wade. In the statement that Johnston points to, Giuliani explicitly says that a consistent originalist can uphold Roe on stare decisis grounds and ultimately expresses indifference to whether it is reversed or not. Rudy hasn't publicly opposed Roe since his first run for mayor in 1989. His current position is actually fairly close to John Kerry's (personally opposed to abortion but in favor of its legality, though less adamant about Roe).
The second is that Giuliani will veto taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research because he was sensitive to taxpayer religious sensibilities in New York City. The trouble with this assertion -- prediction? -- is that it runs counter to Giuliani's own stated position on the issue. With regard to the Virgin Mary painting, Giuliani was opposing the most aggressively secular and socially liberal elements in New York. But even some abortion opponents, like Orrin Hatch, favor embryonic stem-cell research, making it less likely that a pro-choice Republican will take a different stand (unless he feels it is essential to keeping social conservatives in his electoral coalition, an outcome that would be more likely if they would stop being such cheap dates).
My sense is some social conservatives like Giuliani personally, admire his accomplishments in New York City and his performance on 9/11, and believe he will be the nominee so they are trying to talk themselves into believing he is a social conservative too. Their arguments are counterintuitive and in some cases counterfactual.
Senate Prospects
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 8:47AM
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse for Senate Republicans comes word former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen has decided to run against NH Sen. John Sununu. Shaheen was a very popular governor and is odds on favorite to win. When Republicans start counting endangered seats --VA, NH, Neb, Colorado, NM, Minn -- you get close to a fillibuster proof majority. It also strikes you how much better the Dems are at recruiting top candidates.
The Pro-Life Case For Giuliani
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 7:32AM
Today's New York Times features a delightfully counterintuitive op-ed by Eric Johnston. "Only a constitutionalist who supports abortion rights can create an anti-Roe majority by explaining that the end of Roe means letting the people decide, state by state, about abortion," he argues.
Re: Fred and Terri Schiavo
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 7:22AM
The "NOT" was meant to refer to the clarity which his staff was forced to bring to the issue and which he could not manage to get out on his first answer. Going back to an earlier discussion he must sound like the opinions are his and not the afterthought of his staff. This is very much like his encounter with John King on the marriage amendment and on OBL. "I don't know enough" can't be the standard response to questions on the stump--and this was one that was obviously going to come up. As for the politics, it raises a question as to what his niche or pitch is. He is trying to position himself to the right of Romney on social issues and amplify the notion that Romney is a flip flopper and untrustworthy to carry out the goals of social conservatives. However, it appears he's really not to the right of Romney on a number of social issues. That's fine but then the message is useless or just confusing and needs to be retooled.
Re: Fred and Terry Schiavo
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 3:15AM
I say kudos to Fred for once again putting his commitment to federalism above political expediency. Like most conservatives, I found the Schiavo case to be a tragedy and thought that the Florida courts should have erred on the side of life. But I also thought that the federal government had absolutely zero role in the matter. And I'm glad that Fred did not feel the need to pander on this one.
Below, Jennifer wrote:
Did this mean that contrary to the lion share of social conservative activists he thinks Congress should NOT have intervened? Or was he just uninformed on one of the most publicized and emotional issues of the last few years for social conservatives in the state he was visiting?
Also, as Ryan Sager pointed out, "Rudy Giuliani didn't do the hottest job answering this question back in April." You may not be a FredHead Jennifer, but it doesn't seem fair to hold him to an entirely different standard by criticizing him for stumbles on which other candidates get a free pass.
Fred Comes to Life
Posted by on 9.14.07 @ 1:16AM
Jim Geraghty is right -- that clip of Fred Thompson talking about the MoveOn "Betray Us" ad that Phil linked to below showcases the kind of energy that we hadn't seen from Thompson before. Does this mean that he's finding his groove on the stump?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Re: Bush okay; Reed Awful; Giuliani Terrific
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 10:40PM
Quin, I agree but Rudy was better on Hannity when he asked (paraphrasing) "Return on success--which part don't they like 'return' or 'success'?" To correct my earlier post, McCain was in fact on the air. (Yes, he looks like he's wearing the old man wardrobe from On Golden Pond these days and it looks worse than those darn sweaters he hated.) But Thompson and Romney avoided cameras and tried the email/press release approach tonight. It re-enforces the notion that neither is front and center on this. McCain has a real role as Senate leader and long-time critic of Rumsfeld; Rudy forced his way into the conversation by virtue of his punchy rhetoric and his staff (coming up with the NY Times ad and booking him in two spots tonight).
Bush Okay; Reed Awful: Giuliani Terrific
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 10:21PM
As is often the case, President George W. Bush did not deliver as good a speech as he and his speech-writing team had written -- but tonight's speech was definitely well written, and it was not badly delivered. The overall impression, I think, was pretty good. He still has a cadence that just somehow misses the target a little, but that's nitpicking. On substance, the speech had lots to recommend it, and the president deserves great credit for his steadfastness in pursuit of a noble, moral goal.
The opening lines of the speech, as written, were superb. The president wasted no time. He set a challenge for the American people, and in appropriately stark terms. To wit:
"Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment."
Such an immediate challenge to his listeners is a bit Churchill-esque. The president laid out the facts and the context well. He walked the listeners through the reasons for and beneficial (but sober, realistic, definitely not overstated) effects of the "surge." In a subtle shot at the press that simultaneously could have been a nice encapsulation of where things stand (this is one of the lines where Bush's delivery was only fair-to-middling, which is a shame, because it was a very good line), Bush said "These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference." It was also good that he mentioned -- but he should have emphasized more, and detailed more -- that 36 other nations have troops on the ground in Iraq. And the closing paragraph was very well done:
"Some say the gains we are making in
In the Democratic response, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who sometimes shows signs of respectability and decency, sank to demagoguery repeatedly, and he had a weird downward, frowny tilt to his mouth the whole time. The less said about his low blows, the better, except to note that he, like most other Democrats, failed to offer any alternative that sounded even remotely like a success in any way, shape, or form.
On Larry King after the show, Barack Obama was similarly prone to low blows. Then Rudy Giuliani came on, and he was terrific -- pitch perfect. Frankly, he definied the mission more understandably and pithily than Bush did: to give the Iraqis safety and security so that we Americans can have an ally in the Middle East against Islamic terrorists. He noted that Iraq is making democratic gains at the local level that are greater than those at the national level, and said that is an encouraging sign because "democracy always works best from the bottom up, not the top down." He said the Democrats are "retreating and running away in Iraq." And, sounding very commonsensical (and with appropriate facial expressions) he praised Gen. Petraeus and said he's making progress, and said it only makes sense for us to say "let's give him a chance to succeed." Really good stuff.
Later on the same show, John McCain was good in substance but bad in tone and style. Whoever is giving him clothing advice is doing a terrible job. He was wearing a light-colored, blue-and white checked, open-collared shirt that, against a pale face and white head, made him look washed out and old. And his tone of voice was low and sort of weary-sounding. It was a shame, because nobody in public office has been as right on Iraq, every step of the way, as McCain has, and also because what he said was appropriately supportive of Bush and Petraeus (although he did seem to take inordinate delight in stressing a real hard criticism of former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld).
So... there is my report. Bush pretty good, McCain just okay, Giuliani terrific, Democrats irresponsible.
Folks, it is outrageous to suggest that we Americans can't win this fight. And we are now seeing real successes on the ground over there. Discussing anything other than victory is beneath us. Shame on those who talk about withdrawing troops without succeeding in the mission.
Pres. Bush vs. Sen. Reed
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 9:45PM
When was the last non-State of the Union presidential address that featured a Democratic response? Bush tried to portray his policy as bridging the partisan divide:
Americans want our country to be safe, and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.The response totally undermined this message. Was that a smart move on the Dems' part? I guess we'll have to see what, if anything, this does to the polls.The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.
P.S. Full text of Bush's speech here.
Re: Welcome to the race, Fred
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 8:51PM
Did this mean that contrary to the lion share of social conservative activists he thinks Congress should NOT have intervened? Or was he just uninformed on one of the most publicized and emotional issues of the last few years for social conservatives in the state he was visiting? (He also got stumped on catastrophic insurance which is a bread and butter stuff in Florida but that seems small compared to Terri Schiavo.) You can say he wasn't prepared or knowledgeable or you can say his staff didn't prepare him properly but the result is another woops. (OBL was the last big one.)
The NY Sun reports that the overworked Thompson clean up crew then moved in and had this to say about Thompson's views: "While he believes in the sanctity of life, he also believes that it was a decision for the family to make under state law, so there was no role for the federal government to play." So he DOES differ with many social conservatives(and talk show hosts and bloggers). It's an entirely defensible position -- although is going to be pounced upon by the Romney folks and make more trouble for him as he woos the Arlington group, I have no doubt -- but at some point the candidate has to be able to sound like he knows the issues and can explain his views for himself. (This may explain why he's not thrilled with the idea of debates since generally spokesmen can't come on the stage with the candidates.)
OK--this is clever
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 7:46PM
Rudy submits an ad to the NY Times citing Hillary's "the willing suspension of disbelief" comment, reviewing Petraeus' record as a decorated military leader and closing in bold with " Who should America listen to.. A decorated soldier's commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton's commitment to defending MoveOn.org"? It closes with his own quote: "These times call for statemanship not politicians spewing political venom." The NY Times won't take the ad and then Rudy can attack the liberal media as well as Hillary. Bonus points to the staffer who thought up this one.
UPDATE: And Rudy is the only candidate on TV tonight. This is where a good campaign shows--getting their guy out front and center on the highest profile issue of the day. On Larry King he was energized and dogged-- support Petraeus, shame on Hillary and if we abandon Iraq now the war with Islamic terrorists gets harder, not easier.
No Debates for Good Reason
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 7:35PM
Remember that YouTube debate September that the candidates couldn't quite schedule(it wound up getting moved to November)? The reason is obvious why so many balked--there is a big race to get all the loose change out of the couch in advance of the September 30 Thrid Q fundraising close. Debates take time- preparation, travel, and attendance. In the time spent to get 7 minutes or so of your own candidate's time on screen, a million or so could be scooped up. So no debate this month and lots of finance events. Rudy and Romney will make every effort to pull away from the pack and demonstrate that only they have the funds, organization and stamina to get big bucks that will fuel crucial media buys heading into January. Will Romney need to cut another big check to himself? Will Rudy sneak into first again(or has that low expectations game been used up)? As for McCain he needs to demonstrate his fudraising operation has a pulse and that he has enough at least to get ads on the air in crucial early states. (If he does the "McCain is back" theme becomes a chorus). And for Thompson, the real danger is that he lags McCain or Huckabee or is half of what the frontrunner brings in. (Remember fundraising is supposed to be easier at the beginning when you get all the "low hanging fruit.")
UPDATE:Actually, Thompson may not want to do many debates regardless of the circumstances. In Florida AP has the following:
"Later, in Celebration, he was asked why he was not participating in the Values Voter debate in
Re: Welcome to the race, Fred
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 7:34PM
In Other Debates
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 4:28PM
Will Wilkinson's response to Jonathan Chait over at TPM Cafe is definitely worth a read.
RE: Rudy's No David Dinkins
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 4:24PM
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants come to the United States to work. If you accept that, then you really shouldn't have much of a problem with illegal immigration. I don't agree with that position, but it's a fair one to take -- Tom Bethell lays out the case for it very well in his "Freedom of Immigration Acts" article in the September issue of The American Spectator (subscribe).
To a large extent, it's a question of numbers. Many of the problems associated with illegal immigration -- bad incentives for employers, the strain on social services in heavily affected communities, educational challenges, diminished opportunities for the most economically vulnerable Americans, worsening income inequality, slower assimlation -- are a product of the illegal population's size, and would be mitigated if that population was smaller. Unfortunately, these problems are reaching a point where they are more significant than the revenue lost due to turnstile jumpers.
Overly border-centric enforcement strategies tend to fail for three reasons. First, because Giuliani was right to point out a decade ago that the border can't be secured 100 percent. Second, because this approach ignores the 25 to 40 percent of illegals who overstayed visas. Third, because tighter borders make illegals less likely to go home, paradoxically increasing the size of the illegal population.
Ultimately, if you don't address the reason illegal immigrants come to the U.S. or the social networks to which they belong, you are going to have significant illegal immigration. Giuliani is right to concentrate deportations on criminals but wrong in my view to ignore carefully targeted interior enforcement.
There are dueling studies about the economic benefits of illegal immigration -- the consensus among labor economists seems to be that the benefits are small and accrue mainly to the workers themselves and their employers, but some very well credentialed economists dissent -- yet an attrition strategy can be pursued gradually, taking into account the economic facts on the ground as they evolve. It doesn't have to be a blunderbuss "round 'em up" approach. But as an American, I do care about my fellow countrymen of all races and backgrounds who flip burgers for a living. And as a taxpayer, I have to ask what negative externalities may result from non-enforcement as well as excessive enforcement.
If you take Giuliani at his word, it seems that he only grasps a small part of this issue -- that we need to have a better idea of who is here and that some illegals will commit crimes. If you are more cynical, you might wonder if he is trying to build up his credibility for another try at a "comprehensive" immigration bill.
Russia Combats Declining Birthrates
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 3:02PM
At least someone in Europe gets it… Like the rest of Europe, Russia faces declining birthrates and an increasing Muslim population that threatens its character. Unlike most of Europe, Russia is in the process of doing something about it. As the old saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
HillaryCare, Take 2
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 2:44PM
Hillary Clinton is set to unveil her new health care plan in Iowa on Monday. Cue Harry and Louise.
Rudy Wants NY Times's Special MoveOn Rate
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 2:21PM
Whatever one might say about Rudy's weaknesses in a GOP primary, it must be acknowledged that he knows how to seize on an opportunity when he gets it. After getting a banner Drudge headline yesterday for accusing Hillary of spewing "political venom" for her suggestion that Gen. Petraeus was cooking the books, Giuliani today called on the NY Times to give his campaign the same discounted rate it gave MoveOn.org for its ad attacking Gen. Petraeus, so that the Giuliani campaign can take out an ad coming to Petraeus's defense. The audio of his comments here. And by way of background, here is the NY Post story on the steep discount MoveOn received -- the liberal group paid $65,000 for an ad that normally sells for $181,692.
Re: Rudy's No David Dinkins
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 1:54PM
Squeegee men were a lot different than violent criminals, of course, but they contributed to the sense of menace in the city because they would begin to wipe car windows regardless of whether the motorists desired it, and try to intimidate the drivers into giving them money, even scratching cars with keys. I understand that this puts me at odds with many of my fellow conservatives, but I don't see a Mexican migrant worker, restaurant employee, or gardener who is working at the behest of his employers in quite the same light just because they are in the country illegally.
Another reason why I think the comparison doesn't fully hold is that Giuliani has vowed to end illegal immigration by stopping it at its point of origin through improved border security. In this sense, it may be easier to discuss the issue by drawing a different parallel--subway turnstile jumping, which was another one of the petty offenses that Giuliani cracked down on as part of the "broken windows" strategy. Turnstile jumpers were arrested when caught, which was a departure from the previous strategy of looking the other way. But Giuliani didn't allocate scarce police resources to conduct manhunts for people who may have been caught on camera jumping turnstiles weeks before.
As for the amnesty question, obviously this can get into a matter of semantics, but if we define amnesty as any policy that would allow someone who is here illegally to be put on a pathway to citizenship--no matter what fines or requirements are involved--then yes, Giuliani would be for it. However, one of the major arguments against amnesty is that it won't work because politicians won't be serious about securing the border, and down the road we'll be facing another crisis over what to do with millions of illegal immigrants. Whether one thinks he is sincere or not is another debate, but if we take him at his word, Giuliani has recognized that gaining control of the border would have to take priority over deciding what to do with those who are already here illegally. And if Giuliani were able to use his law enforcement background to gain control of the border, and did demonstrate seriousness about deporting criminals who are here illegally, than he would remove the strongest argument against amnesty.
I think the argument is much weaker for deporting illegal immigrants who are purely here to work in this country, or getting the same result through attrition by cracking down on employers. This is especially true if it also means opposition to increasing the level of legal immigration, thus disrupting labor markets. The big debate over Jobs Americans Won't Do is a misnomer, because the real question is at what price Americans would perform certain jobs. As a consumer, I personally don't see any advantage to paying more for a cheeseburger just so it can be flipped by an American rather than a Mexican.
RE: Rudy's No David Dinkins
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 12:16PM
While I agree that the Dinkins comparison is over the top, I don't think Krikorian was objecting specifically to Giuliani's position on whether illegal immigration should be treated as a crime rather than a civil infraction. Krikorian, as a supporter of attrition through enforcement, is taking issue with Giuliani's oft-stated view that illegal immigrants who don't commit violent crimes or break other laws should generally be allowed to stay in the country.
Sure, there is a difference between illegally working as a sous chef and being a violent criminal -- just as there is a difference between being a violent criminal and being a squeege man. Applying the "broken windows" theory to immigration enforcement would suggest that cracking down on lesser offenders would strike a blow against the overall climate of illegality.
I happen to agree with Giuliani's enforcement priorities -- deporting murderers, rapists, and drunk drivers is a better use of resources than deporting sous chefs -- and some moderate restrictionists like Robert Samuelson think reducing the inflows is more important than doing something about the illegals already here. But Giuliani does still support amnesty, and I think a strong argument can be made that even his new pro-enforcement posture doesn't go far enough in addressing the incentives for illegal immigration.
Rudy's No David Dinkins
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 11:25AM
Mark Kirkorian makes an absurd comparison between David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani, arguing that Giuliani's comments about illegal immigration not being a crime contradict his "broken windows" theory of policing that involved cracking down on minor offenses before it creates an environment of lawlessness that manifests itself in larger crimes. Of Giuliani's approach to illegal immigration, Kirkorian writes:
Apparently Kirkorian cannot tell the difference between "random violence" and somebody who is in the country illegally working as a sous chef. Giuliani has vowed to deport all illegal immigrants who have committed a crime as well as seal the borders to prevent new illegal immigrants from coming in. If Kirkorian is truly arguing that immigration should be treated as a crime, he really has a lot of explaining to do. Does he want 12 million people clogging up our criminal court system? Does he want taxpayers to pay for food and shelter to these criminal immigrants who are in jail?
If so, he should also call out Tom Tancredo for being in favor of a Dinkins approach to illegal immigration. Last year, Tancredo wrote:
The truth is Democrats voted for the felony provision, and a majority of Republicans (including me) voted against it.
Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction. The House Judiciary Committee voted to make it a felony but then was counseled that millions of new felons could clog our courts.
UPDATE: In this Washington Times story, Tancredo argues that he still supported making illegal immigration a misdermeanor.
Hsu's Suicide Note
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 10:54AM
The WSJ reports that the fugitive fundraiser FedEx'ed several copies to associates before he boarded the Amtrak train. The article also contains some dramatic details about how he was found in his sleeper cabin:
Ms. Segale summoned Amtrak workers, who eventually used a crowbar to pry the door off its hinges, according to Ms. Segale and another person involved. Mr. Hsu was wedged into a one-foot-wide space between the door and his convertible bed, disoriented and unable to stand due to loss of circulation in at least one of his legs, these people said.
Amtrak conductors and a car attendant freed Mr. Hsu and called ahead for medical assistance. Ms. Segale said that in the cabin "I could see pills on the floor, rolling around -- prescriptions." At Grand Junction, Colo., Mr. Hsu was taken to the hospital. Federal officials arrested Mr. Hsu there later.
Meanwhile, he has been transferred from the Colorado hospital to jail.Enter Mark Warner
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 10:43AM
The popular former Democrtic governor from Virginia, Mark Warner, has made it official that he plans to run for the Senate seat that will be vacated by John Warner. His website is up and running with an announcement video. With M. Warner running, this Senate seat is another one that Republicans will almost certainly lose. How bad does it look for the GOP? The two leading contenders for the Republican nomination are Rep. Tom Davis and former governor/failed presidential candidate Jim Gilmore. A recent Rasmussen poll found M. Warner leading Gilmore by 20 points 54-34. And that's the good news. Warner leads Davis 57-30. It also showed Warner still had a 68 percent approval rating.
Liz Mair had anticipated Warner's decision in a piece for our main site on Monday and the Prowler had more today.
Welcome to the Race, Fred
Posted by on 9.13.07 @ 12:36AM
Poor Fred Thompson gets pulverized in today's Washington Post, in a double hit, from its op-ed page's ace conservatives. George Will is at his most scathing. Bob Novak is simply confounded. And at least Novak allows for the possibility of improvement, if only to be kind.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
"Tax Hike Mike"
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 10:42PM
The Club for Growth goes nuclear on Huckabee with a website dedicated to his fiscal record.
Work Hard, Play Hard
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 6:49PM
Matt Labash's Weekly Standard cover story on the "infantilization of corporate America" is well worth a read. In my past life before political journalism, I saw some of these trends firsthand. The phrase "team building" still causes heart palpitations.
Not every company that uses these practices is quite so pathetic. I worked for several years at a marketing/tech company (I was hired during the dot-com boom) and some of the things we did were actually fun: well lubricated company parties, drinking games in the conference rooms, department-wide outings. But then again, I was in my 20s, so what wasn't to like? It was college with a paycheck.
UPDATE: A while back, I wrote about my IT guy experience here.
Re: A win for Hillary
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 5:16PM
Absolutely right Phil and for Rudy and McCain who chased their rivals off the headlines. The latter two are still arguing about that silly website. Yes, silly by any standard of political oppo gamesmanship. Romney tried to take the high ground. Team Fred has sent out a long communication complaining that --gasp--Romney's team " is simply doing exactly what they said they would do, and when they get caught, they have a pattern of denying it." The rest of the missive quotes from that reliable conservative journal Salon and the Boston Globe(which is to Romney what the Daily News is to Rudy) about how tough Romney plays with the opposition. If I am a pol in SC I'm thinking "I like the tough guy." One GOP consultant's take: "glass chin." Seriously, the way to get at Romney is on substance or on flip flops; the dig on him is that he's not tough enough. This is helping him.
McCain vs. Thompson
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 4:46PM
Yesterday I posited that Romney and Thompson were a study in contrast, but maybe the greater contrast is McCain and Thompson. McCain : spits details, is raring to go and leaves no doubts as to where he is on any issue(not always a good thing in his case). Thompson : Not any of that.
A Win For Hillary?
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 4:46PM
Rudy Giuliani got a banner Drudge headline off of his attack on Hillary today, and McCain's assault on her (see below) is also likely to get attention. In the context of the Republican primary, I think it was helpful to Rudy and McCain to land punches on Hillary, but in the context of a Democratic primary, it has to be seen as a win for her that two prominent Republican candidates are attacking her for what Democrats perceive as her "standing up" to Petraeus. It has to be especially sweet for Hillary because it comes on a day that Obama is unveiling his Iraq strategy in a speech that is now likely to be overshadowed by Republican candidates teeing off on her.
McCain: Hillary Not Tough Enough to Be President
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 4:26PM
Speaking to bloggers from Iowa on his "No Surrender Tour," John McCain had the following to say about Hillary Clinton:
"Sen. Clinton said that Gen. Petraeus's statistics 'willingly suspend disbelief.' I think it willingly suspends disbelief to not repudiate a advertisement run by a radical left-wing organization that impugns and dishonors the integrity of a man who has served his nation with dedication all of his life. And if you're not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous attack such as that, then I don't know how you're tough enough to be President of the
United States."
McCain also pointed out that as a matter of consistency, he criticized attack ads against John Kerry and Max Cleland's military service.
McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 4:21PM
Just When You Despair
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 2:40PM
I admit to being part of the "Hillary is formidable" contingent but sometimes I listen too much to the Republicans and not enough to her. Rudy in his recent Georgia radio interview made a point to highlight her own rhetoric directed at Gen. Petraeus, which may have been more sophisticated but was no less insulting than the MoveOn.org NY Times ad.
The Rudy team sent this around to make it clear that the nasty language is not just a Moveon.org phenomenon:
"Well, I was quite impressed with General Petraeus' testimony and Ambassador Crocker. I'm an admirer of General Petraeus. I think he's taken a very difficult situation, he's moved it in a direction in which we are now seeing, you know, some significant success. Although there is also a long way to go. But, gosh, this is a very difficult situation - you can't expect the man to have turned this around completely in five or six months. I think he has been put through some horrible attacks. I think MoveOn.org trying to, you know, equate his name with betrayal, is one of the more disgusting things that has happened in American politics. And I think the failure of the Democratic candidates to really condemn that, given how much money MoveOn.org spends on behalf of Democratic candidates, which is millions if not hundreds of millions, is really, I really think it's very, very unfortunate. And also, they sort of play into it. Hillary Clinton said yesterday, I think, said to General Petraeus, 'I think the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.' I don't know what she's trying to say when she's accusing a general of the 'willing suspension of disbelief. '"
It's The Tone
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 2:19PM
Every candidate has to find a tone as well as a message. McCain is ironic and punchy. Romney sounds like an executive, at least a business one. Rudy sounds, well like a New Yorker. Thompson is clearly going for the aw shucks nice guy image. But his press shop sounds more like Hillary's.
This was their first response to Huckabee's debate invite:
"He ought to get together with Bill Richardson and have a potential running mates debate."
This was part of the response to Romney on the website:
"There is no room in our party for this kind of smut. As the top executive of his own campaign, Gov. Romney should take full responsibility for this type of high-tech gutter politics and issue an immediate apology. In addition, Gov. Romney should exercise some of his much-touted executive acumen, take control of his flailing campaign, and immediately terminate anyone and everyone related to this outrage. "This latest episode only serves to prove what many voters are already figuring out: Mitt Romney will do anything, say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in order to win. The American people in general and the Republican Party in particular deserve better than this."
Aside from the mismatch with their own candidate's tone and the gratutious flip flop swipe, yesterday's missive strikes me as more than a tad over the top, especially for South Carolina where politics is a contact sport. It's like listening to Ron Paul in a debate --too much screaming and not enough dynamic range. If you're hollering in September what do you sound like in January?
Re: Rudy's Shrinking Lead
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 12:43PM
Phil, I agree entirely with your last post. I didn't mean to imply that I don't think McCain has an opening-- I think he does. He has sprung to life because of his role on Iraq. When others are squabbling over silly things ( e.g.did Romney really control the nasty website) he really does look like a mature leader. I know he's offended many movement conservatives, was never a Reagan tax cutter and was at odds with the base on immigration and campaign finance reform(ok that is a lot but stick with me for a moment) but maybe he's a pretty good option for social conservatives. He's always been pro-life, he does talk about faith, and he's against gay marriage (but not for the Romney or latest Thompson version constitutional amendments). Probably just too much water under the bridge for movement conservatives and my own list suggests it's an uphill fight but... the man knows how to campaign and how to debate. (If he raises some money this quarter it will get interesting.)
Obama's Iraq Plan
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 12:38PM
Today Barack Obama is unveiling a plan to "turn the page" in Iraq. Ironically (but perhaps not accidentally), he will be doing so from Clinton, Iowa.
Here is the four point plan:
- Obama would immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.
- He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation.
- He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional compact.
- He would take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes.
Re: Rudy's Shrinking Lead
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 12:24PM
Obviously, all polls, at all times, should be taken with a grain of salt. When you have a flurry of polls at a given time all showing similar movement, they should be taken a bit more seriously than a single poll. However, that still is only a snapshot, and not a trend. Clearly we'll have to wait to see if Fred's anticipated announcement bounce holds. As for McCain, while people may question whether his upward momentum is statistically significant, there are at least some outside developments that you could point to that would suggest that there is more to his apparent bounce--notably, that the debate in Washington has shifted from immigration to Iraq.
Re: Rudy's Shrinking Lead
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 11:50AM
Rudy's Shrinking Lead
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 10:57AM
Following up on Jennifer's post, it's important to note that while Giuliani's polling may be stable, his lead has been shrinking relative to his rivals, and is down to 4.6 percent in the RCP average. Also, several polls do show a rather dramatic errosion in his support. In the NY Times/CBS News poll, Rudy dropped 11 points since August and in this Washington Post/ABC News poll, he dropped 9 points since July.
There are several possible explanations for this. One is, as noted below, the Thompson post-announcement bounce, and we'll have to wait and see whether it is short-lived. Another is the McCain resurgence, which is likely coming as a result of his strong stand on Iraq, possibly taking national security voters away from Rudy. Yet another--which would be the worst possibility for Team Rudy-- is that the long-standing prediction of Giuliani critics that Republican primary voters would reject Rudy once they learned more about his liberal positions could be coming true. Did the sanctuary city battle be hurt Rudy? What about his assertion that illegal immigration shouldn't be a crime? We'll have to wait and see. Also worth noting is that while the sanctuary battle may have hurt Rudy, it certainly didn't help Romney. After enjoying a post-Ames bounce, Romney has begun to fade in the national polls again, resuming his position in the low double-digit range.
UPDATE: A Rudy friend notes that the recent USA Today/Gallup poll showed Giuliani with a sizable 12-point lead.
Re: Fred's Poll Numbers
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 10:06AM
This RCP analysis and accompanying chart is very helpful, reading in part: "The real story, post Labor Day, has been the solid pop for Fred Thompson following his formal announcement last week, the resurgence of John McCain, the small but steady improvement for Mike Huckabee, the lack of any national follow-through for Mitt Romney following his bounce after the Iowa straw poll and the continued stability of support for the GOP front-runner Rudy Giuliani." Contrary state polls like the Florida one linked to earlier suggest all this may be in huge flux but we'll certainly know in a month or so whether McCain and Thompson are in a dog fight with Rudy for the lead. One caution: for obvious reasons the Romney camp continually points out that the primary system is a state by state race and not a national primary. True, but maybe less so this year in light of Super Duper Tuesday.
Florida
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 9:20AM
This poll and others like it may explain why Romney announced he is going on the air with ads in Florida. It may also have something to do with the fact Thompson starts a three day visit there. Despite Romney's lead in Iowa and NH(although there has arguably been some narrowing of late), he continues to poll poorly in the next round of states including South Carolina and Florida. Revealing that he does not entirely buy into the notion that the sheer momentum of Iowa and NH wins will sweep him to victory, he is looking to bolster his numbers in these other states. I'm expecting to see more ads and more visits by Romney in Florida. This is why campaigns get very tricky --each dollar and each visit spent in one state takes away from another state�so each campaign has to be smart (or lucky) to maximize their resources in the places it will do the most good and avoid overspending where it is not necessary or where it is hopeless.
Re: Petraeus Report: Advantage Bush
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 6:50AM
Phil, your take seems solid and raises three points:
1) Will Hillary continue to hold the Democratic anti-war base at bay or will they finally explode and harness their energy behind a get out now anti-war candidate? She's been doing fine so far but the anti-war forces are going to get angrier and more frustrated after the Democrats lose this next round, as appears will be the case.
2) If she survives, gets the nomination and wins(unlike a lot of commentators I think she is formidable and is the odds on favorite to be president if she gets the nomination) she will then be faced with the exact dilemma she did not want: Iraq will be her problem. You recall how early in her run she declared that Bush needed to clean up his "mess" (i.e. get out of Iraq) before the next president took office. At that point we can only hope Joe Biden is Secretary of State and a reasoned approach carries the day. (If her opponent is Mitt Romney there may be very little daylight between the two as was discussed yesterday.)
3) If we have more than 100,000 troops still in Iraq there's a lot to be said for the "Republicans are doomed" theory. Unless you think there is going to be an extremely dramatic change in the situation in Iraq, allowing not only the 30,000 troops to come home in July but the prospect of many more, the GOP prospects don't look great. The good news: someone other than Bush(i.e. the GOP nominee) will be there to explain the stakes and try to convince anyone who still is listening what is involved.
Re: It's That Time In the Election Cycle Again
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 6:34AM
These games usually rest on two premises-- everyone stays in to the bitter end and there is no momentum which carries from one state to the next. Interestingly, Rudy's strategy -- a variation of the article -- rests on the premise that Romney will not gain momentum from early states and that Rudy will pick up Florida and sweep the lion share of delegates on February 5 and beyond. (It seems that the linked piece does not put Florida in the winner take all category which is an error since the state chair now is empowered to make just such a rule change and all indications are that he will do so.) Even if you think Rudy's "no momentum" theory makes sense early on, it still seems a stretch to think no one slips out of sight and other candidates, most particularly Romney and Thompson who are fighting over the same constituency, remain in such a state of equipoise as to prevent anyone from capturing the nomination.
It's That Time in the Election Cycle Again...
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 6:07AM
...When pundits start daydreaming about a brokered convention. John Judis leads off with the traditional mix of dubious premises and wild conjectures.
These columns always get written; the predictions never pan out. But hey, this time could be different.
Petraeus Report: Advantage Bush
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 1:06AM
After spending much of Monday and Tuesday watching the testimony of Gen. Petraeus, I think that several developments make it much more likely that Congress will grant him more time to carry out the surge strategy. They are, as follows:
--The decision by MoveOn.org to take out the "Betray Us" ad was an absolute blunder. A majority of Americans may oppose the war, but they still hold the military in high esteem, and it simply is not helpful for opposition to the war to be associated with smearing a well-respected military leader who-no matter one's views on the war-is doing an admirable job given the cards he was dealt. That this was followed by Code Pink's nonsense during the hearings does not help the anti-war cause either.
--Petraeus proved cool-headed and unflappable through hours of testimony, questions, and grandstanding lectures by members of Congress.
--Petraeus's proposal to withdraw 30,000 troops, bringing forces to pre-surge levels next July, steals some thunder from the Democrats, especially because Petraeus said he would revisit troop levels in March. Democrats may argue that it's too little and too slow, but assuming Petraeus's recommendations are taken up by Bush, removing some troops blunts criticism of Bush as a pig-headed dead-ender who is oblivious to the strain the current troop levels are placing on the military.
--Democratic leaders still seem to have resigned themselves to the fact that they'll lose this round of the battle over the war. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Nancy Pelosi again made the argument that as long as Bush's signature is needed, they cannot end the war. And that brings me to my final point.
--Democrats don't want to end the war. The biggest issue they have going for them in 2008 is: the only way we can end the war is to elect a Democratic president and more Democrats to Congress. Their base may get restive in the meantime, but the grassroots will still be energized next year by the prospect of retaking the White House.
That's how it looks now anyway. We'll see where things are over the next couple of weeks.
Re: Fred's Poll Numbers
Posted by on 9.12.07 @ 12:04AM
Oh no Phil, I never believe there is much correlation between pundits' opinions and polling(at least in the near run)! Over time, sometimes, if there is widespread consensus across both the MSM and blogs. But my main point is the polls right now tell us precious little so we should look, listen and evaluate for ourselves.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Re: Fred's Poll Numbers
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 11:52PM
Jennifer, the point is that if one were to read all of Fred's bad reviews from pundits and nothing else, one would think he was in freefall in the polls, but that simply isn't the case. It's one thing to not be impressed by Thompson, but it's another thing to assume that other Republicans are going to view him through the same mud-tinted glasses.
Re: Fred's poll numbers
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 11:07PM
It would be shocking if Thompson's numbers didn't go up in the week he anounced. If you look at Rudy's numbers(depending on the poll at issue) after the time he indicated in January that he was serious about running( he never "announced") we went up more than 10 pts. For example we went from 31% to a sky high 44% in Gallup on 3/2/07. There is huge volitility nationally and the scant state polling out this week shows less movement(e.g. LAT/ Bloomberg). So maybe he's improved his standing and maybe not but we won't know for a month or so. (Much more important number: that October 15 fundraising figure.)
Aside from a pleasing personality I'm not seeing Thompson's strengths yet but there is time and it isn't too late to gin up some good policy ideas, polish the verbal skills, and hire significant staff in key states once he figures out his electoral strategy (after visiting Iowa and NH they now have "low expectations" there, according to his campaign). One last thought: Thompson visiting Florida on Rosh Hashana not so smart, nu?
UPDATE: This description of a Thompson stop in Iowa is quite vivid:
"Thompson's performance drew mixed reviews. Laconic by nature, and intent on proving his disdain for the mundane exertions of public life, he seemed half-asleep at times. Ambling onto the stage, he spoke in deep, almost mournful tones about terrorism, profligate spending and bureaucracy; about his Tennessee roots and his 'core values.' Then he ambled to the bus."
Call me silly but I think "sleepy" is not a good adjective for a president. I jest, but this hysterical satire could only be written about one candidate.
Fred's Poll Numbers
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 10:46PM
For all the talk among pundits about Fred's flubs, staff changes, and bungled roll out, his poll numbers are looking pretty good. Depending on which ones you choose to believe, he's either surging or holding steady. Whether the problems that pundits are writing about now will prove fatal for Fred down the road is up for deabte, but at this point he should be seen as a formidable candidate. Does he have weaknesses? Sure. But if you were to analyze each of the GOP candidates individually in a vacuum, the only logical conclusion you could reach is that none of them can win the nomination. Somebody has to, and Fred has a lot going for him.
Re: Mitt vs. Fred
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 9:18PM
Phil, you write that "Thompson's Southern accent and folksy charm create the impression that he is a social conservative." What then are we to make of this, from MSNBC this morning (scroll down)?
In an interview with a handful of reporters yesterday in South Carolina, Thompson acknowledged that he's not a member of any church. He says he attends church when he's in Tennessee; he usually goes with his mother. He does not attend church regularly in the DC area.
The impression here is that such details will undermine what appeal he can have as a social conservative.
Re: Mitt v. Fred
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 9:17PM
Phil, I think there is a reason why Fred has not had or scheduled a full open press conference or a "Ask Fred" type townhall. Actually there are two reasons. First, he doesn't yet have specific answers to standard questions(what is your tax plan? what's your biggest accomplishment in the Congress?). Second, he has had his share of flubs already when talking without a script (e.g. Cuban immigrants are a security threat, OBL deserves due process, previous confusion generated about his marriage amendment position from his John King interview, his encounter with Laura Ingraham on the McCain Feingold issue ad ban). Could he get better? Of course and he'll have to but right now that's not his forte and that's why he's wise --for a little while -- to avoid situations where he will appear out of his depth. As for him being a more effective foil for Romney, I think the more challengers in the race seeking to face off against Rudy the worse for all of them. Not only Thompson but also Huckabee will be a frequent thorn in Romney's side. The fun will come because both Romney and his staff have gotten a lot of practice in defending themselves and a less than quick tongued opponent will be at a disadvantage.
Re: Mitt vs. Fred
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 8:18PM
What Thompson has going for him in this fight is that of all the top tier candidates, he is the best-positioned to make the calculating, flip-flopper label stick to Romney. While Romney has to some extent been able to fend off this criticism from McCain or Giuliani by saying, essentially, "hey, at least I'm more conservative than the other guys," it will be a lot harder for him to use a similar strategy with Thompson. Though Thompson doesn't have a perfect conservative record, his pro-life votes, his mostly solid record on spending, taxes and gun rights will make it hard for Romney to portray him as a liberal. Furthermore, fair or not, there is the cultural factor. Romney, the wealthy businessman from the Northeast, fits the profile of a Rockefeller Republican, while Thompson's Southern accent and folksy charm create the impression that he is a social conservative. This latest incident with the possible Romney-linked Website reinforces Thompson's narrative that all these people who have been running for president since they were chior boys want to tear him down because he's a threat and is not playing by their rules. Romney would be much better off hitting Thompson on the executive experience and tangible accomplishments front. He can subtly connect this to the frustration conservatives have with Bush-i.e. do they want to repeat the mistake of nominating a lovable dude who infuriates liberals but lacks managerial competence? With that said, I'll never underestimate the appeal of folksiness, especially when the rest of the top tier are vulnerable. Jennifer writes that Thompson, "lacks the verbal acuity and precision to do well in press avails or townhalls," but I would say it's far too premature to render such a judgment.
Hillary's "Gotcha" Question to Gen. Petraeus
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 7:06PM
In a textbook case of Clintonian posturing, Hillary essentially portrayed Petraeus as the poor sap who was stuck defending President Bush's strategy, as she praised the military and criticized the war at the same time. She said Petraeus had become the "de facto spokesman for a failed policy" and she smugly stated, "I give you tremendous credit for presenting a positive view of a grim reality." To believe Petraeus's reports of progress in Iraq, Clinton said, would "require a willing suspension of disbelief."
In her statement, she reminded everybody that she "started the morning at Ground Zero." After all the attacks that have been leveled at Rudy Giuliani by the media for accepting an invitation to participate in the 9/11 ceremony, will they gang up on Hillary for exploiting 9/11 for political gain? Don't count on it. Clinton went on to echo the Democratic line that the appearance of bin Laden and the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan showed that the Iraq War wasn't making us any safer.
Most odd was that her big "gotcha" moment involved pointing out what she claimed was a contradiction in Petraeus's testimony, but it was nothing of the sort. Responding to Sen. Biden's loaded question about whether he would continue to recommend a large sustained U.S. presence in Iraq if the country were a complete mess next March, Petraeus said he would be "hard-pressed" to do so. In response to a similar hypothetical question about troop levels by Sen. Collins, Petraeus said he would have to think it through at the time. For those who haven't been watching the testimony closely, Petraeus has repeatedly stated that he believes that the U.S. could return to pre-surge levels by the middle of next July, but that he couldn't make troop level recommendations beyond that until next March, when he'll have a better sense of conditions in Iraq. Whenever pressed about long-term troop levels, Petraeus stressed this point again and again-that he couldn't speculate on hypothetical situations because they were too many variables to take into account. When Biden painted a grim portrait of conditions in Iraq six months from now and asked Petraeus if he would still support the same level of U.S. involvement, rather than dodge, he responded that he would be "hard-pressed" to.
When Clinton asked Petraeus to reconcile this major contradiction, Petraeus was obviously baffled as to where the difference could be, but coolly reiterated his position.
Hillary is probably smart enough to know that Petraeus did not contradict himself, but likely made a calculated decision to find a way to "stand up" to Petraeus without being overly combative with a popular military figure.
Re: Mitt v. Fred
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 6:36PM
Mitt vs. Fred
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 6:15PM
I'd expect the sniping between the Romney and Thompson campaigns to get worse before it gets better. They are both competing for the same slice of voters, and they each would benefit tremendously from the other being knocked out of the race. Thompson has the support in the national polls and the potential to break through in the South; Romney has solid leads in key early states and has seen some progress in his national numbers. Their combined presence in the race, however, is making it easier for Giuliani to lead in unlikely places like South Carolina.
Similar competition between Pat Buchanan and Phil Gramm in 1995-96 led to the former bloodying the latter in Louisiana and then finishing him off in Iowa. But such infighting can backfire as well. In 2000, Steve Forbes trained a great deal of his fire on the electorally irrelevant Gary Bauer, who peaked with 8 percent in Iowa, while the nomination contest was turning into a Bush-McCain race.
Semi-Antiwar Republicans?
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 5:34PM
I think Dave Freddoso is on to something here -- while mostly operating within the pro-surge, anti-withdrawal framework, Republicans are a bit more divided on Iraq than the Ron Paul against the world debates suggest. And even though Mitt Romney basically agrees with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani on the way forward in Iraq, these differences may have relevance to how they would handle foreign-policy questions likely to come their way as president.
Re: I spoke too soon
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 5:14PM
Todd Harris declined to elaborate on the statement or to specify what Romney flip flops he was referring to. As for team Romney, they seemed reluctant to get pulled into a political food fight on 9-11 but had this response: "First, today is a day of remembrance, and should be a day without political statements or attacks on opposing campaigns.Our campaign is focused on running a campaign about issues that are important to the American people. We had no knowledge of the development or administration of this site. We also disapprove of the site and have made it very clear that the site does not have an affiliation with our campaign."
How It Happened
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 4:32PM
Amy Zegart has a new book called Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11. She's guest-blogging over at The Volokh Conspiracy today, and kicks off with her top 5 most depressing findings:
1. The FBI failed to find 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi 19 days before 9/11 even though they were hiding in plain sight. On the night of 9/11, an FBI search of public records found al-Mihdhar's correct San Diego address within hours. Unbeknownst to the Bureau, both terrorists had lived with an FBI informant in San Diego, made contact with several targets of FBI counterterrorism investigations, and used their real names on everything from credit cards to telephone listings.2. Just weeks before 9/11, the FBI's own highly classified counterterrorism review gave failing grades to every single one of the Bureau's 56 U.S. field offices. (The report was considered so embarrassing, only a handful of copies were ever made).
3. A January 2002 internal FBI review found that 66% of the FBI's 1,200 analysts (the people who "connect the dots") were unqualified to do their jobs.
4. Twenty months before 9/11, the CIA got wind that al Qaeda operatives might be gathering in Malaysia for a planning meeting -- what one intelligence official described to me as "the al Qaeda convention." Two of the participants turned out to be 9/11 hijackers. The CIA established surveillance, but lost track of them as soon as the meeting disbanded. Management was so hosed up that one CIA official believed, and kept telling his bosses, that the terrorists were being monitored 5 days after they had disappeared into the Streets of Bangkok.
5. The CIA and FBI missed a total of 23 opportunities to potentially disrupt the 9/11 plot.
Remember Scott Thomas Beauchamp?
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 4:22PM
The New Republic hopes you don't. Michelle Malkin isn't ready to let them off the hook.
Petraeus Doesn't Want to Enter Iran
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 4:16PM
Citing reports that Iraqi Shiite militants were receiving training outside Tehran and being sent back to Iraq to carry out attacks on U.S. forces, Sen. Lieberman asked Gen. Petraeus whether he desired the freedom to pursue militant groups into Iran. Petraeus said he did not. He emphasized that his focus is on Iraq, and that any U.S. military actions inside Iran would be beyond the scope of his mission.
I spoke too soon (about 9-11 political hiatus)
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 4:07PM
From Thompson camp:
Statement on Romney's South Carolina Cover-Up
McLean, VA - Thompson for President Communications Director Todd Harris today released the following statement:
"Fred Thompson entered the race for president just days ago, talking about uniting our country around a core set of conservative beliefs. According to the Washington Post, it is now clear that while Fred Thompson is working to bring our country together, an increasingly desperate Mitt Romney and his campaign are already hard at work to divide us, practicing the lowest kind of politics.
"Today's half-baked cover-up attempt by the Romney campaign does not even pass the laugh test. The Romney campaign has paid Warren Tompkins and his various firms hundreds of thousands of dollars. Wesley Donehue works for Tompkins and is listed on Tompkins' own webpage as an associate of the firm. According to PalmettoScoop.com, Donehue 'runs the daily operations of their political consulting firm, Tompkins, Thompson and Sullivan, including direct mail efforts and a number of Web-based ventures.' [Emphasis added]
"There is no room in our party for this kind of smut. As the top executive of his own campaign, Gov. Romney should take full responsibility for this type of high-tech gutter politics and issue an immediate apology. In addition, Gov. Romney should exercise some of his much-touted executive acumen, take control of his flailing campaign, and immediately terminate anyone and everyone related to this outrage.
"This latest episode only serves to prove what
many voters are already figuring out: Mitt Romney will do anything,
say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in
order to win. The American people in general and the
Republican Party in particular deserve better than
this."
Re: Was this one on "Law and Order"?
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 3:33PM
9-11 Statements
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 3:23PM
It is a quiet day on the political front given 9-11 and the hearings. It is interesting to note how two candidates handled the day.
Thompson released this, essentially a call to arms: "Six years have passed since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Today is a day to remember those who lost their lives at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists who despise our values and way of life, as well as those men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice helping their fellow citizens that tragic day, and defending freedom in the years that have followed.
We must never forget that America has shed more blood defending freedom here and abroad than all the other countries in the world combined. And it was no different on 9/11. Before the twin towers fell, before the smoke had cleared from the Pentagon, before the brave men and women of Flight 93 had made a stand over Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Americans were fighting back. America's heritage of defending freedom has fallen to us. It is a great trust that our generation willingly accepts and must uphold. But the best way we can do that - while honoring the tragic loss of our fellow citizens six years ago today, and in all of the years since - is to make sure our nation continues to stand for freedom, remains strong and united in the face of threats, and secure."
Rudy, who appears sensitive about making hay out of the 9-11 tragedy, delivered a short reading today which is largely personal. We are all too cynical to believe a presidential candidate says things without regard to the consequences but this does give some insight into how for Rudy 9-11 is "personal" and not just political:
"On this day six years ago, and on the days
that followed,in the midst of our great grief and turmoil, we
witnessed uncompromising strength and resilience as a people. It
was a day with no answers, but with an unending line of those who
came forward to try to help one another. Elie Wiesel wrote this
about the blackest night a human being can know: 'I have learned
two lessons in my life: first, there are no sufficient literary,
psychological, or historical answers to human tragedy, only moral
ones. Second, just as despair can come to one another only from
other human beings, hope, too, can be given to one only by other
human beings.'''
McCain's Statement
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 2:40PM
As expected, McCain offered a strong defense of continuing the surge strategy. He reiterated his disapproval of the Rumsfeld strategy pursued for nearly four years in Iraq, arguing "we have lost years to that strategy" but he stressed that we cannot recover our losses from that period. Now that we have a different strategy that is working, we have to give it more time.
Two Down, One To Go
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 2:19PM
The final Petraeus/Crocker hearing will be held in a few minutes before the Senate Armed Services Committee--should be some fireworks with Clinton, Levin, Kennedy, Webb, Lieberman and McCain on tap.
A Testy Exchange
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 1:25PM
In one of the more contentious back and forths of the day, Sen. Bob Menendez grilled Petraeus on Iraq troop preparedness, and on how long U.S. troops would have to be in Iraq. In a rare display of emotion, a normally stoic Petraeus said "I'm as frustrated as anyone," mentioning that he's been overseas for years and so "my family also knows something about sacrifice." Earlier in the day, Petraeus had inadvertently referred to Iraq as his home.
Obama Speaks
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 1:17PM
Not surprising given his presidential ambitions, Obama used his time to give a lecture on how Iraq was a "disastrous foreign policy mistake" rather than ask pointed questions to Petraeus and Crocker. Obama started by saying that it was inappropriate to hold the hearings today because it perpetuates the idea that we went to war in Iraq because of the Sept. 11 attacks. He complained that things are so bad in Iraq and we've moved the bar so low that even a modest level of improvement, with violence still at unnacceptable June 2006 levels, is viewed as a success. His question to Crocker as he ran out of time was at what point would lack of political progress on the part of the Iraqi government lead Crocker to conclude that we need to withdraw troops from Iraq. The only problem was that the question had already been answered, so Biden just had Crocker give a short summary of his response.
Boxer's Lament
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 12:21PM
The California senator just admonished Gen. Petraeus to take off his rose-colored glasses and she cited accusations that he is cherry-picking data.
Feingold vs. Petraeus
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 12:18PM
Sen. Russ Feingold has taken on Gen. Petraeus on one of the lines of criticism of our continued presence in Iraq, the idea that by prioritizing Iraq we have neglected fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Feingold attacked what he saw as a "myopic" focus on Iraq while neglecting the broader War on Terror. Petraeus reiterated that intercepted communication from Central Al Qaeda demonstrated that they viewed Iraq as the central front, but stressed that his focus was on narrowly on Iraq because his mission was limited to carrying out the military strategy there.
More Chait
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 10:57AM
Thanks Quin. I don't know if I gave Chait too much credit, but I do know that there were some points that couldn't fit in my column. While Grover Norquist can certainly hold his own, I notice in their TNR debate Chait keeps bringing up Reagan's "progressive tax reform." He mentions that it closes loopholes and ends "favorable tax treatment" for capital gains, but doesn't share many other details of that reform.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 cut the top marginal income tax rate down to just 28 percent, the lowest since Herbert Hoover was president. The fourteen income tax brackets were reduced to two, with a lower 15 percent tax rate -- the closest we have ever gotten to a flat tax. The additional progressivity was caused by balancing rate cuts with the elimination of loopholes and dropping some 3 million low-income workers from the tax rolls entirely, both approaches that conservatives would endorse today.
It is true that the tax rate on capital gains was higher after the '86 tax reform. The final bill was drafted with the input of some fairly liberal Democrats. But the higher capital gains taxes came at a cost and didn't produce much in the way of additional revenue. By 1992, all three major presidential candidates were promising to cut the capital gains tax, which Bill Clinton (and the Republican Congress) finally did in 1997.
Would conservatives back a similar tax plan today? I dunno. This proposal from a 2005 National Review piece by Ramesh Ponnuru has some similarities to the 1986 reforms and was, as I recall, fairly well received by other conservatives..
In Remembrance
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 9:53AM
MSNBC is rebroadcasting its live coverage of Sept. 11 from six years ago. The thing that is always amazing about looking backward is to observe how naive we were at the time, and how the gauze was suddenly lifted, forcing us to see the world as it was.
Antle Gives Chait Too Much Credit
Posted by on 9.11.07 @ 9:35AM
Jim, your column today is excellent. Truly fine. But I actually think you give Chait too much credit. His hyperbolic nonsense is further evidence of a pathology gripping not just the left but most of the weak remnants of the center-left, a pathology that makes its sufferers utterly unable even to imagine that their philosophical opponents have any motives that aren't pure evil or just plain nuts -- and that therefore gives them, in their own minds, the right to level any smear at those on the right, no matter how vile the smear, because, after all, (they tell themselves), they are on the side of right and justice and of saving civilization itself. Those ends justify any means, any smears, any exaggerations, any hypocrisy, anything at all. The sheer nastiness that emanates from Chait and so many of his compatriots is mind-boggling, and in a better age it would not be fit for polite company, much less a once-respected magazine.
Oh, and besides that, as you point out so well, Chait ignores a veritable googleplex of boatloads of evidence that supply-side economics actually works.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Restraint
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 11:45PM
If you go to the Rudy website you will not see his usual political messaging and photos. There is a message "we will not forget" and a quote from his October 2001 speech at the UN: "This massive attack was intended to break our spirit. It has not done that. It has made us stronger, more determined and more resolved." There is also a link to the National 9-11 Memorial site. In a day in which he will be front and center at the proceedings this is one indication the Giuliani team is trying not to go over the line. Cynics will say that website switch is in fact designed to exploit 9-11, but sometimes you can't win either way. Given Rudy's unique role in the 9-11 proceedings, it seems on balance a wise move.
UPDATE: Hillary splits the difference with a similar message "We will never forget" but leaving the rest of her website in place(at least before the hour strikes 12).
UPDATE II: The other GOP contenders' websites today are telling. Romney's looks like it does every other day--a sunny and smiling photo rotating with banners for his ad contest. Too glib, too frivolous for the events yesterday and today? McCain's is dedicated to fighting Islamic terrorism with a timeline documenting his efforts to correct the failing war strategy. And Thompson's has an initial entry page with his photo and announcement video, but lacking any instantaneously clear message other than "I'm here."
Watch where they go
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 9:10PM
Thompson went to NH for roughly 24 hours but is spending three days in Florida according to his communications team's press release. This makes a whole lot more sense than battling for second or third in Iowa and NH. He seems to be following Rudy's strategy-- survive early on and do well in SC and Florida. While SC seems immeniently winnable for Thompson, Florida will be a challenge where Rudy leads strongly in polls, has the benefit of a strong staff and has plenty of money for big media ad buys. Will Charlie Crist with 70% approval rating try to play kingmaker? I'm thinking he will, but not right away.
Re: AP: Hillary To Return
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 8:52PM
Phil, this is pretty darn smart of Hillary. She's saying I'm not going get tarred with this one and I have so much cash I can give back $850,000. It will force Obama to do the same. Can't blame her for picking the busiest news day of the week (month?) and waiting until after the evening news. This was the first significant reminder of the downside of the Clinton years and she's trying to nip that storyline in the bud.
AP:Hillary to Return $850,000 of Hsu Fundraising
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 7:48PM
News brief here. No word on whether she will disclose the names of the donors, which could provide reporters with more information about Hsu's network of associates.
Re: Extreme Huckabee
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 6:09PM
Well said, Jim. That was the essence of my point about Huckabee's appearance on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. (See yesterday's posts.) He is a charming and engaging man. A certain swath of the electorate may vote for him for no other reason.
Re: Too Many Lawyers
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 5:50PM
John, many thanks for picking this up. The relief pitcher was better than the lead off but still not very good. Certainly interrogation and due process are two different things and indeed the latter circumscribes the former. So I don't understand the argument that Thompson's due process view of things allows interrogation and his critics' approach wouldn't. (No one I think would argue we execute without interrogating.) And yes there is a big argument as to what rights should be afforded to Guantanamo prisoners but I for one vote against giving OBL's attorneys any intelligence information(not even the switchboard number of the FBI or CIA) he would need to mount a defense. And that is the problem with throwing around "due process" as if it is a cozy blanket to wrap around every prisoner and stretched to fit each situation.
UPDATE: I am reminded that Churchill thought trying Hilter would have been a "farce." More here and here.
Re: Too Many Lawyers?
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 5:34PM
Jennifer: I think the Thompson camp's response to the "due process" flap (in the update at the bottom of that post) is pretty good:
Thompson communications director Todd Harris clarifies that his boss wants to give no more rights to bin Laden then those terrorists detained at Guantanamo enjoy.It's likely that someone (probably Romney) will attack Thompson over this at the next debate. If Thompson can give a version of the above answer, he'll be fine. If he can't, he's every bit as untalented a politician as the most vociferous Thompson-skeptics have posited.What Thompson meant, Harris said, is that "before you kill him we need to get every single bit of information out of this guy that we possibly can."
"Any candidate who is suggesting that we shouldn't milk bin Laden for every ounce of al Qaeda information that he has, doesn't understand the long-term battle against terrorism."
Too Many Lawyers?
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 5:19PM
Andy McCarthy -- on the short list for Attorney General for any smart future GOP president -- argued earlier today that we have overlawyered the war on terror and abdicated what should be political decisions to the courts. I was mulling it over and thinking that there are good arguments on both sides. Then along comes Arthur Branch Thompson in South Carolina who declares that if we capture Osama Bin Laden we shouldn't just interrogate and execute him we should afford him "due process." I know, I know --Howard Dean said the same thing last election. I am certain a trusted communications fellow or gal will be sent out to "explain" but isn't this part of what McCarthy was decrying? Yes, we want check and balances, we want some legal oversight and I agree that when pushed to its limits executive authority may be lost or circumscribed but do we have to Mirandize OBL? A jury of his peers? The mind reels. Something tells me no other candidate will agree with this one.
Jane Wyman, RIP
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 4:35PM
The first Mrs. Ronald Reagan has died. From the New York Times obit:
After Reagan became governor of California and then president of the United States, Wyman kept a decorous silence about her ex-husband, who had married actress Nancy Davis. In a 1968 newspaper interview, Wyman explained the reason: ''It's not because I'm bitter or because I don't agree with him politically. I've always been a registered Republican. But it's bad taste to talk about ex-husbands and ex-wives, that's all. Also, I don't know a damn thing about politics.''A few days after Reagan died on June 5, 2004, Wyman broke her silence, saying: ''America has lost a great president and a great, kind and gentle man.''
Extreme Huckabee
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 4:25PM
Garance Franke-Ruta chastises the media for going soft on Mike Huckabee's extreme social conservatism. Ross Douthat counters that many of Huckabee's views aren't so extreme, unless your definition of "extremism" encompasses narrow to large majorities of the American people. I'm open to the argument that Huckabee might be too socially conservative to win a general election -- or too economically liberal to win the Republican nomination -- and am personally skeptical about his candidacy for a variety of reasons. But the exchange reminded me of something Huckabee has going for him that many outspoken social conservatives have lacked.
Frequently, the positions taken by the religious right poll better than the religious right itself. That's because prominent religious rightsters are often seen as intolerant, given to extreme or offensive public pronouncements, hostile or alien to mainstream culture, and enmeshed in a religious subculture that many Americans don't relate to. Huckabee, a gifted speaker with a generous personality who usually chooses his words carefully, doesn't play to type. It is possible the American people would accept a platform championed by a candidate like Huckabee even though they would reject if it were associated with, say, Pat Robertson.
The Fred Surge
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 3:23PM
Rasmussen's daily tracking poll shows a Thompson bounce of 4 points since he announced his candidacy. He's at his highest level of support since late July and leads Rudy by 4 points. It must be noted that the daily numbers are quite volitile. The day before the two candidates were tied.
Code Pink Protesters Removed
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 2:08PM
Costumed Code Pink protesters wearing what looked like some sort of Las Vegas outfits were just dragged out screaming following the Petraeus testimony. Rep. Skelton called the behavior "untolerable."
Petraeus Tertimony
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 1:39PM
Gen. Petraeus says the bottom line is that the military objectives of the surge strategy are being met, although progress is uneven. He projects that before next summer, we will be able to draw down forces to pre-surge levels without risking losing these security gains.
UPDATE: He says that by mid-July of '08 we could return to pre-surge levels, and after that we can see deeper troop reductions, but it's too premature to project how large. By mid-March '08 he'll have a better idea.
Re: was this on on 'Law and Order'?
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 1:30PM
Wlady, your point about reinforcing his role as a hired gun and Washington insider is right on the mark. These incidents also point out the sense he was never in charge of his career or his life's choices. I had to take the firm's work. I didn't choose my clients. Not exactly the man of destiny.
Re: Rudy on Illegal Immigrants
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 1:02PM
At first blush Rudy's statements may seem problematic. But isn't this a made up issue? Tom Tancredo has said the same thing. So has Thompson. No one seriously wants to lock these people up in our jails. Most conservatives want the border closed and employers prevented from hiring illegals. Jailing 12-20 million people and processing them through our court system doesn't seem to be on anyone's to do list.
Protesters Removed From Petraeus Hearing
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 12:44PM
Watching on C-Span 3 now via webcast. Armed Service Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Sketlon said "we will not tolerate any disturbances" and had them ejected. Right now, all the committee members have an opportunity to speak. Which means, there's not much reason to watch at this point.
Gimme More
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 12:05PM
A couple questions. Whose career prospects look better right now, Larry Craig or Britney Spears? And who appears more likely to mount a successful comeback in 2008, Britney Spears or the congressional Republicans?
Inquiring minds want to know. Back to you, Ryan Seacrest.
Re: Was This One on 'Law and Order'?
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 11:50AM
What's interesting in this case, involving Thompson's Libya work with a firm with Democratic connection (John Culver being a former Democratic senator from Iowa), as in other cases such as the call on behalf of Clintonite darling Aristide, is that Thompson end up getting chastened for participating in work that if he were a Democrat no one would be complaining about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the N.Y. Times writing about Aristide's "human rights abuses" when the Clinton administration was restoring him to power by force.
The bigger problem for Thompson is that stories such as this will render absurd his efforts to run "against Washington" when more and more it becomes apparent that he's a quintessential Washington insider. Colbert King's overlooked column in last Saturday's Washington Post drives home that point better than anything else I've seen. What in the world is the Federal City Council, of which Fred was president just two short years ago? Does that service count as executive experience?
Rudy on Illegal Immigration Not Being a Crime
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 10:58AM
Technically, Rudy Giuliani was being accurate on Glen Beck when he said that illegal immigration is not a crime in that illegal immigrants are deported, not imprisoned, and deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal. And let's face it, in reality, immigration hawks do not want to add 12 million people to the prison system, which would compound the financial cost of illegal immigration--they just want them kicked out of the country. The problem for Rudy is that while what he said was legally accurate, it was rhetorically explosive in the context of a Republican primary. People who are fired up about illegal immigration do not want to hear hair splitting over the difference between illegal and criminal. The NY Sun offers a defense of Rudy here.
Bin Laden For President?
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 9:32AM
A writer on the Daily Kos front page insists bin Laden is not evil, but nevertheless worries he might be a neoconservative:
So is Osama bin Laden truly "evil?" Most people who lost family members at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 would probably consider him to be evil. Was President Ronald Reagan evil? Most residents of Beirut who lost family members when the USS New Jersey rained 2,700 pound Mark 7 shells on residential neighborhoods in 1983 during the Lebanese Civil War probably considered Reagan to have been evil. Bottom line? Bin Laden is no more evil than other revolutionary leaders in other times or even than ordinary national leaders who propel their countries to war for "national honor," or to acquire the resources of others, or even to "do good."
So if bin Laden, if looked at dispassionately and analytically, is neither absolutely "crazy" nor utterly "evil," what is he?
Bin Laden is a serious and wily adversary who knows how to manipulate the Arab "street." He is intelligent and well-informed-- clearly far better informed about the U.S. and the West than the apparatchiks and their bosses in the current White House are informed about him and his region of influence. Bin Laden thinks strategically and takes the long view; he is tactically flexible and is not afraid to retreat to attain an ultimate strategic advantage. Unfortunately for the U.S., he probably has a 40 point I.Q. advantage over the current occupant of the White House.
And:
Perhaps we are missing something in the translation from the Arabic, but bin Laden appears to be stating that the interests of the Mujahideen overlap with the interests of major corporations and of neoconservatives.
But, wait, I thought he wasn't evil?
Was This One on 'Law and Order'?
Posted by on 9.10.07 @ 7:29AM
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Was it something they said?
Posted by on 9.9.07 @ 9:17PM
Re: Osama bin Laden, Incisive Bush Critic
Posted by on 9.9.07 @ 3:15PM
Tabin, while I was watching Season Three of Three's Company this morning, an episode came on in which Stanley admitted to Jack that, after a brief scare, everything was back to normal because Jack was no longer acting normal. This zany paradox analogizes very closely to what's behind Yglesias' take on bin Laden and your flabbergasted response.
Let me explain. The insta-conventional wisdom, spearheaded as often it is by Matt Drudge, holds bin Laden's latest missive to be a particularly scattershot and eccentric rant on topics that seem almost embarrassingly distant from the jihadist red meat that one rather wants to expect from the world's most wanted man. But rather than getting stupider and stupider, bin Laden, in his taped messages, actually seems to be getting more reasonable -- a sure sign that his campaign is failing and his movement is losing effectiveness. Certainly jihadism remains robust. But bin Laden's move to repeat common arguments on the left suggests to me that his other, less broadly popular arguments have been even more parochial and less inspiring than he'd hoped.
This, incidentally, would count as a particular humiliation for us if, as people from Rumsfeld to Bacevich have at times suggested, the Iraq war has greatly increased the spirit and appeal of jihadism. Imagine how uninspiring bin Laden's calls to action would be without the helpful goad of crusaders in Mesopotamia. But that would make bin Laden's move to liberal talking points even more remarkable: all this protracted difficulty in Iraq, and still the message of jihad isn't quite cutting it for bin Laden?
Chris Wallace's outrageous attack on Ron Paul during the last debate -- asking him, you know, if Paul thought we should take our 'marching orders' from al Qaeda -- now seems even more ridiculous: it's al Qaeda, in the person of bin Laden, who's taking marching orders from us. Regardless of how right or wrong is the left on any number of issues, it's not just entertaining but also significant that bin Laden has decided he stands something to gain by dancing to their tune. Unfortunately for him, he might get Americans to force a withdrawal from Iraq, but not even an endorsement of Hillary Clinton would get his own self out from behind the crosshairs. In another delightful little irony it's mainly the left, after all, that can't shut up about how Bush has failed to kill bin Laden quickly enough.
Osama bin Laden, Incisive Bush Critic?
Posted by on 9.9.07 @ 1:46PM
Um, has Matt Yglesias lost his damn mind? If someone -- say, Ann Coulter -- had argued that the mainstream liberal position is to hold up bin Laden as a credible anti-war voice, I would have thought that was an unfair caricature. Would I have been wrong?
Lighter Sunday Fare
Posted by on 9.9.07 @ 11:02AM
Is it really Eeyore?
Posted by on 9.9.07 @ 9:09AM
This sounds a lot like Fred Thompson: "Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our democracy. As a people we know our past and we are proud of it. Our progress has been part of the living history of America, even the world. We always believed that we were part of a great movement of humanity itself called democracy, involved in the search for freedom, and that belief has always strengthened us in our purpose. But just as we are losing our confidence in the future, we are also beginning to close the door on our past."
Does this too? "What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends."
Who is it? Jimmy Carter from his malaise speech. The difference between just diagnosing problems and leading a country forward is the difference between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. For a little of the latter, read John McCain's speech in California.
- Progressive Derangements
- Bowling Alone
- Down in the Desert
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
