- 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 22, 2007
Re: Quin, Dobbs and the Red Army
Posted by on 9.22.07 @ 10:17PM
I'm with Mark Steyn on this: the Brits (or the Commonwealth more correctly) really should win the prize. (The Post actually made this point but it was lost below the discussion on the Soviets.)
NRA Recap
Posted by on 9.22.07 @ 10:02PM
Who said: "I like what he said" and "He said a lot of things that if you're a law-abiding American firearm owner, you're nodding and you're saying 'I agree with that.'"? Wayne LaPierre. Who'd he say it about? Rudy Giuliani. Does this mean he is the NRA's first choice? No. But if the NRA sticks with tradition and does not endorse in the primary it sounds like they could live with Rudy should he be the alternative to Hillary. A couple other smart guys think that at the very least Rudy helped himself yesterday. Now, in a hotly contested primary with multiple choices will the NRA throw its weight behind one of the GOP contenders? It would seem more likely if only one of the contenders did well. However, most observers both there and viewing from afar didn't think that happened. For now the NRA is promising to have open forums in early states so we are likely to hear a lot more about the Parker case.
One final thought: in person and on screen Huckabee is a better speaker than nearly everyone in the field. Every debate or speech pundits say "Wow, he was good" or "Wow, he stole the show." He is more focused and energetic than Thompson and more accessible than Romney. If he actually gets money in the bank, he's going to be highly competitive in Iowa and SC.
Catching up on Mackinac
Posted by on 9.22.07 @ 9:32PM
Friday, September 21, 2007
Generation Gap
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 6:28PM
Here are some more interesting tidbits from that Harris poll. Broken down by age, Fred Thompson does best with voters who are 61 and up, taking 44 percent. Rudy Giuliani only wins 16 percent among this group. Thompson doesn't do well with the kids, however. He gets 8 percent of 18-to-29 voters while Giuliani takes 33 percent. Thompson doesn't lead Giuilani until we get to the Baby Boomers, and even then it's by just four points.
Ron Paul and Sam Brownback both do best with the 18-to-29 crowd, winning 10 percent each -- just a point behind Mitt Romney. Ditto John McCain, at 20 percent. Mike Huckabee wins just 2 percent of this group, but does best among Generation Xers (aged 30 to 41) , getting 10 percent -- just a point behind McCain.
Re: Quin, Dobbs, and the Red Army
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 6:17PM
Quin: Maybe Fred could have spared himself and the Post its Dobbsian hissy fit if he'd said: "...it doesn't take you long to realize that our people have shed blood and treasure on behalf of more people's liberty than anyone else in modern history." We saved Europe from itself and brought WWI to an end. We liberated Japanese-occupied areas and Japan itself from the cruelties of Imperial Japan. We largely liberated Western Europe from the Nazis in WWII and then rebuilt a ravaged continent.
In any case, we can be grateful for small favors. Dobbs could have blamed the U.S. for the extent of Soviet losses during WWII and for not risking more of its own -- after all, we were in no hurry to invade the continent until the Germans had been sufficiently bled on the brutal Eastern Front. Or, if Dobbs had a bit of cold warrior in him, he could have blamed the U.S. for sacrificing the liberty of many millions in eastern Europe whom at Yalta and elsewhere it consigned to the Soviet sphere. Best of all, blame pre-war Poland, which, pre-Ribbentrop-Molotov, refused to allow Stalin free passage through its territory and thus, the argument goes, pushed Stalin into the arms of Hitler.
Re: Something Positive
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 6:09PM
James, his "lead" in Rasmussen disappeared today and every other poll as you note shows him trailing by between 2 and 12 pts. The press coverage has been brutal --and not just here -- but I think nothing talks louder than cold hard cash in politics. The October 15 fundraising number will give some sense of how many GOP donors were holding out for him and how many think Thompson is the guy. I try not to be cynical but many people doing this far longer than I say no matter what people say and no matter what the press coverage 90% of this is money and organization. For now, the only two with both of those are Rudy and Romney.
All that said, to some extent I do buy the Romney camp argument that you need to look at state polls since we don't have a national primary. Thompson is nowhere near the lead in NH or Iowa but polling is far more mixed in SC and Florida (in the RCP average Rudy has a good lead but the polls are extremely erratic). In Michigan which I think may be the most decisive state, Rudy leads in the latest poll but some others have shown Romney in the lead. In short among the pre-February 5 states Thompson leads, and just barely, in the RCP averages only in SC.
Rudy Steps in it with Neo-NATO Plan
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 5:50PM
If the blogs are any indication, Giuliani's had his first big failure with the announcement of his big new strategy to expand ruin NATO (enlist India, Singapore, Japan, Israel ... and More!). The reax, across the board and across the spectrum, have not been kind. I sum up the shoot-downs here.
Re: Huckabee Skips Mackinac
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 5:50PM
It is possible, John, they couldn't get a flight after his NRA
speech which was late today and get there in time for tomorrow. ( I
think he orginally had a lunchtime spot.) Having not pored over the
airline schedules I leave open the alternative theory of not
wanting to fly with the common folk.
UPDATE: His spokesman explains: "Thanks to a new law by Congress
that went into effect Monday, we were prohibited from using the air
transportation that was being provided that made getting there
possible. Commercial airline schedules couldn't get us there until
after things were over Friday - and we would have to have left even
before they started on Saturday. The new rules are fine if a
candidate has unlimited money or its own plane, but for those of us
who don't, it has really hampered our ability to get places.
I was really looking forward to attending the Michigan event this
weekend, but unfortunately the realities of my schedule overcame my
ability to get there, on time to speak and meet with supporters. I
called the chairman of the Michigan Republican Party to express my
regret and the rationale for my decision, and I appreciate his
understanding of this most unfortunate development. I know that
this will be a tremendous event and I wish all participants a
successful weekend in what is truly one of the most scenic parts of
the country."
Re: Red Army
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 5:18PM
Quin: One thing that struck me about your column this line:
By that warped and morally bankrupt logic, the victorious drug lord in a deadly gang-warfare battle is a veritable altruist. Just think of all the other gang's clients who escaped deadly overdoses that night because their suppliers had been gunned down!Overdoses typically happen because the purity of illegal drugs is not standardized. If you're in the habit of shooting 50% pure heroin, and then you unwittingly buy 90% pure heroin, you can easily die because you're taking in much more heroin than your body is used to. Thus killing a drug dealer and forcing his clients to seek a fix elsewhere -- from someone who might be dealing a different product -- actually makes overdoses more likely, not less. But since life under Communist rule was, for many gentile Eastern Europeans, at least as bad if not worse than life under Naziism, the metaphor still works.
Something Else Positive for Fred Thompson
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 5:09PM
The latest Harris poll shows Fred Thompson ahead of Rudy Giuliani among Republicans nationwide. So far, Rasmussen is the only other major poll with that result. Thompson leads Giuliani 32 percent to 28 percent, with John McCain at 11, and Mitt Romney at 9. Newt Gingrich still pulls 7 percent; Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul draw 3 percent each.
Personally, I don't disagree with my colleagues' assesment of Thompson's performance on the stump to date. But I do wonder if we might be missing something. I've had several conversations this week with people who are conservative and reasonably well informed but not 24-7 obsessives as people in this line of work tend to be. All of them were very enthusiastic about Fred. One young woman told me after church that her family in tobacco country was behind Thompson.
This is all anecdotal and, Harris and Rasmussen aside, most national polls still show Giuliani ahead. Nevertheless, we inside-the-Beltway types need to remember that we sometimes judge candidates and political scenarios differently than the average voter. I remember watching the first 2000 presidential debate and coming away thinking that George W. Bush got his clock cleaned. Many Americans, however, considered Al Gore the loser because they were turned off by his obnoxious sighing.
Could there be more to Fred than meets the eye?
More Evidence Vs. WashPost Red Army Nonsense
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 5:00PM
In a column yesterday for the London Guardian's Comment is Free site, I took the Washington Post to task, in no uncertain terms, for daring to suggest that the Soviet Army in World War II shed blood "for other people's liberty." To which an old friend of mine, Charlie DeWitt, responded with an e-mail to me that presents one part of the story in all its gory-ness:
Quin, that is a good piece. Here is an excerpt from a
journalist named Daniel Johnson about the "Soviet Horror Orgy of
Rape" at the end of World War II. The Soviets even raped Russian
and Polish women who were freed from the concentration camps. The
Washington Post reporter is obviously [quite foolish]....
:
|
Re: Huckabee Skips Mackinac
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 4:48PM
"He was going to fly via private plane but the costs became prohibitive?" What kind of excuse is that? Mr. "I Never Set Foot in a Country Club Until My High School Reunion" can't fly commercial?
Good Dog
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 4:44PM
UPDATE: I'm told some people can't see the embedded video. You might have better luck at the site I grabbed it from; I don't vouch for the tastefulness of everything you'll find if you're inclined to click around over there.
Huckabee Hits a Bullseye
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 2:52PM
Mike Huckabee just gave a masterful performance at the NRA conference, not only taking jabs at his opponents on gun rights and asserting his support for the Second Amendment, but doing it with good humor. Although he didn't put it in these words, the underlying message of his speech was: "I'm one of you."
He took aim at both Rudy and Romney when he suggested to the audience that they should "look at past behavior" to get a credible idea of whether you can believe candidates and understand their future performance. In obvious jabs at Romney, he said of the NRA that "I didn't just join last year," and pointed out that when politicians bring up the issue of hunting when talking about gun rights it's obvious that they don't understand gun rights. He said he was a hunter himself "not just 50 years ago"--again, another jab at Romney. Then he followed the rule of show, don't tell--recounting his own stories hunting ducks, turkey, and antelope. He demonstrated his knowledge by referring to the details of the specific guns he was using. But he said the Second Amendment was about a lot more, including people's right to defend themselves. Also, he got sentimental, talking about how fathers hand firearms down to to their sons. He has a rustly old gun, that his father gave him, and it brings back a lot of childhood memories. "I can't see a father saying, 'Son, when I die, I'm going to give you my Playstation,'" he joked, generating laughs.
He also knew exactly what NRA members get passionate about on the policy front, especially when attacking the U.N.'s vendetta against guns. "We shouldn't be too disappointed if the whole thing would break off and float away on the East River," he declared, leading to a standing ovation. Also, he talked about the gun confiscation post-Katrina. Also, taking issue with Giuliani's new federalist approach on gun rights, he said, "I don't think the Second Amendment hase geographic boundries." He blasted such an idea as "laughable" and "absurd" asking the audience to imagine if the freedom of press changed based on location. When asked if he supports waiting periods, he not only said no, that he supports instant background checks--but he personalized it. "Waiting periods only inconvinience guys like me," he lamented. "When I go shopping, I want what I want, and I want it now."
Yet another example of Huckabee making the best of every oppourtunity he is given.
Where Are They Going?
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 1:44PM
UPDATE: Team Rudy provides more details of their public schedule. He will be in Maine on Monday for the National Troopers Coalition Fall Convention(a thematic bookend to the NRA speech which stressed crime reduction), in NJ on Wednesday and in multiple locations in California on both Thursday and Friday.
Huckabee Skips Mackinac
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 1:23PM
Mike Huckabee spokeswoman Kirsten Fedewa confirmed that he will
miss the Mackinac GOP conference this weekend where all the top GOP
contenders will speak. The reason? "He was going to fly via private
plane but the costs became prohibitive due to a new law that was
recently signed." This is a missed opportunity for Huckabee in a
state that matters a lot.
Re: Rudy at NRA
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 12:39PM
Rudy at NRA
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 12:20PM
He was generally well-received, with polite (though not rousing) standing ovations both before and after. For the most part, he reinforced his theme that the audience may not agree with him 100 percent of the time, but they both have a lot in common. He spent most of the speech emphasizing his record fighting crime and talking about how the federal government needs to do a better job prosecuting gun crime, but that it shouldn't be taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. He said the Parker decision clarified his thinking on the issue, and discussed the importance of appointing strict constructionists who will understand that no matter what their personal opinion, the founders intended to give Americans the right to keep and bear arms. He also talked about the Castle doctrine--that "people have a right to protect themselves in their own homes." He also used another oppourtunity to blast the Senate dems for voting against yesterday's condemnation of attacks on Petraeus--saying "they define for us the left-wing of the left-wing."
In the Q&A, he was asked about whether he still supported the lawsuit he filed in NYC against gun manufacturers, and flipped on the issue. He said, at the time, he was focused on using every law he could, and every interpretation of the law, to reduce crime, but that since then, the lawsuit has taken "twists and turns" and so he no longer supports the current version. He said the Parker decision and 9/11 also changed his thinking on it--the connection to Sept. 11 will probably raise questions among Giuliani cynics. Also, just yesterday, he had punted on the lawsuit question, saying he doesn't discuss pending litigation.
With all this said, I think he did about as well as can be expected in this crowd. Before the speech, I noticed a stack of anti-Rudy flyers outlining his past statements on guns. He will never win its distributors over, and his statements today will open him up to flip-flop charges, but if he didn't attend conservatives would be attacking him for ignoring such a constituency. His coming here was an attempt to reassure gun owners, and telling them he thinks they matter. "To get elected, I need your support," he said. "It is important that we reach out to everybody." In conclusion, he empasized his views on other issues: terrorism, growth of government, etc. and suggested that he was the best candidate "overall" and the most electable. He said he wants their support, but, "mostly, I'd like for us to respect each other."
MORE: Also, in the middle of the speech Giuliani's cell phone rang. He pulled it out of his pocket, looked at it, and said (paraphrasing) "It's my wife." He answered the phone. "Hi honey, I'm giving a speech to the NRA right now so I can't talk, but have a safe trip, I love you." I had heard that he had done something like this at a speech a few months ago and found it hard to believe, and the thought was cringe-inducing at the time. But in actuality, it didn't come off as bad, and made the audience chuckle. I wouldn't recommend making it too much of a habit, though.
Romney Responds
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 12:18PM
"Governor Romney has called for the repeal of the McCain-Feingold-Thompson campaign finance bill that Fred Thompson championed because he agrees with conservatives who correctly recognize the bill as a legislative abomination.
"Desperate and defensive attacks from Fred Thompson won't change Governor Romney's criticism of that bill and the suppression of free speech it has hoisted upon conservative advocacy groups. If anything it shows that Fred Thompson's campaign has already started flailing about with negative attacks, and they're only on their second week."
Who wins this one? It depends I think on what Thompson says is his current position. We blogged here about his run in with Club for Growth and his unwillingness to renounce his support of the issue ad ban. I think on the NRA day when Thompson by all accounts had a fine performance he would have been better served to stick with the "consistent gun rights supporter" message rather than go down a road which is actually a weak point for him, campaign finance reform. It seems a strange choice of message.
Thompson Takes Aim at Romney
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 11:47AM
Camp Thompson takes off the gloves and releases this shortly after the Mitt Romney video was shown at the NRA meeting, including Romney's pledge to repeal McCain Feingold.
Romney: Ban PACs, Tax Campaign Contributions
A history of support for Campaign Finance Reform
McLean, VA - Until he started running for President, Mitt Romney
had a long history of supporting campaign finance reform and
restrictions even more stringent than McCain-Feingold
legislation.
FACT: Romney SUPPORTED banning Political Action Committees
Romney SUPPORTED a ten percent tax on campaign
contributions
Romney SUPPORTED capping campaign spending on
congressional elections
Supported Banning PACs
"These kinds of associations between money and politics in my view
are wrong. And for that reason, I would like to have campaign
spending limits...I also would abolish PACS...I don't like the
influence of money, whether it's business, labor or any other
group, I do not like that kind of influence." (Mitt Romney for
Senate Press Conference Video 1994,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM0x8WnI4to)
Supported Taxing Campaign Contributions
"Massachusetts Romney called for spending limits on candidates and
a 10 percent tax on campaign contributions for state elections to
finance publicly funded campaigns."(Editorial, "Campaign Finance
Flip," Washington Post, 5/26/07).
Supported Capping Spending on Congressional Elections
"Romney also said he advocates spending limits on congressional
elections, even suggesting that the current race against Sen.
Edward M. Kennedy should have a $6 million spending cap..."
(Frank Phillips, "Romney, Vowing To Live It, Touts Congress Reform
Plan," The Boston Globe, 7/7/94)
When McCain Campaigned For Romney In 2002, Romney Praised McCain
For Standing For "Reform And Change" Saying "Those Are My
Values."
"Romney also praised McCain for his general reform campaign when
the Arizona senator came to Massachusetts to stump with Romney just
before Romney's 2002 election victory in the governor's race. 'He
has always stood for reform and change. And he's always fought the
good battle, no matter what the odds,' Romney said at the time.
'Those are my values.'" (Eric Moskowitz, "Romney, McCain Spar On
Campaign Finance," Concord Monitor, 4/27/07)
In fact, Romney's proposals were even more stringent than what was
included in McCain's legislation.
"Back then [since his days as a Senate and gubernatorial candidate
in Massachusetts], Romney advocated more stringent measures than
McCain-Feingold ultimately included, such as a spending limit for
federal elections and a tax on political contributions." (Eric
Moskowitz, "Romney, McCain Spar On Campaign Finance," Concord
Monitor, 4/27/07)
Fred at NRA
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 11:17AM
He was introduced by a biographical video, and then gave some short remarks, which were more of a general speech about "first principles" of small government than specifically tailored to gun rights, and with a trademark touch of folksiness. "I'm simply another American, another American story," concerned about the direction of our nation. He also spoke of his wife, and said "I think she'd make a much better first lady than Bill Clinton."
The most telling moment came during the Q&A. One question went "some say" that the Second Amendment can be interpreted differently in different regions, and that what works in New York or Chicago may be different in Tennessee--an obvious reference to Rudy Giuliani's current view. Does Fred hold the same view? His answer was simple: "nope." He also added that "It's more than coincidental that cities that have the highest crime rates have the most restrictions on guns." Giuliani, of course, would object to the categorization of NYC under his leadership as a crime haven, but I'm sure most people in this audience would side with Thompson on that one.
In response to another question about whether Thompson said, "I think we're winning on the interpretation of the Second Amendment." He joked that he had developed a rather complicated interepretation of the Second Amendment: "It means what it says."
I would say it was a sober, rather than a fiery performance, but he was warmly received as he didn't have much to prove to this crowd.
Liberal Hypocrisy at Ground Zero
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 10:24AM
TPM's Josh Marshall has a series of posts on the Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero controversy. One post titled "Grow Up" asks, "Am I the only one embarrassed by the dingbat brouhaha over Iranian President Ahmadinejad's attempt to visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath?" Responding to readers in a follow up, he repeatedly writes, "who cares?" if Ahmadinejad were to use such a visit for propaganda purposes.
But just a few weeks ago, when Rudy Giuliani was scheduled to participate in a ceremony at Ground Zero for the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Marshall's site was raising hell over the fact that Giuliani was exploiting the tragedy for political gain.
So in other words, it's hard for Marshall to see why it would be a problem to use tax dollars to provide security for a holocaust denier to visit hallowed ground and gain a propaganda image when he is a sponsor of terrorism who is currently responsible for U.S. soldiers being killed in Iraq, and who has consistently threatened the U.S. and our ally Israel within the context of seeking nuclear weapons. It's simply difficult for Marshall to see what the big deal is. And yet, it's perfectly appropriate to get worked up into a tizzy when the man who served as mayor when the event happened, who was lauded for his leadership by most of the country, reads a few lines as part of a ceremony that he has participated in every year since the tragedy.
There's been a lot of talk recently about the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. It's hard to think of a much better example to shed light on how different our values are than this one.
NY Times On Rudy and 9-11
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 8:14AM
Romney NRA Preview
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 7:28AM
Mitt Romney's spokesman released excerpts from his NRA speech today:
"As President, I'll honor the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families and property and for all other lawful purposes, including the common defense.
"And I'll ask Congress to repeal the McCain-Feingold law, which sought to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of groups like the NRA to advocate for issues we care about. Some parts have already been declared unconstitutional. We ought to get rid of the entire bill.
"Finally, let me say that one of the most active fronts in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights today is being waged in the courts. Lawsuits have been filed seeking to take away the individual's right to bear arms. We have to look no further than the Parker case. I hope the Roberts Court takes the Parker case and upholds the Bill of Rights to protect gun owners everywhere."
The first and last comments will no doubt be echoed by the other candidates including Rudy Giuliani (who spoke about his support for the Parker case in a press conference yesterday). The second seems squarely aimed at two rivals, McCain and Thompson( who co-sponsored the bill and defended McCain Feingold in an amicus brief in front of the Supreme Court just a few years ago). Romney's appearance will be by videotape which his campaign said was necessitated by scheduling conflicts in Chicago and Indiana before his appearance in Mackinac Michigan.
A win is a win?
Posted by on 9.21.07 @ 6:35AM
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Re:NRA
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 9:37PM
Escorting Ahmadinejad
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 4:31PM
Reports are swirling that the U.S. Secret Service will now be escorting the President of Iran to Ground Zero. Whatever happens, a look back at a similar moment in New York City history might suggest a way to handle one of the world's leading anti-Semites.
When Theodore Roosevelt was the young Police Commissioner of New York, a well-known German anti-Semitic preacher scheduled a visit to New York City to give speeches "denouncing Jews." Smugly pleased with his obvious notoriety and the controversy he brought with him, the preacher requested police protection. Many Jews were infuriated and demanded of TR that the preacher be prevented from appearing. TR later described his response: "Of course I told them (New York Jewish leaders) I could not -- that the right of free speech must be maintained unless he incited them (the crowds) to riot." Then came the wonderfully TR solution: "On thinking it over, however, it occurred to me that there was one way in which I could undo most of the mischief he was trying to do."
What did TR do? He personally selected a Jewish police sergeant as the head of the anti-Semitic preacher's protection detail. Then he assigned 40 New York City cops -- every last one of them Jewish as well -- to serve as the detail. The preacher was quickly made a laughing stock as he made his way to his events surrounded by a flying wedge of Jewish cops.
Whoever is making the decision on any protection for Mr. Ahmadinejad while he is visiting New York, they would do well to take a page from Teddy Roosevelt.
Compassionate Class Prejudice
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 2:38PM
Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi looks at Los Angeles' proposed "health zoning" and asks, "Why is it that Starbucks- which serves some of the highest calorie junk food in America- is allowed to open 3,400 locations within five minutes of my house but minority neighborhoods are treated as if they were a big nursery school?"
I think that's one of those questions civilized people in America are simply not allowed to ask. Oh well, let's let David complete his thought anyhow.
More Hsu
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 2:22PM
Just reading through the complaint now. The allegation is that Norman Hsu was operating a "ponzi" scheme in which the first investors were paid off with money collected from new investors. As a classic con, Hsu would first ask that investors make smaller investments, for which they enjoyed extraordinary returns. Once he gained their trust, he hit up victims and their friends for massive amounts of money. According to the suit, the political contributions were used to raise Hsu's profile, and he would bully his investors into making certain political donations. The complaint alleges that Hsu defrauded investors out of --at least--$60 million. Also, according to the complaint, his business Components Ltd. only had $83,000 in its bank account.
The Gift That Keeps On Giving
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 1:59PM
The Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the personal attacks on Gen. Petraeus. Who would vote "no"? Twenty Five Democrats including... you guessed it... Hillary Clinton. I have no guess as to why she wouldn't use this escape hatch to get out from under this issue, especially since she seems to be in command of the Democratic primary.
UPDATE: Even Leahy was smart enough to vote "yes."
U.S. vs Hsu
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 1:55PM
The WSJ reports:
Federal prosecutors unsealed a criminal complaint Thursday charging Democratic fund-raiser Norman Hsu with breaking campaign finance laws and creating a "massive" Ponzi scheme.
The complaint says Mr. Hsu -- who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Clinton and others -- violated campaign finance laws by making contributions to candidates in other people's names and perpetrated a Ponzi scheme to defraud victims across the U.S. of over $60 million.
The complaint is here.
Re: Famous Rudy
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 1:48PM
Phil, I think you're right there. For the better side of Rudy this is worth listening to--his speech from London yesterday. He is plainspoken and funny. The speech is not short but worth listening to and the portion where he talks about the July 7, 2005 London bombings when he was actually in London is quite moving. When he says you "first have to stand up to your enemy" and cautions against treating terrorist acts as discrete crimes you do believe he's going to do what he says. Maybe you don't get this type of force of personality and determination without the occasional boastful faux pas.
Famous Rudy
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 1:03PM
When he was mayor, every once and awhile Rudy would say something that would make you go, huh? He had one of those moments yesterday when he said in London, "I'm probably one of the four or five best known Americans in the world."
Personally, I thought it was funny, but then again, I'm from New York. One of the risks Rudy runs--especially with Fred Thompson in the race--is that people in other parts of the country will see him as the arrogant New Yorker. Remember, after the last debate, one of the criticisms was that he talked about what he did in New York too much. Of course, it makes perfect sense that he would talk about what he did there, since that's where he held political office--but coming from Giuliani it just rubs people the wrong way because it reinforces people's pre-existing notions about New Yorkers.
I'd be curious to hear the full context of the quote, but either way, this is the type of statement Giuliani should avoid making in the future.
Another Hsu Drops
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 12:10PM
The Washington Post reports:
Justice Department officials in New York will announce criminal charges against Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu today for allegedly orchestrating a $60 million fraud scheme and committing related federal campaign finance crimes.
And don't miss this WSJ article:
BRISTOW, Va. -- When Hillary Rodham Clinton held an intimate fund-raising event at her Washington home in late March, Pamela Layton donated $4,600, the maximum allowed by law, to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
But the 37-year-old Ms. Layton says she and her husband were reimbursed by her husband's boss for the donations. "It wasn't personal money. It was all corporate money," Mrs. Layton said outside her home here. "I don't even like Hillary. I'm a Republican."
The boss is William Danielczyk, founder of a Washington-area private-equity firm and a major fund-raising "bundler" for Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Layton's gift was one of more than a dozen donations that night from people with Republican ties or no history of political giving. Mr. Danielczyk and his family, employees and friends donated a total of $120,000 to Mrs. Clinton in the days around the fund-raiser.
Family-Friendly Tax Cuts
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 11:19AM
This Ramesh Ponnuru op-ed is an interesting (inadvertent?) entry into the Chait debate. There is some justice to the charges that Republican tax-cutting has become detached from the electorate and influenced by a vulgarized understanding of supply-side economics. You can't keep designing tax cuts for 1980's economic conditions in 2007 and 2008. While I think Ponnuru gives short shrift to the growth-enhancing effects of further tax cuts on investment, his suggestions are a step in the right direction -- away from this trend that endangers the GOP's hold on the tax issue.
Carter on Iran
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 11:02AM
Jimmy Carter says Iran is not a threat to Israel. Whew! What a relief!
In all seriousness, there is a growing argument that Iran would not use nuclear weapons on Israel if it obtained them, because it would not want to commit national suicide. The problem is that a lot of prominent Iranian leaders have publicly embraced the idea of martyrdom, and when you're dealing with people that glorify the concept of death as long as they're killing infidels, you cannot assume you're dealing with rational actors who would be interested in self- preservation.
Is all of this just bluster? Maybe. But if you're Israel, I think it would be dangerous to think like Carter and err on the side of assuming that Iranians will behave rationally. One nuclear attack could effectively destroy Israel, so the risk of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons should be viewed as unacceptable. This does not even take into account the possibility that Iran, consistently the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, would pass nuclear material to a terrorist group such as Israel's direct enemies Hamas and Hezbollah, which are provided weapons and financing from Iran. Even if Iranians do neither of those things, the strategic leverage they would gain from having nuclear weapons by itself is enough reason for Israel to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, assuming diplomacy fails and the U.S. does not act first.
Re: NRA
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 10:33AM
I plan to be there to cover several of the speeches, so check back here tomorrow.
NRA
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 10:06AM
Tomorrow Rudy and Thompson will address the NRA gathering in person and Romney by videotape. For Rudy, I think this is analagous to Hillary at the Daily Kos gathering: the goal is to prevent them from hating you, earn some respect for showing up(why would Romney miss this?) and show some deference to their views. I suspect Rudy will express his agreement with the DC Circuit ruling in the Parker case striking down the DC gun ban and talk about NY solutions not working elsewhere. Thompson surely has a "in" with the crowd as a real NRA member(not just since he was running for President) and is likely to get a very warm reception.
Re: Rather a Fascinating Lawsuit
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 10:04AM
Good stuff from William "Beldar" Dyer, who concludes that the lawsuit is laughable. The best part: It's premised on the delusion that Rather had the TANG story right all along.
Village of the Damned
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 9:52AM
Judging by the photoes posted on the Fred Thompson website, his appearances down in Florida garnered a bit more than those being discussed here. Folks we've spoken to, including Florida reporters who rode the media bus during Thompson's tour, put the numbers at The Villages at over 1000, perhaps as high as 1500. They said the numbers were consistent with other candidates who had made what is now considered a "traditional" stop for candidates to the retirement community.
McCain Broke?
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 9:35AM
If this is true McCain's comeback may be shortlived. According to a supposed McCain supporter who blabbed (why do alleged friends and allies do such things?) McCain raised only $3.7M and has a big debt of $2.5-3M. I have been one making the case that McCain has an opening now in the midst of the Iraq debate and specifically in New Hampshire where Romney's lead is anything but solid. The reality is, however, you need money and lots of it to win. October 15 we'll get to see the official figures but that window of opportunity will shut fairly quickly if he in fact is out of dough.
"Begging is manly. The chicks will really dig you"
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 8:49AM
Resurrection Song offers up some funny thoughts on the Whine Heard 'Round the World.
Re: Rather a Fascinating Lawsuit
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 8:25AM
I wonder if I was too rash in discounting the benefits which might flow from a Rather win in his lawsuit under the "I shouldn't have let them talk me into it" theory of tort law. Should he win, I have a closet with more than a few outfits which might be the basis of such a claim. And think of all the restaurants you have grudgingly agreed to go to, only to be disappointed by the meal. The possibilities are endless. On a slightly more serious note, Howard Kurtz today interviews a number of Rather's former CBS colleagues who generally have the same take, personified by Josh Howard, the CBS executive producer who was also forced to resign, who remarks: " I think he's gone off the deep end." As a respected colleague of mine analogized, just as in the Iran Iraq War, the outcome of this suit is not as important as the length of the conflict and the damage inflicted on both sides.
Mukasey
Posted by on 9.20.07 @ 8:07AM
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Rather A Fascinating Lawsuit
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 11:14PM
Yes, Dan Rather's tale of woe in the form of a lawsuit against CBS makes for a good read. The main villians are those famous Bush cheerleaders at CBS who did all sorts of nasty things including forcing Rather to apologize. Paragraph 12 describes how CBS felt it in its corporate interest to "curry favor" with the Bush Administration (sure had a funny way of showing it, huh?). Paragraph 58 explains the conduct of CBS in "coercing Mr. Rather publicly to apologize and take responsibility" for the Texas National Guard document forgery. But choose your favorite. (By the way the legal underpinnings are a bit of a mystery and seem to rely at least in part on a contract never reduced to writing. Also there seems to be the tort of "talking me into apologizing when I really wish I hadn't" which didn't make it into my tort casebook in law school.) Since this may never reach a courtroom (this does put me in the strange position of rooting FOR a frivolous lawsuit to go forward) perhaps we could arrange to have a public reading. It would be a good show.
Re: See Your 700 and Raise You 1300
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 10:35PM
Well, let's just say that the entire Bush family and all those associated therewith have not done wonders for the cause of grammar in America.
Re: See Your 700 and Raise You 1300
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 10:19PM
Jennifer: But Lee Greenwood? He's so Bush Sr. Plus he still hasn't corrected the embarrassingly botched syntax in "And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free..." A whole generation of Republicans may not know that "American" is not a geographic term.
Re: See your 700 and raise you 1300
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 9:44PM
Re: See Your 700 and Raise You 1300
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 9:16PM
Jennifer, no offense to Romney, but perhaps the crowd was there to see somebody else? From the report you linked to:
At least worth pointing out in fairness to Fred.
Upset in Massachusetts?
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 8:00PM
A few people have asked me to clarify whether I am actually predicting a Republican congressional pickup in Massachusetts. Short answer: no. Despite all the factors weighing in favor of Jim Ogonowski I mention in this column, the fact that independents in the Fifth Congressional District are angrier at the national Republican Party than the state Democratic Party will probably be too much for him to overcome.
But that doesn't mean it isn't worth a try. Jim Geraghty has a post on the conservative blogosphere's efforts on behalf of Ogonowski.
See Your 700 and Raise You 1300
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 7:51PM
Romney, not about to let Thompson make any headway in the Sunshine State, went to the same location --the Villages-- where Thompson drew a crowd of roughly 700 last week. According to this report Romney got 2000 people in the rain.
GOP Candidates Suggest Other Travel Plans
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 5:12PM
Rudy on the Iranian's President's request to visit Ground Zero:
"Under no circumstances should the NYPD or any other American authority assist President Ahmadinejad in visiting Ground Zero. This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring Bin Laden's son and other al-Qaeda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero - hallowed ground for all Americans - is outrageous."
And Romney's:
"Ahmadinejad's shockingly audacious request should be met with a vehement no. It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at Ground Zero. This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him."
Perhaps a better idea would be a trip to the Holocaust Museum in DC where he might learn something before his next Holocaust Denial festival.
And Cheney, Too
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 4:11PM
The vice president has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal defending the Bush administration's economic record and making the kinds of claims about tax cuts that drive some people crazy. I actually thought the tax-cut arguments were defensible, but the spending part of the column a bit more slippery. No Child Left Behind, to name just one example, contained significant increases in non-security discretionary spending. And Cheney is is comparing the most tightfisted budgets of the Bush years with most spendthrift of the Clinton years to make the current administration's record of fiscal restraint look better.
Chait Strikes Again
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 4:03PM
Jonathan Chait has returned to his theme that tax cuts are bad and the people who advocate them are crazy, dishonest, or acting in bad faith. He argues that conservatives will say anything to defend the Bush tax cuts without acknowleding that their repeal/expiration would merely take us back to where were in the 1990s, when the good times rolled.
Chait doesn't take issue with the Democratic politicians, ranging from Hillary Clinton to Howard Dean, who suggest that the economy grew in the 1990s because of the 1993 Clinton tax increase. Nor does he find fault with the fact that Democratic presidential candidates are promising to use a return to Clinton-era tax rates to fund healthcare reform, Social Security reform, deficit reduction, and a variety of expanded federal programs that did not exist when Bill Clinton was president. In fact, Chait stops just short of saying these kinds of things himself.
That's where the "France" jibes about Hillary and company come in. The reality is that in order to fund the programs they are proposing on the campaign trail, they will have to do more than repeal the Bush tax cuts. Absent reforms these candidates mostly oppose, the automatic increases in existing federal entitlement programs will start pushing us toward European-level tax rates as the Baby Boomers retire. Factor in the price tag of the Democrats' campaign promises, and that economic fate will be very difficult to avoid. Does Chait want to defend those tax rates?
The 1990s did prove that, under the right circumstances (like, say, an Internet boom), a 39.6 percent tax rate is compatible with robust economic growth. Conservatives took a hit for predicting otherwise fourteen years ago, and should be careful not to make this mistake again in arguing for the retention of the Bush tax cuts. But that doesn't mean the Clinton tax increase was in any meaningful sense a catalyst of growth or that there would be no growth trade-offs in repealing the Bush tax cuts, especially the 2003 package pertaining to capital gains and dividends.
Don't Blame the Moderator
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 1:37PM
Matt Yglesias has been on a kick lately of accusing the Brookings Institution in general, and Michael O'Hanlon in particular, of being insufficiently dovish. The other day he mocked an Opportunity08 panel featuring policy advisors to Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, and John McCain:
Hawkish Democrat on the left, conservative Republican on the right, and another conservative Republican in the center. Sounds great. Michael O'Hanlon, naturally, will moderate.I just attended this panel, and afterwards I spoke to O'Hanlon and confirmed a rather salient fact: All of the major candidates were invited to send representatives.
Obviously, the Democratic frontrunners declined the invitation because they have a vested interest in not putting their foreign policy advisors on a public stage -- any utterance more moderate than "cut and run yesterday" would invite a political attack from the left. That's not O'Hanlon's fault, though.
Re: Thompson and Gov. Crist
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 12:08PM
Fred on HillaryCare
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 12:02PM
The video is here. The most notable line: "To some Democrats, you know, choice is to them like a cross is to a vampire."
One thing that struck me about this video is that it makes it easy for Democrats to push the Republicans-don't-care-about-regular-people narrative, given that he is wearing a presumably expensive shirt and tie and being chauffeured around as he's talking.
Re: Romney's New Ad
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 11:50AM
And I suppose one way to stop acting like a Democrat would be not to pass healthcare plans that bear a striking resemblance to Hillary's?
Re: Romney's New Ad
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 11:42AM
As for the ad's contention that Republicans need to stop acting like Democrats, Romney critic Soren Dayton links to this YouTube montage of Romney saying things such as "My 'R' didn't stand so much for Republican as it does for reform."
Re: Mandates
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 11:28AM
Shawn: I found that Bailey piece fairly persuasive when I first read it. I think the Massachusetts experience demonstrates, though, that the "basic" insurance plans can get larded up with so many requirements during the legislative sausage-making process that the mandates become unworkable. That said, in a different political environment than Massachusetts's I can imagine a much better mandatory insurance scheme passing, which might very well act as the firewall against full socialization that Bailey envisions. This brings us to the reason that the Massachusetts bill, for all its faults, is much better that Hillary's plan: It only applies to one state.
School voucher programs are an analagous case (which I bring up mainly because I know more about education policy than health care policy): By most accounts, the Florida and Wisconsin voucher programs are better designed than the Ohio program. It doesn't make sense to count on Washington to get a voucher program right for the whole country. The same goes for health care. Romney's "it should be crafted by the states" line is exactly right.
Re: It's Not Just Hillary
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 11:24AM
Phil, don't get me wrong. I think the "one size fits all"
critique is a much better one for Romney. Better because it's true
and better because it's not a flip flop from earlier comments. But
clearly early in the week there was much geshrying and a public
pronouncement from camp Romney about the evils of socialized
HillaryCare. Once press reports started pointing out that there
isn't a heck of a lot philosophically separating the two, the "it's
evil socialism" attack pretty much disappeared. Maybe he should do
what Thompson did on No Child Left Behind (and to some degree on
McCain Feingold)--just say it (Commonwealth Care) didn't work out
as planned. That also would ring true since, as you and other have
pointed out, health insurance costs turned out to be much higher
and sign up rates for coverage much lower than Romney and
supporters of his plan anticipated.
Mandates
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 10:28AM
In the interest of balance, Ronald Bailey of Reason offered a counterintuitive defense of mandates in health insurance in this piece a few years back. One section is entitled "ClintonCare Lives." Now more than ever!
Re: It's Not Just Hillary
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 10:17AM
Jennifer, to be fair to Romney, he has been arguing that MassCare should not be a model for the nation for at least a few months, and what he is saying now isn't terribly different from what he was saying on Monday when he criticized Hillary's plan. His comments on Monday included: "In her plan, it's crafted by Washington; it should be crafted by the states." While I'm relieved that he doesn't want to make the MassCare plan go national, I still have a problem with the fact that--in principle--he ever supported an individual mandate. And the car insurance example does not fly with me--you don't need to purchase car insurance if you don't have a car, whereas there is zero choice involved with a health insurance requirement.
My main objection to individual mandates is philosophical, but over at Cato, Glen Whitman has a good piece examining the problems with individual mandates from a policy perspective.
Romney's New Ad
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 10:07AM
Rudy Scores Political Points in UK
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 9:55AM
Re: It's Not Just Hillary
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 9:22AM
Here Romney seems to be taking a different approach, contending that the problem with HillaryCare is the "one size fits all" nature of the plan and that he never suggested Commonwealth Care as a model for the whole country. This seems to be a more intellectually defensible position than denying his plan had many of the same features as hers, but clearly this is different than what he was saying earlier in the week ("European-style socialized medicine plan"). The ordinary voter may not grasp the similarities between MittCare and HillaryCare but the press does here and here and here(subscription required -- noting individual mandates are "the latest fad after Mitt Romney's Massachusetts Miracle").
Thank God for Belichick
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 8:08AM
The inimitable Gerry Callahan of the Boston
Herald arrived yesterday (sorry I'm a day late) with
his always unique perspective, this time on the Bill Belichick
videotaping scandal against the New York Jets, which included this
dig:
It is worth noting that some of the people who were most outraged at Belichick's subterfuge - we speak of the New York fans at the Jets-Pats game in the Meadowlands - cheered when their gutsy quarterback (Chad Pennington) hobbled off the field in agony. Oh, but a camera. Those classless losers draw the line at a camera.
Read it all to learn why NFL fans get what they want and deserve from cold-hearted lifers like the Patriots' coach.
Good and Bad
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 7:29AM
Conservatives are pleased that DC voting rights didn't make it but dismayed that Times Select is now free. For liberals, the reverse I suspect.
It is Not Just Hillary
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 6:42AM
Re: Maryland
Posted by on 9.19.07 @ 4:35AM
"Put the brakes," Jennifer, not "put the breaks." "Lion's share," not "lion share."
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Re: Maryland Court Doesn't Impose Gay Marriage
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 11:17PM
Doesn't the ruling and Carpenter's argument bolster the case that Constitutional amendments on this subject (even the variety Thompson most recently suggested) are less urgent and possibly unneccessary at this point? If state supreme courts left to their own devices and reading the political tea leaves in their own states have put the brakes on imposing same sex marriage by judicial fiat do we have solutions in search of a problem?
Maryland High Court Doesn't Impose Gay Marriage
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 11:05PM
Dale Carpenter suggests that the anti-democratic overreaching has hit a wall: "If [same-sex marriage] is to advance much in the near future, it will probably have to come legislatively."
Just Words
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 9:08PM
I missed the Romney policy conference call today but this account paraphrases his Policy Director as saying "The only similarity between the Hillary plan and the Massachusetts plan is that they both use the words 'individual mandate.'"
Well, aside from the words they both really did include individual mandates, right? Yes, they use the same term, were crafted by the same advisor(Jonathan Gruber of MIT) and involve the same path of coercisve enforcement and government drafted insurance policy requirements. Wouldn't he have been better off saying he learned his lesson the hard way and now understands why a pure market based plan is better? (In essence that is what he did from a policy standpoint.) Continuing to defend his RomneyCare plan by this type of rhetorical smoke and mirrors suggests the Romney team is banking on the fact that the public has a limited amount of patience for figuring out the details of the two plans. However, once Romney's opponents start making this comparison directly this type of misdirection may be less effective.
UPDATE: The Washington Post chimes in with an interview with Mr. Gruber who says that HillaryCare and Romney's CommonWealth Care (both of which he helped develop) are "very, very similar." Gruber continues: "Romney deserves the credit for what he did in Massachusetts. He provided the intellectual leadership for much of what is going on. He should be basking in his glory and instead he's running away from it, and I'm very disappointed."
Romney should indeed be credited with popularizing the type of plan Hillary now presents.
Simpson Investigation
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 7:40PM
Note to Vegas prosecutors: "You sure there isn't a graven image somewhere in that Simpson memorabilia?"
Re: Thompson and Governor Crist
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 6:57PM
Carl Cameron who brought to our attention the Gucci shoes now explains that Thompson is unaware there is an issue about drilling in the Everglades in Florida. It is hard to fathom why Thompson wouldn't get a briefing on say the top five issues in a state and be reasonably fluent on them as preparation for a visit with the Governor, whose endorsement may be the mostly eagerly coveted in the state. More coverage here to the same effect. The quote from Governor Crist, the type every campaign would dread: "I wasn't completely overjoyed with the positions ... but I think he'll take some time to respond to them." And this is how reputations for a poor work ethic and indifference to preparation get started and reinforced.
In Praise of TimesSelect
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 6:25PM
David Brooks is a talented writer and often an interesting thinker, but his column today on Hillary's healthcare plan (still mercifully buried underneath the TimesSelect wall) is an example of what happens when your token conservative columnist isn't very conservative. Perhaps deciding that it is no longer fashionable for Serious People to take a dim view of the Clintons, Brooks describes Hillary's "evolution" from a big-government revolutionary on healthcare to a thoughtful, moderate proponent of careful change.
We hear about the "exhilarating process" by which Senator Clinton and her aides developed the plan, the "countless meetings" Hillary "remembered fondly," the noble communitarian instincts, and the "real warmth" Brooks "detected." Not only will this "simple" plan increase coverage without the overreach of Hillarycare circa 1993-94 but it "makes life politically difficult" for Mitt Romney by embracing the individual mandate and "takes the brave step of taxing the wealthy," something "every Republican health expert endorses." It's even turned John Edwards into the "shrillest" major presidential candidate.
The reality is that the plan achieves incrementally what the Clintons sought fourteen years ago. It will regulate and price private insurers out of the healthcare market and only increase the public demand for further government provision of health insurance. And while there are many thoughtful people who have made the case for that very outcome -- many of them on the New York Times op-ed page -- what is the point of having a token conservative who doesn't display a passing familiarity with the counterarguments?
In fact, Brooks isn't even aware that the Republican presidential candidates have also unveiled healthcare proposals, claiming erroneously that they don't exist. While I'm often critical of Rudy Giuliani, his proposed healthcare reforms (though flawed) have considerable merit. Perhaps Brooks ignores them because he rejects free-market reforms in favor of the tax, spend, and mandate approach?
The only possible downside of Hillarycare 2.0 that he can envision is that insurance companies will weasel their way out of the mandates (and the "magic circle"). No word about the possibility -- indeed, likelihood -- of unintended consequences, a regular feature of new federal programs. No word about the impact of further diluting competition. And no word about the impact on economic growth as the tax burden grows (maybe he read Jonathan Chait talking about how great the economy was back when we had 91 percent tax rates).
Sure, there are liberal counterarguments to all of these points. But why bother to have a token conservative columnist who doesn't seem to understand these basic conservative insights?
Fred On The Issues
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 5:05PM
Thompson's site has a new feature highlighting where he stands on the issues. I agree with much of what he has to say, although he doesn't offer many details. One thing that struck me was that it reinforces my view that he seems to be running more as a federalist than as a social conservative. He doesn't include a separate section describing his views on abortion, mentioning it only as part of his section on "appointing judges faithful to our constitution." Also, his "building stronger families" section says: "Strong families are the bedrock of our nation and our culture. They are built around the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman. " But he doesn't mention anything about the constitutional amendment on marriage that he proposed. I'm not saying there's anything wrong in this, it is just interesting that, he really doesn't seem to be making a hard push on social issues.
He's Still Pro-Life
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 1:28PM
We had some
fun in this space last year at Democrat Rep. Heath Shuler's
expense when he was running against the bumbling incumbent Charles
Taylor for North Carolina's 11th Congressional District. And some
were skeptical when Shuler claimed he was pro-life. But it turns
out that the former Washington Redskins quarterback is
keeping that promise (as are three other new Democrats) -- at
least according to Focus on the Family's lobbying arm:
"Based on their voting records in the 110th so far," (FOTFA policy analyst Ashley) Horne said, "we've got four freshmen lawmakers in the House who have voted consistently pro-life."
They are Reps. Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Charlie Wilson of Ohio, and (Shuler). Shuler told Family News in Focus he was clear about his intent from the start.
"I actually sat down with Leader Pelosi at the time and told her about my viewpoints and told her that we would differ on a few issues," he said. "I said, 'You'll always know how I'll vote on the life issues. I'm pro-life now and I'll always be pro-life."
FOTF notes that with the new Democratic leadership, however, there haven't been a whole lot of opportunities to test these new Dems.Side note: A Republican city councilman from Asheville, Carl Mumpower, announced last week that he would challenge Shuler next year. This will be a tough seat for the GOP to win back given Shuler's stance on social issues, which play well in the far western counties of North Carolina. Mumpower is a well-known conservative around Asheville but not so much in the rural mountains.
Thompson and Gov. Crist
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 11:46AM
Gov. Crist met with Thompson. This report indicates that Thompson extracted no endorsement or hint of one but did get some skeptical questioning from the local press corps who strangely enough wanted answers about national and state issues.
Re: Mandate Mitt
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 11:43AM
I'm not offering this as an application for a gig with the Mitt Romney Is A Bad, Bad, Nasty Man Gazette (which seems at pretty much full employment these days, anyhow), but after I wrote this piece upon the unveiling of MittCare last year I was invited to appear on a Boston newscast as part of a panel of skeptics. As was made clear to me in the breathtakingly rude lectures I was subjected to both in the "green room" and on-air by my fellow guests, the left-wing saw MittCare much as I imagine they'll see Hillary's new plan: A necessary, hopefully short-lived Trojan horse to carry universality through the city gates and create the crisis that will send the populace into the arms of single-payer.
As mandates allow insurance companies to drive up cost without fear of losing now-captive consumers, the still-bankrupt arguments in favor of a government-run system are nevertheless sure to receive a more sympathetic hearing. The government demands, the hoi polloi is supposed to think, why shouldn't it pay? Even the left-wing guests' requisite feigned fury at Romney could hardly mask their glee at the opportunity that had been handed them. The so-called compromise Mitt signed onto--even though he knew he would not be in the Governor's office to trim the excesses of an overwhelmingly liberal state house--is now something he and, to a lesser degree, all Republicans will get shellacked with every time they try to criticize Democrats' calls for increased regulation in health care and beyond. Some of them-aside from Huckabee, our favorite God-fearing socialist with the goofy smile and aw shucks! attitude-actually might not even deserve it, which is to say MittCare did no one who cares about individual autonomy and limited government any favors, least of all Romney. The plan's enablers over at Heritage Foundation should be hanging their heads in shame, as well.
I know much of this is retracing the footsteps of my AmSpec colleagues' well-beaten path. My point is that the most damnable offence here isn't how MittCare turned out, but the boon the left recognized it would be from a time Romney has taken great pains to assure us all he now understands...the moment of conception.Re: Rudy and MoveOn
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 11:38AM
When the FEC financial disclosures come out on October 15 I want to see if the Rudy Campaign is spending big bucks to support MoveOn.org. Why? Only that could explain MoveOn.org's decision to go after him and provide fodder for this new radio ad.
Rudy to MoveOn: I'm Your Worst Nightmare
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 11:34AM
Giuliani has taken out a radio ad in Iowa in response to the Move.org attack ad against him that I posted yesterday. Audio of the Rudy ad here, and this is the text:
Rudy Giuliani: I'm Rudy Giuliani, and I approve this message.
Re: Mandate Mitt Watch
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 11:28AM
Phil, I will have a column out tomorrow on precisely this point so I won't give too much away, but you are entirely correct. Once you say everyone must have COVERAGE as opposed to ACCESS to coverage the argument is just about what coercive measures the government will undertake to reach that outcome. Moreover, once you say everyone must have coverage then the government decides what type of coverage is "coverage" and we're off to the races in government mandated benefits and costs (e.g., Is a $2000 annual deductible plan "coverage"? Must there be mental health benefits in "parity" with other health benefits to be "coverage"?) This was the cardinal error in MittCare and if Romney gets the nomination will be a significant handicap in making the case against HillaryCare.
Re: Mandate Mitt Watch
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 10:55AM
It is also worth pointing out something Romney said when attacking HillaryCare yesterday:
Rove on Health Care
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 10:43AM
So what does Karl Rove do for his first big public act after leaving the White House? A timely column in the Wall Street Journal on health care, one day after Hillary C released her own big guv't monstrosity. Lesson: Rove intends to remain very much a part of the public coversation, in the role of far-seeing policy wonk (and maybe other roles as well, but certainly this one). Here's hoping for much more of the same.
Re: Mandate Mitt Watch
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 7:57AM
I must take issue with Andrew Cline's conclusion that Mitt and Arnold were helpful in "neutralizing" the healthcare issue by mimicking Democratic style mandate plans. The GOP rarely succeeds in doing Democratic "lite." It is not the act of addressing healthcare but how healthcare is addressed that will determine whether the GOP will be successful from a political and policy standpoint. Hillary now delights in pointing to RomneyCare --surely not a help in promoting conservative healthcare reform.
UPDATE: This from a Florida news account is one of many which makes the point that MittCare blurred the lines in this debate: "Clinton proposed a health care plan that would require individuals to buy health insurance, and require businesses to offer it to employees or contribute to a fund to offer it.The plan is similar in some ways to one instituted by one of Giuliani's Republican opponents, Mitt Romney, while he was Massachusetts' governor." You can argue about the specific differences and point to some of the market innovations in Massachusetts but on the big issue-- government mandates-- press and public will have a hard time figuring out why Hillary's plan is so much "worse" than Romney's CommonWealth plan.
Hillary's Tune is Called
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 7:00AM
I have always had a soft spot for the Washington Post's Richard Cohen and this is a good example why. This spectacular final paragraph refers to her favorite phrase ( "the politics of personal destruction"):
"The MoveOn.org ad was the moment for Clinton to rise above hackdom. It was a moment for her to insist that the business of politics, not to mention governing, is made even uglier and more difficult when people who merely differ with one another resort to insult. It was a moment for her to say that an Army general, under orders and attempting to fulfill a mission, should not be so casually trashed -- especially since she herself has been on the other side of the Iraq war issue and said things she must now regret. And it was a moment for her to trot out her favorite phrase and use it, not in her own defense for once but in defense of someone else. That moment is gone -- maybe because for Hillary Clinton it never arrived in the first place."
Mandate Mitt Watch
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 1:33AM
From the Washington Post's article on Hillary Clinton's proposal:
Again, by ceding so much ground to liberals, Romney's Massachusetts plan has made it much more likely that we'll see a Hillary-style healthcare plan at the national level.
Andrew Cline, on our main site, was more forgiving of Romney.
Giuliani and Mukasey
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 1:15AM
The Washington Post reports on the long ties between Michael Mukasey and Rudy Giuliani. Yesterday, I noted that when Giuliani was a young prosecutor in the 1970s, he put indicted Democratic Congressman Bertram L. Podell under such intense cross-examination that Podell nervously poked a lens out of his eyeglasses and then pled guilty. According to today's Post article, it was Mukasey who helped Rudy prepare for the trial by playing Podell in a rehearsal.
More HillaryCare
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 12:51AM
Much of the criticism of Clinton's proposal from the right has thus far focused on the individual mandates and employer mandates, but another aspect of the plan that should concern conservatives that has gotten less attention is her promise to offer Americans a new "public plan option similar to Medicare." Given the drastic expansion of Medicare and Medicaid from their original purpose over the past 40 years, conservatives should be very suspicious about this particular feature of her proposal.
While her plan is not technically "socialist" in that it maintains the private insurance market, it would create so many new regulations that it's hard to imagine how one would design a better plan if the goal were to drive private insurers out of business. Her plan requires that insurers offer people health insurance at a price that is deemed "affordable" regardless of pre-existing conditions or risk factors. Clinton, of course, argues that she isn't trying to drive these companies out of business, but imagine if the government required all banks to offer low insurance rates to people with long records of defaulting on loans.
So, while the plan is not socialist in the technical sense, it could easily pave the way to a socialist, single-payer system over time, as private insurers go out of business and get replaced by ever-expanding government programs.
Rufus T. Firefly on HillaryCare
Posted by on 9.18.07 @ 12:17AM
"I know my Republican opponents will try to equate health care for all Americans with government run health care," Hillary Clinton said yesterday in Iowa. "Well don't let them fool us again. This is not government run."
But considering the scope of her proposal, that comment conjures up memories of Groucho Marx's one-time admonition about an associate: "Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot."
Monday, September 17, 2007
Mukasey
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 11:09PM
After a day of chatting with some very smart lawyers and sampling opinions of conservative scholars and some Republican senators I think Judge Mukasey is as advertised -- a highly respected jurist with a conservative yet independent appraoch to national security issues. If Bush's top priorities are quickly restoring DOJ to full working order, preparing for the fight on FISA reauthorization, and installing a respected figure with excellent administrative skills Judge Mukasey seems to be a fine pick.
I must admit that after speaking to many who know and worked with Judge Mukasey, I found this portion of Thompson's released statement unwarranted: "Judge Mukasey will need to prove himself an Attorney General with a firm commitment to confronting the global terrorist threat, both here and abroad, while also ensuring the protection of our basic liberties." (I will put aside for a moment the odd grammar-what part of "global" doesn't cover "here and abroad" ?). This jurist presided over the first significant international terrorism trial in the U.S. and was widely acclaimed for grappling with just these issues. Moreover, he did so at personal risk to his family and required armed U.S. Marshals to live in his home for years. While we want every appointee to demonstrate he is up to the task, I think it is presumptuous to say he must "prove" his commitment to confronting terrorism. A more gracious and informed statement by Thompson would have been welcome as Judge Mukasey heads into the inevitable ordeal of confirmation.
Remember the Good Old Days?
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 7:59PM
Sen. Orrin Hatch released this statement:
" 'The Senate should focus on Judge Mukasey's qualifications, his almost 40 years of service in America's legal system, through a process that respects the separation of powers,' Hatch said. 'I know some in this body want to use nominations to fight unrelated policy or political battles. Those fights are for the legislative process or the oversight process, but not the confirmation process.'
Hatch hopes that Mukasey will receive a fair, efficient confirmation process, free from partisan demagoguery. In Hatch's tenure, the Senate has confirmed nine Attorneys General, with an average review time between nomination and confirmation of three weeks. Hatch hopes that, given how well established Mukasey's reputation is, the Senate will live up to this standard."
UPDATE: Sen. Cornyn released this:
"In recent months, my Democratic colleagues have loudly voiced their belief that partisan politics has no place at the Department of Justice. With today's nomination and forthcoming confirmation process of Judge Mukasey, they will have an opportunity to demonstrate that.
"I am examining Judge Mukasey's record and will continue to do so in the days ahead. But early indications are that he is a respected, experienced jurist who has a strong reputation for honesty and integrity. He deserves a fair and prompt hearing by the Senate."
Re: HillaryCare , Part 2
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 6:47PM
I and many others today gently ribbed the Romney folks for putting Romeny in front of a trauma center named for Rudy for his anti-HillaryCare spiel. Well the hospital itself is fairly annoyed and doesn't like being used as a prop. The "A" Romney advance people must all be permanently assigned to Iowa and New Hampshire.
UPDATE: By the way, some have wondered why the Trauma Center is named after Rudy. According to this (subscription required for entire story) his wife Judith was the executive director of a $100M capital campaign and Rudy waived speaking fees at various events to help raise $25M. The hospital apparently expressed to the Mayor following 9-11 that that they needed a new emergency center. Nice story, which no one would have known about without an assist from the Romney team.
Libertarian Less
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 6:24PM
Liz Mair raises a number of good points in her column today about the Mountain West. The Democrats are making headway in this traditionally Republican region. The individualistic culture of the area may make it less than fertile ground for big government conservatism. But the Interior West's libertarianism can be overstated. Daniel McCarthy is on to something when he calls it just the Semi-Libertarian West.
To take one example: Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer is often cited as an example of the new, less government-happy Democrats who can appeal to Moutain Westerners. Mair notes that the Democratic presidential candidate Schweitzer prefers is Bill Richardson, who received a higher grade from the Cato Institute than 20 Republicans. Yet Schweitzer himself received an F while Richardson only got a C. In Richardson's case not bad for a Democrat (or in this era, a big government Republican either) but nothing to write Ayn Rand about.
I've written about the exaggeration of the Libertarian West at greater length here. It's a key swing region of the country, but Goldwater Republicanism isn't in much better stead there than in newly Democratic New Hampshire.
GOP Candidate reaction to Mukasey
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 6:06PM
Thompson did not, and said this:
"The President appears to have nominated someone whose career experience qualifies him to serve as Attorney General. I hope that Senate Democrats will move promptly on Judge Mukasey's nomination, as the Department of Justice needs a Senate-confirmed leader to address the significant challenges we face as a nation. Judge Mukasey will need to prove himself an Attorney General with a firm commitment to confronting the global terrorist threat, both here and abroad, while also ensuring the protection of our basic liberties. His recent op-ed on the subject in The Wall Street Journal is a good sign that he has that commitment. I also hope that as soon as he is confirmed he will take a fresh look at whether the FBI has successfully transformed itself to focus on preventing rather than responding to terrorist attacks."
Granted he doesn't want to praise his rival's "guy" but this strikes me as verging on hostile(he needs to "prove" himself) not unlike the type of things Democrats say and reveals that Thompson(or his legal advisors if he has them) has little idea who this fellow is. This doesn't necessarily burnish his image as a former prosecutor or guru on terrorism. Mukasey did after all preside over the first substantial terrorism trial( 1993 World Trade Center) and make a key ruling on Padilla.
Romney had this to say:
"I welcome the President's choice of Michael Mukasey for the position of Attorney General and hope the Senate will give this distinguished jurist the respect and consideration he deserves. I look forward to learning more about his record as the confirmation process unfolds."
Edwards Takes the Stage
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 5:29PM
For what it's worth, I would say there are double the number of John Edwards signs than there were Hillary Clinton signs. He opens by saying: "I know a lot of you want to know how Elizabeth is doing. Elizabeth is doing great."
UPDATE:
Also, "I intend to be the best union president in the history of the United States."
Says healthcare plan would cost $80-$120 billion, but he has a way to pay for it. "Let's get rid of George Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000."
This leads to huge applause and chants of "ED-WARDS! ED-WARDS!'
Also has people on their feet for his new chicken-or-the-egg plan for getting universal healthcare passed: he will submit a bill on his first day in office, saying that Congress, the President, and the cabinet will lose their healthcare coverage by July, 2009 unless they pass universal healthcare. But what if they don't pass that bill?
This doesn't prevent the crowd from starting more chants of "ED-WARDS! ED-WARDS!'
Hillary at SEIU
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 5:23PM
Hillary Clinton just finished speaking and clearly felt comfortable in the labor crowd, walking through the audience to the stage, shaking hands all the way. The speech was an amalgam of anti-Bush rhetoric and promises to unions on the minimum wage.
"People say to me, when you're president, with labor have a seat at the table?" she hollered. "Labor built the table."
There was a unifying collectivist theme underlying the speech, from mocking Bush's "Ownership Society" as the "You're on You're Own"--or YoYo society to calling healthcare a "fundamental right." In Clintonian fashion, she appropriated the language of the right by calling her healthcare plan the "health choices menu"--despite the fact that it denies individuals the choice not to have healthcare.
Toward the conclusion she ended the speech by knocking down the straw man : "If you hear someone say America can't elect a woman president..." Uh, actually, nobody is saying that. But it makes for good political theater, especially when coupled with an anecdote about 90-something women who approach her saying, "I was born before women could vote, and I'm going to live long enough to see a woman in the White House."
Waiting for Hillary
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 4:19PM
I'm here at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Political Action Conference, waiting for Hillary Clinton to take the stage. Just watched a modern dance troupe lead the audience in a calisthenics exercise in which they practiced how to "Step Up" and "Speak Out." With 1.9 million members, the SEIU endorsement is highly-coveted by Democrats. Dodd, Obama, and Richardson have already addressed the group, and Edwards is set to follow Hillary.
Re: Bargain Values
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 3:31PM
Larry, I better not answer your question because I remember Joe Farah's apoplectic reaction to this Spectator column by young Jeremy Lott on the workings on WND. That said, WorldNetDaily is only one of the sponsors and the Democrats have agreed to speak in front of some real nutters, haven't they? But I didn't realize until now that Farah was actually moderating the debate, which might understandably turn some people off. Though it's still possible that he might do a better job than Chris Matthews.
re: Bargain Value
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 2:39PM
Jim, you didn't mention that the so-called "Values Debate" is sponsored by World Net Daily, and will feature the participation of WND editor Joseph Farah. Back when I first got on the Web, I used to read WND; they even printed a couple of my columns as "Column of the Week." But over the years, they have gained a reputation for wing-nuttery. They break a good story from time to time, but I haven't really taken WND seriously for quite a while. Have you?
MoveOn Hits Back at Rudy
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 1:47PM
Via Jonathan Martin, I see this new ad MoveOn.org plans to run in Iowa, attacking Giuliani for leaving the Iraq Study Group. Back when the controversy over his leaving the ISG erupted, I argued that Giuliani was better off not attaching himself to the group's atrocious recommendations.
Mandate Mitt on HillaryCare
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 1:13PM
His remarks are here. It should be noted that one point I neglected to mention in my article on Rudy's strengths against Hillary Clinton, is that Romney's universal healthcare plan in Massachusetts is another thing that would make Romney less suited to challenge her. The most pernicious element of Clinton's healthcare plan is the individual mandate, and yet that was an aspect of the Massachusetts healthcare plan that Romney defended. For example, he wrote in an April 2006 WSJ op-ed:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.
At the time, Romney did not seem to get that forcing individuals to purchase health insurance by itself violates every conservative principle about the proper function of government. I'm happy that his plan as a presidential candidate did not include an individual mandate at the federal level, but in my view he has already ceded too much ground to Hillary on this issue.
UPDATE: Here's the video of Romney's remarks.
UPDATE II: A rival campaign passes on this very different Romney video from the signing of the Massachusetts healthcare plan in which Romeny praises Ted Kennedy as his "collaborator and friend" whose work on the plan was "absolutely essential." He applauds Kennedy, and shakes hands with him. Keep in mind that this happened not a long time ago, but last year.
Re: HillaryCare, Part 2
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 12:50PM
Romney doesn't like it either and puts out this copy of delivered remarks:
"Our objectives in health care are to bring down the costs of health insurance for everyone and to get all of our citizens inside the system - to get them all insured. What her plan does is it relies on government. In her plan, we have government insurance instead of private insurance. In her plan, it's crafted by Washington; it should be crafted by the states. In her plan, we have government Washington managed health care. Instead, we should rely on the private markets to guide health care. And in her plan, you see increased taxes. The burden should not be raised on the American people.
"Fundamentally, I think she takes her inspiration from European bureaucracies, and instead we should take our inspiration from the American people. Hers is a plan which I think underscores the fact that she fundamentally does not believe in markets and in the states. And I believe that our inspiration should come from American families. Washington as opposed to states. It's government plans as opposed to private plans. It's raising taxes as opposed to holding taxes level. And that's not the right course for solving our health care problems."
Ok, well it isn't as fun as the Rudy one. Also there are two other problems, one small and one not. It was delivered in front of the Rudy Giuliani Trauma Center. No really. Woops. Second, his opponents will likely use this as an opportunity to revisit criticism of his Commonwealth Care which many libertarians and conservatives say made it politically acceptable to preach government mandates both in the form of requiring individuals to maintain coverage (on penalty of fine )and in the form of government required benefits. Romney will counter that his current plan doesn't go down this road but it makes it dicey for the author of RomneyCare to criticize a plan with some of the same central features.
HillaryCare, Take 2
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 12:45PM
Some details of the plan are up on her Website here, and it's absolutely chilling in its paternalistic zeal. Not only would the federal government force individuals to purchase healthcare insurance, but it would require that large employers provide coverage to their employees, or be subject to a tax that would be used to fund government insurance. It is also estimated to cost $110 billion a year, but given the way Washington works, you can probably multiply that several times.
Cato's Michael Tanner dissects the plan, and the Club for Growth has more here.
Re: Can Rudy Beat Hillary?
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 12:29PM
Well, maybe if they keep this up. The Rudy communications shop puts out this in response to HillaryCare:
"If you liked Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' you're going to love HillaryCare 2.0. Senator Clinton's latest health scheme includes more government mandates, expensive federal subsidies and more big bureaucracy - in short, a prescription for an increase in wait times, a decrease in patient care and tax hikes to pay for it all."
The press release continues with these gems: "GOVERNMENT MANDATED
COVERAGE? THAT'S WASHINGTON SPEAK FOR SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" and
"SICKO? WE WILL BE IF THE CLINTON-MOORE PLAN IS ENACTED." It
reminds voters : "OH, AND HILLARY WILL RAISE AMERICANS' TAXES TO
PAY FOR HER GOVERNMENT MANDATED PLAN." There is plenty of detail
which you can find here. So perhaps one big difference between 2000 and
2007: Rudy sure seems to be having fun this time.
Bargain Values
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 12:09PM
Tonight, a number of conservative Christian groups will be holding a Values Voter Debate. The significance of this event may itself be debatable, since none of the candidates in the top tier -- Giuliani, Thompson, Romney or McCain -- will be participating. John Cox, however, will be; there are also rumors that Alan Keyes will be on hand, though I haven't seen him listed in any of the organizers' press releases.
Here is where the debate could, at least potentially, have some impact: When a Democratic interest group organizes a candidates' forum, their party's presidential contenders all come running. When groups purporting to represent the voting bloc that gave George W. Bush more than a third of his support in 2004, the frontrunners all stay away.
Will social conservatives be irritated by the snub? Will they take it out on the frontrunners courting them -- mostly Romney and Thompson -- and vote instead for Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Ron Paul, or any of the other candidates who will be there and might create a stir? Or is it merely the case that the groups sponsoring the event aren't as representative of the conservative Christian voting bloc as they think they are, and the impact will be minimal?
Re: Can Rudy Beat Hillary?
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 11:56AM
I'm at least willing to bet that a Hillary-Rudy contest will go better than an Obama-Keyes rematch.
Re: Can Rudy Beat Hillary
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 10:36AM
Quin, first, I do think the fact that he was battling cancer in 2000 at least should be taken into account, becuase even if he were gung ho about running from the start, it would have forced him to drop out. But even if you were to put that aside, there are a lot of reasons why this time is different. So far, Giuliani has been campaigning tirelessly for the nomination, and has displayed none of the tentativeness that categorized his abandoned U.S. Senate run. Also, in the case of the Senate, I don't think it was a position that he really wanted as much as he wants to be president. Giuliani is a leader who likes to run things and serve in an executive capacity, part of it is because that's what excites him and that's what he's good at, and part of it is that he has a big ego. Being a legislator, where you sit around in meetings and nothing gets done, simply isn't a good fit for him. I think he decided to run for the Senate because he was a term-limited mayor and that position was open, and if anything, he relished the prospect of a high-profile race against Hillary, rather than feared it. But holding the top executive job in the world is something that is much more appealing to him. Also, something else changed since then--Sept. 11. I wrote about the implications of his personal connection to that event last week, and I think given that he knows as well as or better than anybody what the stakes are in this election, there's simply no way he'll let Clinton off easy. In this case, the past is not, in fact, prologue.
Can Rudy Beat Hillary
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 9:54AM
Philip makes some excellent points in his column today about how well Rudy Giuliani is doing at taking on Hillary Clinton these days. One problem: Giuliani already had a chance to take on Hillary, in the Senate race in 2000, and he blew it badly. And his prostate cancer is no excuse: His effort already was imploding then even before his cancer was detected. Moreover, his hemming an dhawing about that race -- his overblown self-regard which led him to suck all the air out of the room, in effect, while he pulled a Cuomo trying to decide if he really was going to run -- caused lasting damage to the effort to keep Hillary out of the Senate, and thus lasting damage to his state party and his nation. One reason that a lot of smart people are worried about a general election campaign of Rudy vs. Hillary is because they fear that past is prologue. Sure, Rudy looks good fighting Hillary when he is trying to distinguish himself from other GOPers while she is trying to beat back a bunch of Demo lefties. But head to head, does she have his number?
Re: Proud of A No Nothing Campaign
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 9:37AM
As I noted over the weekend, the Thomspon press shop should stop sending out press articles hoping we don't read them. This time they sent another "wow he's a likeable guy" account from Florida and excised the offending passages but the link to the full article reveals this:
He is less impressed with Thompson, saying he has never emerged as a conservative leader.
You don't look back and think, 'Oh, yeah; that's what he stood for,' Staver said.
He and some social conservatives are worried about Thompson's position on gay marriage. The candidate opposes it and has consistently said marriage is between a man and a woman.
But he has not supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage. He instead favors regulations forbidding judges from approving same-sex marriage under existing laws.
Others have questioned Thompson's Second Amendment credentials, saying he voted for bills that contained antigun provisions. Several of those bills, however, were only tangentially tied to gun issues, and Thompson generally gets high marks from gun advocates.
But the area where Thompson has taken most of his lumps is preparation.
At times last week he seemed caught off guard by issues familiar to most Floridians.
He appeared ill-equipped to address questions about the Terri Schiavo case or the creation of a national catastrophe-insurance fund. He said he would consider drilling for oil off Florida's Gulf Coast but did not acknowledge how politically explosive that issue was."
Maybe letting Jim Mills go wasn't such a good idea.
Re: Judging Mukasey
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 9:03AM
Phil, I would agree. Conservatives disappointed over losing a knock down drag out fight with Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy should not look a gift horse in the mouth, particularly considering the state of the stables. DOJ is a dysfunctional mess right now and a 3 month or so confirmation fight to possibly have Ted Olson there for less than a year seems a poor use of diminishing resources. By the way -- and this will please all those who thought I was too easy on press errors -- I think virtually all reports today misstate that Mukasey served as an assistant US attorney under Rudy in the Southern District of NY. I believe Mukasey actually left in 1976; Rudy arrived as US Attorney in 1983. They did serve together during Rudy's first stint as an Assistant US Attorney.
Judging Mukasey
Posted by on 9.17.07 @ 1:32AM
I had the oppourtunity to watch Mukasey in action when I was a financial reporter covering the World Trade Center insurance litigation in which leaseholder Larry Silverstein tried to claim that the the destruction of the Twin Towers by two planes represented two events, entitling him to double the insurance money. It was a highly complicated case involving billions of dollars, more than 20 insurance companies from around the world, and a number of high profile lawyers (such as David Boies). It could have very easily gotten out of hand, but I found Mukasey to be a really smart, tough, no-nonsense judge, who made it clear who was in charge, kept the parties in line, moved the case along, and often displayed a quick wit. I came away quite impressed with him. Of course, none of this says anything about his conservative bona fides or the totality of his case history, of which I am largely ignorant other than what is in the current news coverage.
As for the disappointment among conservatives, while I can certainly understand the thinking of those who were hoping up for a fight over a Ted Olson nomination, I think there's also a case to be made that with just 16 months left in the administration, there wouldn't have been much utility in it. If this were the beginning of the second term, or if this were a Supreme Court vacancy, I'd be the first to argue that conservatives should get ready to go to the mattresses. But I wonder if Olson's talents would be wasted as a largely lame duck AG.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Desperation at the NYT?
Posted by on 9.16.07 @ 5:33PM
Advertising Age reports on the denouement of last week's controversy over the discount rate that MoveOn.org got from the New York Times. It turns out the Giuliani campaign got the same discount; the confusion seems to have started because the "standby" rate isn't on the NYT's official rate card. But there's still a missing piece: Why could both MoveOn and Giuliani get the standby rate so easily, when the Swift Boat Vets and NRLC couldn't get an ad printed at all? My guess is that Don Surber is on to something: The Times, with its decling circulation and stock price, is desperate for ad revenue, and no longer has the luxury of turning away advocacy ads in favor of better-paying customers.
Re: Resting Up?
Posted by on 9.16.07 @ 5:10PM
Todd Harris says Thompson will have fundraising events in Texas, Tennessee and Florida and public events in Florida, Michigan and DC. No word on exact dates or number of stops. As for Michigan, all the major contenders will be there for the Mackinac GOP meeting-- a great opportunity to size them up on the same stage, albeit not on the stage simulataneously.
UPDATE: The actual schedule was just released and is sparse. No discrete public "events" until a speech to the NRA on Friday in DC. A speech in Mackinac but no other events in Michigan is set on Saturday. They do list local media and a press avail with Gov. Crist in Florida on Tuesday but no other details and no other events, townhalls, campaign swings, etc. for that day or the rest of the week. Fundraising is set for Nashville, Texas and Florida. Not clear is whether they don't have the advance teams yet to set multiple events and a substantial schedule or whether in fact they have a candidate that needs to,well, let's say "pace" himself.
An Osirak in Syria?
Posted by on 9.16.07 @ 3:50PM
Did the Israelis just short-circuit a secret Syrian nuclear program by bombing a shipment of material from North Korea? Possibly.
Chafee Finally Does It
Posted by on 9.16.07 @ 1:33PM
The Providence Journal reports that Lincoln Chafee has left the Republican Party, "disaffiliating" and becoming an independent/unenrolled voter this summer. I guess that validates a major point Steve Laffey makes in his book, which I discuss in this column and the October issue of the print edition.
Resting Up?
Posted by on 9.16.07 @ 8:20AM
Could this be accurate? NY Times says Thompson is taking the week off from campaigning, contending Thompson will have no public appearances this week. I find that hard to believe frankly. I buy the part about being short on details and not having had as strenuous a schedule as his competitors, but leaving the field the week after his inaugural week would be ludicrous and could panic supporters.
UPDATE: A rival campaign pounced on the (potential) news, declaring: "His work ethic was questioned in the Senate- I don't know why anyone thought it would be different this time."
UPDATE II: As I suspected, Todd Harris says "no" to my question as to whether the NY Times story about no public events is accurate. No answer yet to the obvious follow up as to where Thompson will be or what stops he has planned for the week. (It may be that the NY Times asked what was on tap and the response was "we don't have anything yet" --which may bespeak a lack of planning/organization rather than a lack of willingness by Thompson to get out on the stump.)
- The Continuing Crisis
- Progressive Derangements
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
