- 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 29, 2007
Does It Matter?
Posted by on 9.29.07 @ 4:12PM
Newt is out but does it matter? Well, John McCain is breathing a sigh of relief that Newt rather than this will be the news of the day. (His campaign spokesperson insists McCain simply referred to America as founded on Judeo Christian principles but in the actual audio tapes McCain says the Constitution founded a Christian nation and that all immigrants are welcome but must understand America is a Christian country. This is the ultimate please no one type of comment -- McCain will back pedal and apologize to some degree leaving everyone on both sides of the debate annoyed and irritated.)
As for Newt ( could Arlen Specter talk him out of getting out?) all the remaining candidates should be somewhat relieved that cash and attention won't be diverted to Newt. For now he can continue to hector from the sidelines which unfortunately feeds the MSM line that the GOP field is weak and defective --after all Newt keeps saying the debates are a farce and none of the contenders have "new ideas." I'll side with Teddy Roosevelt on this and give credit to those in the arena. And as for policy specifics, at least Romney and Rudy have plenty of those.
That Was Quick
Posted by on 9.29.07 @ 1:38PM
Newt is out?
UPDATE: Spokesman Rick Tyler responding by email says that Newt will not endorse a GOP candidate in the primary. What would Newt like to see from the field? "More policy innovation."
Friday, September 28, 2007
Re: Rudy and Hillary and .. Newt
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 8:35PM
It is appropriate I suppose that McGovern endorsed Hillary -- she seems to have stolen his idea. But your suggestion, Wlady, works well in the Iraq context as well. GOP candidates should embrace her "no guaranteed withdrawal through 2013" position.
Re: Rudy and Hillary...and Newt
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 8:02PM
Jennifer: I don't know if Rudy's criticism of Hillary $5,000 in every new born's pot is compelling, at least not when he's reduced to saying things like "Programs to help kids that can't afford college make sense." Don't we already have tons of such programs, all of which have brought about such a federal subsidy racket that college costs go up faster each year than a NASA rocket? I haven't heard any response from Newt to Hillary's neonatal bombshell, but I bet it will be sharper and point to the essential concession (however inadvertent) she's made to the benefits of growth-oriented accounts ("...a $5,000 account that will grow over time..."). Let her have that, but insist on expanding the concept to include privatized Social Security, health-savings accounts, and all the other features of an entitlement regime that will survive only if such principles gain the upper hand.
What's more, Republicans have a golden opportunity to use Hillary's idea of baby bonds as growth vehicles against the essential sham of the Social Security lockbox -- surely young wage earners-voters have no loyalty to the SS system. If instead the GOP response remains nothing more than shrieks that Hillary's idea is a budget-buster, Republicans will again seize defeat from the widening jaws of possible victory.
In other words, the time is right to call her on the $5,000, and raise her.
Gallup Poll
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 7:00PM
Re: Hillary
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 6:17PM
REPORTER: How about Senator Clinton's perspective on torture?
MAYOR GIULIANI: "Honestly. I think I'm going to adopt a new posture with Senator Clinton. I'm going to wait until she holds a position for a week or two, then I'm going to comment on it. Senator Clinton changes her mind so often, it is really, really hard to critique a particular position, because by the time you critique it she may have changed it. I remember Senator Clinton, during the first Presidential debate or second, saying 'I'm going to get the troops out of Iraq, and if they're not out by the time I'm President, I'll take them out.' I think I heard a totally different position here, which is, 'I'm not sure,' she said, 'I'm not even sure they'll be out by 2013.' That's like a total-that's not a flip-flop, that's like a total trip around the world. And, she certainly said that under limited circumstances, she would favor aggressive questioning …The other night, she's unequivocally opposed to it, and she's going to lecture her husband about it, because apparently, he left some opening on it. And now it turns out, some group of generals helped her change her mind. So I can't keep track of all these things, so I'm going to end up, I'm going to end up probably criticizing her for a position that she's already changed, and then you're all going to say I'm being unfair. So I'm going to adopt a new strategy, I'm going to wait a day or two, see if she holds that position, if she does, then I'll criticize it."
Then there is this from Rudy's comment on Hillary's "baby bond" plan this afternoon on the Sean Hannity radio show:
"This is I guess, you know, a chicken in every pot kind of a campaign. Pander to everyone. The idea of a 5,000 dollar bond for every child born in the United States, we've got four million that are born in the United States every year, rough math that would be at least 20 billion dollars more in federal spending. And the idea--an awful lot of kids would be getting that bond that don't need it, right? … I mean no disrespect to Mr. [Bill] Gates, but his children would get it, right? … It's not that every American can't afford college. Programs to help kids that can't afford college make sense. But this is, you know, this is a deeper thing … This is a campaign based on pandering to the point where I think they think the American people are stupid."
So to review: Rudy is saying Hillary is without core beliefs, lacks resolution and thinks Americans are dull witted enough to accept her spending spree ideas at face value. Hmm... Who's saying take me or leave me and you know where I stand? Who's touting the cost cutting record of fiscal responsibility? This is politics 101: describe your opponent and draw contrasts.
All Americans, Few Candidates
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 5:33PM
I finally viewed the complete Internet footage of last night's All-American Presidential Forum, held at a historically black college in Baltimore and moderated by Tavis Smiley. Few people watched this Republican debate because the four leading candidates didn't show. Since I find the frontrunners as interesting as watching hair blowdry, I didn't mind very much. Without them, you end up in a bizarro universe where Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul lead the pack, which requires the willing suspension of disbelief, as Hillary might put it.
In any event, far too much time was spent tut-tutting the candidates who weren't there (though at least they didn't ask them questions anway as they did at the Values Voter debate). The questions presumed a certain amount of statism/liberalism, though Smiley was a judicious and unobtrusive moderator. But the most interesting thing is that the candidates divided over how much to play to the audience.
Huckabee and Sam Brownback were willing to diverge from the standard conservative playbook in supporting policies popular with the black community, though Huckabee seemed to go over better with the crowd. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo sounded pretty much the same as they did in the other debates. So did Paul, but he got much more applause, since his opposition to the drug war and the Iraq war gave him common ground. Alan Keyes was, well, Alan Keyes.
More on Baby Bucks
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 3:18PM
Richard Stengel proposed the idea in a Time magazine article a few weeks ago:
Air Strikes at Burma?
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 3:01PM
Here's what I don't get: Why isn't military action even being talked about with regard to Burma? I am not saying I would defintiely do it, but it definitely should be on the table. Frankly, I think every free nation on Earth ought to be thinking of it. If I were Japan, i would particularly be thinking of it, considering that a Japanese journalist was gunned down in cold blood.
It would seem to me that air strikes ought to be considered. They could be well targeted. After all, doesn't the military there live in barracks? Don't the generals have headquarters? Bombing those military installations ought to be on the table. What is going on in Burma is utterly unacceptable. Deliberate mass murder by the military junta there should not go without consequences. Death is a consequence the military ought to understand.
McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 2:19PM
Speaking to bloggers moments ago, John McCain called for tough action against Burma (which he said he refuses to call Myanmar).
"It's time for firm, decisive, effective action against these thugs that are running that country," McCain said. By firm action, he meant increased economic sanctions, and pushing China and other Asian countries to put more pressure on Burma.
He also said that the testimony of Gen. Petraeus helped make sure that wavering Republicans would continue to support the war, and it took some of the fight out of the Democrats.
I asked him what he thought about Hillary's baby bucks proposal. "I'd be very interested to know how she'd pay for that," McCain said. "Is that an increase in taxes or she anticipates a revenue windfall? In all due respect, I think it's a worthy cause, I'd like to give everyone, every baby born, $100,000. I just want to know how to pay for it."
Re: Hillary
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 1:25PM
Frankly, there are many conservatives --Karl Rove included -- who continue to soothe conservatives into believing that she is hopelessly flawed. I hear it frequently from GOP operatives in states like Colorado, Florida and Ohio -- "Oh, she can't win here." Indeed she can. The task of covering her accurately is not only good journalism but helpful in assisting GOP voters to decide who is best able to beat her. Pointing out why she should be opposed is essential but underestimating your opponent or ignoring her strengths is never wise.
Re: Hillary
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 1:08PM
Jennifer, I don't disagree that it's important to acknowledge that she'll be difficult to beat. However, that's been established already, and I think that the balance has tilted too far in the opposite direction. Conservatives find it necessary to keep bending over backwards to point out how skilled she looks every chance they get. Much of the criticism of HillaryCare, for instance, was blunted by all of the qualifying statements about how much she's learned since 1993. Yes, conservatives shouldn't assume that Hillary will be easy to beat, but enough is enough. It's time to focus on the damage she would do to this country.
Re: Hillary's Baby Bucks
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 12:47PM
Phil I think there are two separate issues or tasks. One is to remind conservatives she won't be easy to beat. It is not fawning to point out that she has remade herself into an image which is far more effective and will convince many Americans she is not so bad. It is not instructive or accurate to conceal that or to encourage conservatives "not to worry because she's entirely unelectable." That's self-deluding. ( And worse, by painting such as extreme portrait, many will find the reality exceeds their expectations and give her the benefit of that comparison.) The second issue is to do precisely what you did (and what I and others regularly do) : listen to what she says and point out that even more so than on foreign policy, hers is a platform of extremism on domestic policy. To their credit Romney and Rudy have been doing this consistently, both because it helps them in the primary to establish their credentials with conservatives and also to prepare the ground for battle in the general election.
To that end, it would be nice if rather than ask another round of "dynasty" questions in the next debate a moderator would ask her all the items she is going to fund through the Bush tax cuts, her total list of new spending ventures and if there are any items which could be trimmed in the current budget. That would be worthwhile.
Hillary's Baby Bucks
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 11:59AM
I just got back from Hillary Clinton's panderfest at the the Congressional Black Caucus's Annual Legislative Conference. She took questions from audience members on topics such as voter suppression, economic justice, and "environmental racism" (i.e. when environmental policies disproportionately harm blacks).
But the most alarming point was when she said, "I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time so that when that young person turns 18, if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college, or maybe they will be able to put a down payment on their first home, or go into business."
She later referred to the proposal as "baby bonds."
This would represent a startling expansion of the role of government, not only in terms of the cost in dollars, but in the way it would literally instill dependency on the state in every American from the moment of birth.
Then later, when criticizing the idea of Social Security private accounts, she said, "Investing your future in the stock market is not a great return for everybody at every point in history." This statement not only reveals her contempt for the capitalist system, but it is utterly inaccurate.
These numbers need updating, but this basic idea that I conveyed in an article I wrote during the Social Security debate still holds:
But over, say, a 40-year time frame, short-term market
fluctuations are rendered irrelevant. Since 1965, the Standard and
Poor's 500 Index has enjoyed average annual returns, including
dividends, of nearly 12 percent. And this is a 40-year period that
included Vietnam, Watergate, two oil crises, two wars in Iraq, the
Sept. 11 attacks, five recessions and seven bear markets.
Investing in private enterprise is not some risky Republican scheme, it's the American way.
Let me just say that I've officially reached my breaking point with conservative commentators fawning over Hillary Clinton for how polished she is, how great she is doing in the debates, and how formidable of a candidate she will be. While it's important to acknowledge her political skills, I think at this stage conservatives need to be focusing on her draconian measures to augment the size of the state to the point at which it is involved in every aspect of our lives, from birth to death.
UPDATE: I did some quick math. There were 4,115,590 births in 2004, according to the most recent data I could find from the National Center for Health Statistics. If Hillary were to give each of those babies $5,000, it would represent $20.6 billion in new annual spending. To put that in perspective, that is nearly equivelent to to the budget of the entire Department of Justice, which was $23.4 billion in 2006.
The Saddest of News
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 11:15AM
Late last
night word spread through
The Left Has No Clue
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 10:56AM
In my column today at the Washington Examiner, I take on an absurdly cartoonish view of conservative legal thought that is prevalent on the Left, in this case exemplified by a dumb column by Slate's Dahlia Lithwick. It is impossible to have a legitimate political debate when one side is too stuck in its own head and so (falsely) sure of its own moral and intellectual superiority that it doesn't even make an effort to understand the other side. The Left consistently takes that attitude toward the Right, though, which is one reason it is so often caught unawards when the Right beats it in the battle of ideas.
Money
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 10:16AM
Re: Hillary Attire
Posted by on 9.28.07 @ 1:12AM
Hmm. My wife wandered into the room during the debate and almost immediately made a negative comment about Hillary's wardrobe choice (as the missus, who used to sell dresses at retail, has a habit of doing). If my heterosexual male brain is managing to comprehend the rules correctly, Hillary is a "Summer," but has lately been dressing as a "Winter" should. Perhaps in a political context, though, standing out in the crowd is more important than "looking good" per se. (If this is true, then Washington is not only "Hollywood for ugly people," as the saying goes, but also Hollywood for badly-dressed people.)
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Hillary Attire
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 11:04PM
I Dunno
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 7:57PM
Thompson wasn't up on the lethal injection case in his "home state" according to this but in truth he lives in McLean Virginia and has no more reason to be up on that case than to know about Terri Schiavo or disaster insurance in Florida. Hey, he's happy with his poll numbers and "doesn't see anything out of the first few weeks but good news" so why start learning stuff now. His comments on Dobson are more interesting and reveal that he's past the stage of trying to mend fences.
Re: Iowa
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 4:57PM
Marc Ambinder reports on the likely primary calendar scenario:
Jan. 5: Iowa caucuses (both parties)
Jan. 8: New Hampshire primary (both parties)
Jan. 12: Nevada caucuses (both parties)
Jan. 15 Michigan GOP primary; Dem beauty contest
Jan. 19: South Carolina primary (both parties)
Jan. 29: Florida GOP primary; Dem beauty contest
That puts Iowa on a Saturday and New Hampshire the following Tuesday. With just a few days seperating Iowa and NH, one could argue either that it makes a win in Iowa even more important, or that it gets deemphasized. I won't hazard a guess.
Re: Romney's Ad
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 4:55PM
That's one heck of an ad and does what I think Romney could do more of -- explain and sell his biography and experience. Interestingly it doesn't use the "Change" theme or even use the word.
Iowa
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 4:11PM
Re: Wilson Endorses Rudy
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 4:08PM
Given the state of the Republican Party in California, short of Ronald Reagan stepping from crypt and endorsing a candidate, no political figure carries much weight among conservatives out there, particularly in Southern California. While Wilson may still have fundraising ties - large donors we've spoken to in Orange County aligned with Romney, McCain and Thompson say his influence has greatly diminshed- it's an odd endorsement for Giuliani to have pursued, particularly given how hard Rudy opposed Proposition 187, which Wilson actively endorsed and campaigned for.
But Wilson actually throughout his career as a Senator was more ideologically in tune with Giuliani. As a Senator, he opposed INS raids on workers "out of status," siding with the agriculture lobby he was beholden to in the state. He also fought numerous deportation filings against "out of status" workers during his Senate days.
Re: Rudy Campaign Responds to Club for Growth
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 3:35PM
Provided Club for Growth finds the letter to their liking (what's not to like?) this seems to have worked out to Rudy's benefit. Which makes me wonder why Club for Growth didn't privately ask the Giuliani camp about his comments. Was the exchange of letters publically designed to get Rudy's tax record out front and center just when New Hampshire --where no state income tax and fiscal responsibility are key -- comes into focus as a possible break through state for Rudy? Perhaps. As for New Hampshire, Rudy is going there next week, boosted by the good poll numbers and the recognition that while NH remains a must win for Romney, a win there for Rudy could give him a significant leg up heading into Florida and February 5.
A Gallery at Night
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 2:52PM
Let's congratulate our fearless leader on his latest endeavor. Here's hoping you find time to keep writing, too, Bob.
Newt Watch
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 2:51PM
Matt Lewis interviews Newt Gingrich, who says he will decide whether or not to run by October 21. The catch? He will run if he can raise $30 million in three weeks. Given that Obama rocked the world when he raised $32.5 million in the entire second quarter, this possibility seems about as likely as Ron Paul endorsing Giuliani.
While Gingrich was sure to avoid taking specific shots at the other candidates, if you read between the lines, he clearly seemed less than enthused about Fred Thompson. Newt said of the GOP field "some of them thought they would announce on Leno and Letterman," while he would announce in a one hour speech on C-Span. Also, asked specifically about how Thompson has performed, Gingrich shifted into saying that people kept coming up to him in Mackinac urging him to run.
Rudy Campaign Responds to Club for Growth
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 1:42PM
Yesterday, I posted a letter Pat Toomey wrote to Rudy Giuliani asking him to clarify an AP story suggesting that Giuliani was not ruling out tax increases as part of a compromise on Social Security. Today, the Giuliani campaign cleverly let Steve Forbes respond on behalf of Rudy. The bottom line is that Rudy would rule out tax increases.
Here's the full response:
Dear Pat,
Thank you for all of your work on behalf of American taxpayers. The Club and its members are truly fiscal champions, and with your help I hope we can continue to cut taxes and rein in wasteful
Washington spending by electing Rudy Giuliani as our next president. The actual transcript of The Associated Press interview makes it abundantly clear that Rudy Giuliani opposes all tax hikes, a point he made not once but twice. When asked by the reporter about Social Security, Rudy correctly said that this issue has been used as “a political football in the past” and proposed a bipartisan effort to make sure Social Security is there for retirees and for future generations. But when the reporter asked whether he was open to tax increases as part of the solution, Rudy said, “I am opposed to tax increases.” The reporter pressed again, asking “In terms of Social Security or across the board?” Rudy replied again, “I am opposed to tax increases.” Based on the Mayor’s record as a tax cutter and fiscal conservative – unparalleled in the Republican presidential field – we should not find this position unusual. He opposes tax increases and believes they are not the solution. There are many ways to say it, but it’s clear Rudy ruled out tax increases.
Specifically, Rudy’s record makes it clear that he is a supply-sider. He cut taxes 23 times – working with a Democratic City Council – while turning an inherited $2.3 billion dollar deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus. This in turn spurred the private sector to create 423,000 new jobs, and helped cut the local unemployment rate in half by bringing businesses back to the center of
New York City. And as the Club for Growth itself correctly assessed: “Overall, Giuliani’s record displays an intuitive appreciation for the vital role tax cuts play in growing the economy, as well as a deep-seated aversion to tax increases.” Second, Rudy has consistently called for future tax cuts on the campaign trail – not just keeping the Bush Tax Cuts in place to stop the Democrats from imposing a $3 trillion tax increase on the American people – but additional tax relief, including reducing the corporate tax rate to keep America competitive in the global economy and giving the death tax the death penalty. That’s why one of his 12 Commitments to the American people is to “cut taxes and reform the tax code.”
Rudy was consistent in his opposition to tax hikes in the face of fiscal crisis as Mayor of New York, and he will be consistent in opposing tax hikes as President of the
United States. Sincerely,
Steve Forbes
National Campaign Co-Chair and Senior Policy Advisor
Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee
Apples Don't Work, That's For Sure
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 1:37PM
Just got a fundraising email from the Edwards camp entitled, "A Dime A Day Keeps the Lobbyists Away." It got me wondering what might keep the cringe-worthy hypocritical nanny state pie-baking moralizers away. Any thoughts? Is there a doctor in the house?
McCain Goes on the Air
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 1:21PM
The McCain campaign has launched its first TV ads in New Hampshire, called "Live Free" and "One Man" (click on links for video). The two ads do a good job of emphasizing McCain's greatest strengths--his courage, heroism, experience and fighting spirit. They are filled with clips and images from his time as a POW and meeting with Ronald Reagan. Also interesting is the "one man" ad included the line "one man opposed a flawed strategy in Iraq." Clearly, McCain is counting on his record of criticizing Rumsfeld and calling for a change in strategy for years, to sway independents who propelled him to victory in the Granite State in 2000, but who may be turned off by his current support for the Iraq War.
Re: Wrap
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 12:55PM
Wearing his political strategist hat, Jay Severin, on his Boston (WTKK) radio show yesterday before the debate, analyzed it like a football game. He said Edwards and Obama were behind by three touchdowns, and what they had to do was score on defense, "make Hillary cough up the ball." All she had to do, said Severin, was not make a mistake. "Just run the ball straight up the middle."
Severin counseled using "front-runner jujitsu" as a tactic for Obama and Edwards at this point. That is, they should consistently refer to Hillary as the frontrunner, imply that she's got the nomination sewed up, and hope that primary voters react badly to the spectacle of Clinton being the de facto nominee so early in the process. Severin conceded that this would be a desperation move, but it's interesting that neither Obama nor Edwards did it last night.
I'd have to agree with Severin that Edwards and Obama have had nothing but "three and out." They haven't really scored at all.
Giuliani's Wilson Endorsement
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 12:48PM
Former California Gov. Pete Wilson is reportedly set to endorse Rudy Giuliani today. Wilson won't help much with religious conservatives, but he has a lot of credibility with immigration hawks. Wilson's support for the successful Proposition 187 initiative is often credited with his come-from-behind victory in 1994 (some say it was a pyrrhich victory that led to the destruction of the California Republican Party, though I personally agree with Steve Sailer about this bit of conventional wisdom).
The implications for California Republican politics aside, the endorsement is a reminder of why many observers thought it unlikely that a pro-choice candidate like Giuliani could become the Republican frontrunner. Wilson briefly ran for the 1996 GOP nomination. Although a reasonably successful two-term governor and former senator from the nation's largest state, he went nowhere and dropped out before the Iowa caucuses. There were several reasons for this -- Wilson had throat cancer and campaign fundraising problems -- but the most important was probably his pro-choice stand. Fellow pro-choicer Arlen Specter fared about as well.
Note, however, that Giuliani differs from Wilson in important ways that may explain his success. Wilson explicitly ran against social conservatives, while Giuliani is courting them by moving their way slightly on abortion. Wilson wanted to strip the Republican platform of its pro-life plank while Giuliani has said he would leave the platform alone. With the exception of his right turn on immigration and racial preferences, Wilson was a moderate across the board -- he had raised taxes, boosted spending, and railed against Orange County conservatives. Giuliani is a tax cutter, much less of a big spender, and admired by conservative groups like the Club for Growth.
Even after 9/11, Giuliani would be a much harder sell to conservatives if he were running a Pete Wilson-style campaign.
Hillary's Flip-Flops on Torture
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 12:03PM
The NY Daily News reports:
HANOVER, N.H. - Sen. Hillary Clinton scored with a Democratic audience last night by contradicting her husband's belief that a terrorist could be tortured to foil an imminent plot - but what observers didn't know is she was contradicting herself, too.
"It cannot be American policy, period," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told debate moderator Tim Russert, who asked if there should be a presidential exemption to allow the torture of a terror chieftain if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn't know where it was.
When Russert revealed ex-President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent NBC "Meet the Press" appearance, Hillary Clinton won huge applause from the Dartmouth College audience with a deadpan comeback:
"Well, I'll talk to him later."
She may have to give herself that talk, too.
Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: "If we're going to bepreparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law."
She said then the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.
"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.
The Indomitable Ron Paul
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 11:38AM
It seems that there isn't an Internet poll out there that Ron Paul can lose. In the latest example, he draws 62.5% of votes cast in this LGF poll. You might be thinking, what's so noteworthy about that? Well, the poll question was: "Which Democratic Candidate Was Least Pathetic [in last night's debate]?"
Soft Hair, Soft Fascism
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 11:21AM
In a really very funny live-blog of the debate last night, Dave Weigel got off a great line about Edwards and healthcare:
9:49: Ah, I missed John Edwards and his soft fascism. He won't let "the special interests sit around a table" to decide what health care reform we'll have, because that would exclude "the rest of America." So is he going to book a room for 300 million people? No: He's going to decide what health care plan we should have.
And here are his final moments as well:
10:36: Kucinich tells a fantastic little joke. That should be the end of his campaign. And yet it won't be.
10:37: This debate is two hours long? Don't these people have jobs?
10:45: I've been experiencing internet connectivity issues all night and I've got a few deadlines in the a.m. so I'm going to cut and run. Please alert me if there's news, if Biden tackles Richardson to the floor and screams "RAHOWA" or something.
Heavyweights, The Unintended Sequel
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 11:12AM
Coincidentally coming on the heels of my chat with David Harsanyi about food fascists, those lard-and-proud boys I profiled a couple years back, The Fatsquad, are on the road right now to promote their first full-length book.
What the Revolutionary Guards Are, and Aren't
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 10:23AM
I notice that in liveblogging last night's debate, Dave Weigel characterized the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, which urges the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, as "designat[ing] Iran's army as a 'terrorist organization.'" I imagine that, given the hysteria over Lieberman-Kyl in the left half of the blogosphere, this might now be a common misconception. In fact, the Revolutionary Guards are entirely separate from and parallel to the regular Iranian military, just as the Waffen-SS was separate from the Wehrmacht. (One difference: Unlike the SS, the Revolutionary Guards have their own air force and navy.) It's the Revolutionary Guards who command the Quds Force, who in turn train and arm Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups.
Russert
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 6:45AM
Tim Russert did two things which if a Fox reporter did he'd have been racked over the coals. First, your favorite bible verse?? (Now I'm no New Testament guru but were a bunch of those not verses at all?) Whatever happened to the"we don't mix religion and politics" ? And isn't this a "religious test" (not literally, I know)? Can you imagine if a Fox anchor had asked that-- the howls from the liberal establishment that Fox thinks be only Bible readers should be president would have been loud. Second, I think he went way overboard on nagging Hillary about her husband. One or two questions seem fine but I think that was the most asked about topic. A Fox reporter could have been accused of being "sexist" or "improperly denigrating Hillary's own accomplishments. " In this case it was also a waste of time, taking time away from harder questions which could have been asked. (Is it too much to ask the Democrats to list all the taxes they are raising or what domestic spending programs they'd trim?) The one interesting question he asked --on what policies did you advise your husband -- failed to elicit interesting information for lack of a follow up on specifics (e.g. the end of term pardons? welfare reform which she opposed?).
Rudy Fundraising
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 12:42AM
With the third quarter coming to a close on Sunday, this is around the time that everybody starts speculating about fundraising numbers. Yesterday, we had some mixed signals from the Rudy camp. First, we learned that the campaign fired its head of fundraising, Anne Dunsmore, triggering talk that he must have had a lousy quarter. But the campaign quickly pushed back against that interpretation, insisting that the differences were about strategy, and not difficulty raising money. Giuliani himself went even further: "We'll have a very good quarter, probably the best of the Republicans." That's quite a bold claim at a time when campaigns typically try to lower expectations. So I'm going to go out on a limb and predict his quarter will either be lousy, really great, or somewhere in between.
Re: Wrap
Posted by on 9.27.07 @ 12:03AM
Dead on, Jennifer. Hillary continues to coast toward the nomination.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
For Your Heath
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 11:33PM
They all love smoking bans (though not necessarily as much as Mike Huckabee does). But except for Kucinich and Gravel, they're vehemently against lowering the drinking age. "Liberalism" ain't all that liberal these days, is it?
What Bill Richardson and Mussolini Have in Common
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 11:15PM
I had to step away from the TV for a bit, and through the miracle of DVR I'm now watching the debate at about an hour behind real time. Richardson brags that he got "four Nobel Peace Prize nominations." Since any academic can submit a nomination, this puts him in some rather unsavory company.
Hillary Crosses the Line
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 11:10PM
Asked whether she prefers the Yankees or Red Sox, she said "I'm a Yankees fan, and have been for a very long time." Asked who she would root for if the Yankees faced the Cubs in the World Series, she said: "I would have to alternate sides." I'm sure Rudy Giuliani, who stayed loyal to the Yankees in the Subway Series while he was mayor rather than remain impartial, will have something to say about this.
Wrap
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 11:06PM
They spent an eternity on smoking bans, whether Hillary has too much baggage and not lowering the drinking age but virtually nothing on terrorism (if you don't count the Name the Tune countdown to leaving Iraq). We did learn (oh my) Hillary will be head of the Boy Scouts if she becomes President and she doesn't rule out nuclear power. Russert played gotcha with Hillary on the torture scenario(Bill would allow in an emergency and she would not) but she used it to make her point that she's her own candidate- "He's not standing here. I'll talk to him later." (Did she learn how to tell a joke somewhere along the way?) Aside from not having the moxie to choose the Cubs or Yankees in the World Series, Hillary won hands down. I think her opponents have ceased to make any progress against her. Obama isn't getting any better, any more aggressive or any more believable.
Democratic Debate 4
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 10:29PM
Biden all for raising the payroll tax. Hillary who actually hopes to get elected resists showing her hand despite badgering by Russert. Invokes Alan Greenspan (how often are we going to hear his name between now and November 2008?) to stress Democrats will be the party of fiscal responsibility. (That's code for letting the Bush tax cuts lapse. And yes, she's using that money for social security plus her $110B health care plan.)
Re: Democratic Debate
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 10:12PM
John, don't get me wrong. Hillary is the only plausible one on that stage and is the only one with an ounce of sense to realize that young children may not be ready for the Prince married the Prince story.
Democratic Debate 3
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 10:08PM
Democratic Debate
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 9:46PM
Quick impression: Hillary, as usual, sounds the most credible, the logical inconsistency that Jennifer mentioned notwithstanding. No wonder everyone thinks she's inevitable.
Democratic Debate 2
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 9:44PM
Having Russert set up Rudy's statement on Iran as a foil against the Democrats and having Biden call him an ignoramus probably pleases him quite a bit. Is he the defacto nominee according to the Democrats? (By the way Hillary gave a very decent defense of why sanctuary cities allow illegals to come forward to report crimes. Rudy's team probably isn't going to use her as their spokeswoman on that one.)
Democratic Debate
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 9:27PM
You may recall that TV show "Name That Tune." The contestants would compete to see how few notes they would need to identify the song in question. "I can name that tune in 5 notes." "Well I can name that tune in 4 notes." That's the discussion so far on Iraq. "I can get them out by 2013." "Well I can get them out in a year." No context and no consequences. The highlight so far: Hillary's Wicked Witch laugh when Mike Gravel accused her of voting on a resolution allowing President Bush to go to war with Iran. ( Just a logical point: she went through a mini Lee Bollinger list of bad things Iran has been doing but then sneered at the inclusion of Iran in the Axis of Evil. Huh?)
No Social Conservative Consensus
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 7:33PM
Rudy in New Jersey
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 5:52PM
A new Quinnipiac poll shows Rudy in a dead heat with Hillary Clinton in New Jersey, leading her ever so slightly 45-44. The ability to put NJ in play is one of the key arguments that the Giuliani camp has been making in arguing that he is the strongest general election candidate.
In other matchups, Clinton tops McCain 46-41 percent, Thompson 48-36 percent and Romney 52 - 33 percent.
Re: Romney Rama
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 5:39PM
1-2. Maybe the problem is the messenger and not the message. From the WMUR poll: Romney's likeability has slid 7 pts. since June. His perceived ability to beat Hillary has also gone south. He clearly wins though as the one best able to bring change.
3. Regular church going and other indices of social conservative strength are certainly lower in NH than Iowa. (And yes the influx of voters from Romney's home state is ironically part of the reason.)Does Romney's stress on social issues "hurt"? Maybe among the "live free or die" set but more importantly it just doesn't get him very far with many voters and emphasizing that message while Rudy comes to roll out his tax plan(as he did in August) or while McCain talks about never giving in to terrorists hasn't helped him.
4. Rudy is going to have a field day in the next debate on the crime issue. I suspect Romney isn't going to be raising the sanctuary city issue for awhile (Rudy's response was : "I was busy getting murderers off the street so I encouraged illegals to come forward to report crimes.")
Ogonowski Update
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 5:32PM
David Freddoso says that internal Democratic polls have the Republican congressional candidate in Massachusetts Fifth District within five points of the Democrat. I hadn't heard that anywhere else.
Re: Real Poll Numbers
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 5:24PM
Some other interesting items from the CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll.
One of the most important things to keep in mind is how fluid the race still is: only 13 percent have "definitely decided" who they plan to vote for, with another 21 percent "leaning toward someone" and 66 percent--or about two-thirds of voters--"still trying to decide." So again, with more than three months to go, everything written now should be viewed with a grain of salt.
With that said, at this point in time, Giuliani has the highest favorability ratings, is seen as the most likeable, and viewed as having the best chance to win in the general election; McCain is believed to have the "right experience" by more voters than any other candidate; and more voters think Romney will "bring needed change."
As for Thompson skipping the debate? It seems like it was a bigger deal in DC than New Hampshire: two-thirds of voters said it makes no difference to them whether Fred missed it.
Also, following up on my earlier post on Gingrich, Newt polls at 7 percent in New Hampshire, and he pulls 2 points from Romney and Giuliani, and one point each from Huckabee, McCain and Thompson. Also interesting: Newt's favorability rating went from a net negative of 35-49 in March/April, to a slightly positive 43-39. That still gives him the highest negatives in the field, but it shows that even if a candidate has near universal name recognition, voters' perceptions can change.
Re: Romney Sinking
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 5:23PM
And now McCain is visiting and going up with a TV ad. How long before Rudy does the same? And if you are Romney with Thompson coming to camp out in Iowa and poll numbers falling in NH where do you go? (I'm betting NH on the theory that he really is in good shape in Iowa but if NH slips away his campaign is in trouble.)
Romney-Rama
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 5:21PM
A few random Romney points:
1. Mitt Romney might want to pick a campaign narrative and stick with it. Change won't necessarily do you good, as someone should tell Sheryl Crow. Other than that, I don't think major changes are necessary at this time. Unless his decline in New Hampshire continues, the early state electoral strategy still seems his best bet.
2. His polling situation does call into question the idea that his marketing experience makes him uniquely attuned to the Republican electorate.
3. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that social issues are hurting Romney in New Hampshire at this time, at least not as much as they seem to be helping him in Iowa. New Hampshire Republicans have a libertarian streak but also a long record of voting for fairly socially conservative candidates. Pro-lifers won every GOP presidential primary from 1980 to 2000; both Republican senators are pro-life as was former Sen. Bob Smith; a majority of the recent Republican governors were pro-life. Though the Granite State is starting to look more like Massachusetts than Iowa when it comes to polls on social issues.
4. Crime had receded as an issue in Massachusetts by the time Romney was elected governor, after 12 years of GOP rule. That explains why crime wasn't a major focus of Romney's administration. These crime statistics are nevertheless bad news for him.
Real Poll Numbers
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 4:51PM
Well, it was not exactly as we'd all been buzzing about. Romney is down 10 pts, not 9, to 23%. Rudy is up 4 pts. to 22% and McCain is up 5 to 17%. Thompson is down 1 pt to 12%. Maybe debates do matter, at least in New Hampshire.
CLARIFICATION: The above numbers are with Newt in the race. Without Newt in the race: Romney 25%, Rudy 24%, McCain 18% and Thompson 13%. (Either way a tad off the earlier "birdie" report floating around.)
Club For Growth Challenges Rudy on Social Security
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 4:38PM
Just in my inbox:
Dear Mr. Mayor:
As you know, the Club for Growth has not been shy in praising your economic record in New York City. Because of your strong opposition to tax increases and your vocal support for free-market solutions, we were surprised and concerned to read the allegation in a recent Associated Press article that you indicated you would not rule out raising Social Security taxes in order to deal with the program's insolvency.
Such an allegation, if true, together with your refusal to sign Americans for Tax Reform's anti-tax pledge, casts doubt on your commitment to opposing all tax increases.
We urge you to explicitly rule out raising taxes as part of any Social Security remedies. Raising taxes is completely unnecessary in a climate of unprecedented wasteful spending in Washington, and would exacerbate the central problem of the Social Security program, namely, the low rate of return workers earn on their contributions and the dependency it fosters on government. We also favor a proposal that will allow younger workers the option of investing their Social Security taxes in higher-return personal savings accounts. As someone who has spoken at length of empowering individuals when it came to reforming welfare in New York City, we are confident you understand the importance of empowering individuals in their retirement years. Finally, we encourage you to sign Americans for Tax Reform's anti-tax pledge to erase any doubt as to your opposition to tax hikes.
We look forward to hearing a clarification and proposal from you.
Sincerely,
Pat Toomey
President, Club for Growth
UPDATE:
This is how the AP story in question read:
[Giuliani] Refused to rule out raising taxes to offset a Social Security shortfall. He said he would assemble a bipartisan group to develop ideas for fixing Social Security, perhaps even before his inauguration.
"I am opposed to tax increases, but I would look at whatever proposal they came up with and try to figure out how we can come up with a bipartisan way to do it," Giuliani said, adding that potential solutions must come from both parties. "The reality is, I'm more concerned about Medicare and Medicaid than I am with Social Security, because I'm pretty sure we can solve Social Security."
Giuliani would be wise to take the oppourtunity to rule out Social Security tax increases. There is no room for parsing here. From a policy perspective, increasing taxes would hamper economic growth and only defer the structural problems with Social Security, just as every past increase has done. And from a political perspective, given Giuliani's differences with social conservatives, he can ill afford to alienate economic conservatives by being wobbly on tax policy.
I have contacted the Giuliani campaign and will post their response as soon as I have it.
Re: Romney Sinking
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 4:36PM
Romney's Record on Crime
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 4:34PM
In addition to his sagging poll numbers, Mitt Romney received some bad news with the release of new FBI statistics showing his record on crime as governor. The Boston Herald reports:
New FBI statistics show that murders and other violent crimes rose in
Massachusetts under former Gov. Mitt Romney while plummeting in many parts of the country, a fact that could haunt the ex-governor on the presidential trail. The newly released figures show that murders were up 7.5 percent in the
Bay State and 25 percent in Boston from 2002 to 2006 while Romney was governor. From 2005 to 2006 - most of which Romney spent out-of-state campaigning - murders were up 4.5 percent in
Massachusetts, outpacing the national increase of 1.8 percent. In New England, murders were up 1.9 percent but some states, including Rhode Island and New Hampshire, saw double-digit declines. But Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the ex-governor has "a strong record on public safety."
"He hired more state police officers, pushed for the death penalty and signed new laws making it easier to imprison sex offenders and keep track of them once they get out of jail," Fehrnstrom said.
Someone sympathetic to Rudy Giuliani was quick to draw a contrast between Romney's record on crime as governor, and Giuliani's record as mayor. To take one example, whereas the number of murders jumped 7.5 percent in
This also brings up a broader point I have made in another venue. Romney supporters tend to conflate his successful business career and leadership of the Olympics with his governing record to create an overall impression of executive competence. But while being a success in business can translate into success as a public executive, one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. And the more you look at Romney's record for the four years that he actually had to run a government, it really isn't all that impressive. To be sure, he was better than any Democrat would have been, and he helped control spending and fend off tax increases to eliminate the deficit. But he also raised fees and instituted a healthcare plan that he has had to run away from as a presidential candidate. Everything about Romney's gubernatorial record suggests he viewed the office like the eager high school student who volunteers at a soup kitchen one Saturday so he can list "community service" on his college application. How else can one explain such actions as signing an agreement to let state troopers go after illegal immigrants just weeks before he left office, even though he knew it would be rescinded by the incoming Democratic governor? These crime numbers are just the latest example of Romney's record as governor not holding up to close scrutiny.
UPDATE:
In comments, a defense of Romney:
Regarding Romney and Crime, one only has to look at our radical liberal legislature to understand he didn't have much of a chance to do anything. He vetoed, they laughed and overruled his veto. The fact Romney achieved as much as he did was a small miracle. For heaven sakes look at our two Senators and our congress delegation. They're all radical liberals. Romney deserves a lot of credit for fighting for the people. We live in a socialist state and if the Republican party cared about the northeast, they'd have people ready to debate Kennedy, Kerry and all the Democrat Congress here in this state. We need a Massachusetts' miracle and soon. These liberals are taxing and spending to our detriment.
Fair enough. But if we employ that argument, Giuliani's accomplishments in New York City become even more impressive. Giuliani faced an environment in New York City that was at least as hostile to conservative ideas as Massachusetts under Romney, if not more so. Democrats outnumbered Republicans on the New York City Council 45-6, for instance. The New York Times, the ACLU, Al Sharpton, and every other liberal interest group fought everything he did tooth and nail. Yet Giuliani was still able to reduce crime, cut taxes, slash welfare rolls, etc.
Re: Romney Sinking?
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 4:22PM
John, yes he does have a big lead in Iowa which is why I thought it odd that Thompson is spending day after day there. (Is Thompson nervous about coming in behind Rudy and Huck? Seems like a lot of time to be spending just to avoid coming in third or fourth.) I'm beginning to wonder though whether his message for Iowa with a heavy emphasis on social issues is somewhat incompatible with voters in NH. And if Independents cross over into the GOP primary it'll be an even bigger problem.
Re: Romney Sinking
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 3:55PM
John Kerry's Iowa bounce not only helped him against Howard Dean in New Hamsphire but boosted his national poll numbers out of the single digits. Maybe it can work for two Massachusetts pols back to back. That said, the most recent numbers might send Romney strategists back to the drawing board.
Re: Romney Sinking
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 3:44PM
Maybe it is this: the NH voters know Romney from his days as Governor, when he was the liberal on social issues, not too pleased with the Republican label, universal health care Romney. Perhaps the more Romney talks up his conservative credentials(e.g. attacking HillaryCare, anti-abortion and gay marriage) the more they scratch their heads. Or maybe his opponents were right: his numbers were inflated by huge ad buys and retail political activities. FEC figures show he spent approximately $4.3M in the state this year. Unfortunately for Romney, the bounce from all this money apparently has faded over time.
Re: Romney Sinking?
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 3:38PM
Let's not get too carried away. Romney's still way out in front in Iowa, and presumably a victory in the caucuses would give him a bit of a bounce in New Hampshire.
SCHIP Happens
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 3:18PM
Unless Bush vetos it. Don't expect the Senate vote to look much different from the House's today.
Re: Romney Sinking
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 3:13PM
Maybe, if the Republican primary electorate is substantially more hawkish on the Iraq war than New Hampshire as a whole. But if so, that too would seem to suggest a flaw in Romney's marketing strategy. Perhaps Noam Scheiber has a point.
Re: Romney Sinking
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 3:04PM
Or maybe NH voters are tuned into the Iraq discussion and would rather have the stalwart guys than the "leave the options open" guy.
Re: House Party
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 3:03PM
Jim Treacher on MoDo: " She should be glad Gutfeld said that, because it's the only interesting sentence in her whole column. "
Re: Romney Sinking
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 2:55PM
Perhaps this means that Romney -- who has won a competitive election exactly once -- isn't such a great political marketing guru after all.
Better Late Than Never?
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 2:53PM
Thompson's camp on Wednesday afternoon finally put out a schedule for this week and next. Sure enough no public events through Friday. Multiple fundraisers in TN tomorrow and Friday. On Saturday he goes to Wyoming for the Presidential forum (remember they have an early convention currently set before Iowa) and then lots and lots and lots of Iowa. (A final fundraiser on tap Wednesday night in Illinois.) If poll numbers tell Rudy NH is for the taking something must be giving Thompson the sense that Iowa can be snatched from Romney. Certainly Thompson's schedule reflects the thinking that he can not wait for a win in SC and he must do well and perhaps knock out Romney before then. Will it work? Romney's lock on Iowa and his enormous organizational structure was thought to be invincible but stranger things have happened. ( I'm thinking, I'm thinking..)
Re: Romney Sinking
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 2:40PM
Just a few things to add (and yes, a "birdie" delivered the report in my in box too so I'll assume the poll numbers are right for now): 1) The RCP averages have shown a decline in Romney's lead recently from nearly 12% to under 5% so this is not an isolated poll. 2) Romney is on the air in NH with paid TV ads. The others are not on TV although Rudy has radio ads up. So the poll movement happened while Romney still enjoyed a TV ad monopoly. 3) This has nothing to do with Thompson's entrance that I can see- McCain and Rudy are the ones taking the votes away. 4) Did Romney's recent debate performance, considered one of his weakest, and McCain's strong one contribute to this? Perhaps NH voters do actually watch debates. 5) Romney is stressing a strong social conservative message and recently has been emphasizing the gay marriage issue in Iowa. This may not mesh well with fiscally conservative NH voters with a streak of libertarianism.
McCarthy Destroys the NYT
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 2:40PM
In one of the most thorough, most devastating, most unimpeachable and irrefutable takedowns I have ever read in my entire life, Andrew McCarthy today at NRO absolutely blows away a New York Times report about how AG nominee Michael Mukasey supposedly mistreated, or allowed the mistreatment, of a particular Arab-American student shortly after 9/11. McCarthy was intimately familiar with the case at hand, because he oversaw it. But his column today isn't some screed based on his own opinions; it is an incredibly careful and thorough recitation of the unchallengeable facts of the case. Do read it for yourself. And then ask yourself if the NYT isn't often one of the most abominable, most integrity-challenged rags on the face of the Earth.
Hoekstra: No Party Money in Primaries
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 2:06PM
From the Better Late Than Never Department: Yesterday, U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan was the guest at a conservative bloggers' briefing at the Heritage Foundation. He had plenty of interesting things to say about the FISA bill (the Dems have proposals that would effectively gut it/make it unworkable, and we need to keep it strong because we need its protections), about the exorbitant SCHIP (children's health) bill ("Will [President Bush] find the veto pen, and will the ink have dried in it?"), about No Child Left Behind ("There is no indication that federal money has improved our schools at all"), about the need to rid the party of ethically challenged Members of Congress ("We are the party of values.... You lose the right to lead when you break the law"), and other topics.
I was most taken, however, by his reference to a well-reviewed book out by Lynne Olson, called "Troublesome Young Men," about the group of Conservative Party backbenchers in Parliament who agitated for an end to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies and then worked to force Chamberlain out as Prime Minister. (Aside: Olson spoke at the American Enterprise Institute on Sept. 10, and she was fascinating. "It was an intensely bitter, intensely personal fight," she said. "Really quite Shakespearian.")
"What we need in Washington," Hoekstra said, "is more troublesome young men and women." He said we need more people willing to fight against the Washington conventional wisdom and status quo.
Taking the opportunity, yours truly noted that Hoekstra himself had first come to Congress very much in the spirit of a "troublesome young man" by taking on an entrenched power, the longtime chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Guy Vander Jagt, in a heated primary campaign in 1992. Hoekstra surprised official Washington by beating Vander Jagt, and has been here ever since, with a stalwart conservative voting record. That led to me noting that A) the NRCC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee consistently lay out plenty of money to protect incumbents in primary battles and B) many conservatives have resented some of these outlays, especially the ones for Rhode Island's Lincoln Chaffee last year against conservative Steve Laffey, and C) Fundraising for national Republican party committees this year is WAY down, and that anecdotally I hear again and again reports of people saying they refuse to give money to party committees as long as the committees get involved in intraparty primaries rather than using the money only in general elections against Democrats.
Apologizing for such a long lead-in to my question, I then asked what Hoekstra thought about the idea of forcing the party committees to adopt a rule that they would be prohibited from getting involved in party primaries, and instead use their money only for general election campaigns.
Hoekstra's answer: Absolutely. He would support such a rule wholeheartedly. "Any time you try to dictate results in Washington," he said, you get into trouble. "Let the people in the districts decide." Furthermore: "We believe in freedom and that should extend to the political process as well." And, flatly: "The NRCC should not interecede in [primaries in] our districts."
Well... HOW ABOUT IT? I guarantee that adoption of such a rule, if well publicized, would have the effect of opening a geyser of contributions to all the party committees. And, really, why should the incumbents fear? Incumbent advantages already are so overwhelming anyway that any incumbent who can't even be confident within his own party probably isn't doing even a half-decent job anyway. Meanwhile, if the money flows in as I suspect, the vast majority of current GOP congressmen will be BETTER OFF, because while they won't need to worry much about a primary challenge anyway (very few of them do), they will all be in much better position for the general election with a stronger, richer party committee behind them.
My conclusions: 1) Conservative activists should make this a cause celebre. 2) Intelligent congressmen ought to take up this issue within their party caucuses, and not rest until such a rule is adopted.
Romney Sinking In NH?
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 2:05PM
An Early Report on WMUR Numbers in New Hampshire
I am told that the WMUR poll will read something like this tonight - Romney 24 (down 9 from the previous) Giuliani 23 (up 5 from the previous) and McCain 17 (up 5 from the previous).
If true, this is an ominious sign for Romney, whose strategy is contingent on building momentum by winning the early states. Other recent polls have already suggested that his lead is tenuous in the Granite State, and his national numbers have been in free fall after receiving a post Ames bounce. Considered together, these numbers cut into one of the central arguments made by Romney supporters all year--that although he has lower name recognition than his chief rivals, the more people get to know him, the more the like him. These results would suggest just the opposite.
The WMUR result, if confirmed later, also would represent great news for Giuliani. If he could pull off a win in one of the early states leading up to Florida and the big Feb. 5 states, he'd be very hard to beat. This would also reinforce the "McCain surge" narrative, putting him back in the mix in a state he won in 2000.
Evangelicals for Hillary?
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 1:54PM
Michael Gerson makes the case that Republicans should worry about religious voters, especially with a pro-choice nominee. In the short term, I think it is clear that religious conservatives and theologically liberal Protestants have very different political priorities. The former has a strong preference for conservative judges and antipathy toward the Clintons. But as evangelicals and religious liberals start to converge on issues of poverty and the environment, it could possibly be a longer term problem.
If Newt Does It
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 1:43PM
With Newt Gingrich's group holding its Solutions Day, specualtion is rife over wether he will jump into the presidential sweepstakes, so�it's worth taking a quick look at how his entrance might affect the race. Ultimately, I don't think he can win the nomination given that it's unlikely he could overcome his huge negatives to be seen as electable nationally, and Fred Thompson's entrance into the race has already filled much of�the demand for another conservative alternative. But that doesn't mean that his entrance will not impact the race.
In March, I wrote about how a Gingrich candidacy could prod the other Republican candidates into having a more serious dialogue about the nation's challenges. Given his historic role in the modern conservative movement, all of the other candidates are likely to be somewhat deferential to Gingrich, hoping for an endorsement.
How would his entance into the race impact the polls? The simple answer is that�I believe�a Gingrich candidacy�would�mainly eat into the numbers of�Giuliani and Thompson, but the reality is a lot more complicated.�The Washington Post/ABC poll is somewhat useful because it has been asking for GOP voter preferences with Gingrich in and out of the race.
Let's start with Thompson, because�clearly there's a lot of overlap between�Gingrich/Thompson voters�being that both candidates are considered conservative alternatives. In February, just before Thompson began being included in these polls, Gingrich was polling at 15 percent, but in the next poll taken in April, he dropped to 6 percent. In that same April poll, Thompson debuted at a number exactly equal to that differential--9 percent.
While it goes against conventional wisdom to believe there is much overlap between Gingrich and Giuliani voters given that Gingrich is seen as the choice of conservatives and Giuliani is seen as the choice of moderates, in reality, they do draw at least some of their support from a similar pool of voters. My thesis on this is that there are a certain number of conservative voters who see the struggle against Islamic terrorism�as the defining issue of our time. They are drawn to Giuliani because of his leadership on 9/11 and for being outspoken on the nature of the threat, and also to Gingrich, who has�framed the conflict�as World War III. Given a choice between two candidates who they see as "getting it" on the terrorism issue, some conservative voters would prefer Gingrich, because of social issues. In the February poll, Giuliani's numbers were 9 points higher when Gingrich was not included in the question.
In the September poll, Gingrich was at just 5 percent, tied with Mike Huckabee. With him in the race, Giuliani loses two points, Thompson loses one point, Romney loses one point, and the rest gets spread around. However, if Gingrich's numbers rise upon announcing, he may shake up the race more than this.
Here are some of the remaining questions�to consider: Would Gingrich receive a traditional boost in polls should he decide to run?�If so, how big? Could he�help Rudy by�further dividing up the conservative vote? Or will he take away national security voters from Rudy?�Would he end up taking some air out�of Thompson's rise? Will�he present another road block for Romney?
Either way, Newt would add another wrinkle to the most dynamic GOP nomination battle in decades.
Sense of the Senate
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 1:10PM
The non-binding amendment on Iraqi federalism that I mentioned yesterday has passed, 75-23. The Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, another non-binding amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, which urges that Iranian influence in Iraq be combatted and the Revolutionary Guards be classified as a terrorist organization, has also passed, 76-22. The roll call votes should be posted here later this afternoon.
House Party
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 12:28PM
Maureen Dowd's column is again available for free to web readers, which might explain why she's in no laughing mood when it comes to pot shots taken at the estimable Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And so she tut-tuts at the "imprecations" of one of TAS's own monthly columnists:
Consider this reasoned analysis from Greg Gutfeld of Fox News: "So the foul-smelling fruitbat Ahmadinejad spoke at that crack house known as Columbia University today."
Top 10 Things You Won't Hear at the Debate
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 10:10AM
It's time for yet another Democratic debate. So, it's time for
another Top Ten List of Things You Won't Hear:
1. I want to thank MoveOn.org for making the Petraeus hearings such
a success.
2. Thanks to Lee Bollinger, Americans can see there is someone with
even less common sense than us.
3. If we all say "Islamic Terrorism," will the Giuliani camp stop
taunting us?
4. Well, I suppose if Hillary wore an "I love W" button she could
still lose the nomination.
5. Glad that GM strike settled -- I might have actually been
expected to explain how capitulating to the UAW's demands would be
good for the economy.
6. I miss Alberto Gonzales -- and goodness knows Chuck Schumer
does.
7. Norman Hsu? I'll give the balance of my time to Hillary.
8. Yes, "Democrat" is nice but "Not The Republican" is how I and
the Congressional candidates will be listed on the November
ballot.
9. North Korea and Syria? Joe Biden's the smart one -- go ask
him.
10. I should have listened to Fred Thompson and done Leno
instead.
RE: Tabin '08
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 7:28AM
John: Be flattered now and hurt later when I begin circulating "stab in the back" narratives three days after you're elected about how your decision not to immediately introduce AmSpec blog posts as Congressional bills is proof you've lost your principles.
See, I know how this works. I read Daily Kos.
Wishing Elected Office Upon Me
Posted by on 9.26.07 @ 12:20AM
I can't decide whether I'm flattered or hurt, Shawn.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
RE: Speaking Of....
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 7:24PM
The rest of you can continue getting screwed over, but I'm voting TABIN 2008.
OK, Now That's A Schedule
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 6:34PM
Tomorrow in New York Rudy is meeting with Iraqi President Talabani. (He also is leader of the key Kurd party [PUK]). This is another campaign coup for the Rudy team which had considerable success positioning him on the world stage with his visit to England. Wednesday afternoon he is in New Jersey to deliver remarks to the Somerset County GOP and attends his house party for video hook up to supporters around the country. Later in the week: multiple public events(plus fundraising) in California and then on to Portland and Seattle.
Speaking of Soft Partition...
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 6:22PM
Joe Biden has introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that expresses non-binding support for "an Iraqi political settlement based on federalism." They're debating it on the Senate floor now, and may or may not get around to voting on it this evening. (He has 11 cosponsors, including Sam Brownback.)
Biden makes the case for his amendment in this op-ed. I'm quite skeptical of Biden's insistence that the devolution of political power can be safely pulled off while "drawing down U.S. forces, not just to pre-surge levels but well below them." Joseph and O'Hanlon suggest that we "err on the side of too many troops, not too few," and don't envision a major drawdown until at least a year after we begin implementing a soft partition. Still, Biden's amendment doesn't get into those specifics, so I'd probably vote for it if I were a Senator (ha-ha).
A Change Won't Necessarily Do You Good
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 6:05PM
Jonathan Martin has a post up at the Politico looking at the challenges (contradictions?) of Mitt Romney's two-track pitch to the voters. He is trying to be a "change" Republican while also being more conservative than the "Washington Republicans." It's a difficult balance and may muddle his message somewhat, but I think Martin misses the extent to which conservatives would like a change from standard Beltway GOP fare as well.
To my mind, Romney's biggest problem isn't that he's trying to sell himself as a conservative reformer. It is that he doesn't have the biography/record to back up his new conservative image, forcing him to lean more heavily on issue positions and rhetoric like ACLU vs. U.S.A. -- the kinds of things that detract from his image as a competent CEO type when it comes time to appeal to swing voters. Fred Thompson, by contrast, has a Southern accent, was part of the 1994 Republican congressional takeover, and has a record that (while flawed) passes more litmus tests than anyone else in the top tier. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, on the other hand, have the familiarity and goodwill among some swing voters that Romney has to build up at the same time he is acquiring his conservative credentials.
Re: Ugly, Bush League Error
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 5:19PM
Quin, today didn't get much better. I did not watch it so maybe he ad libbed some really good stuff but from a reading of the speech delivered at the General Assembly it seems to have been a huge missed opportunity. His only reference to Iran-- remember the country Bollinger nicely explained was doing a whole list of bad things -- is made in passing: "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria, and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. "(Wait, didn't Bollinger tell us they were killing Americans and destabilizing their neighbors and promoting terrorism elsewhere?) The only mention of Iraq: "Brave citizens in Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have made the choice for democracy -- yet the extremists have responded by targeting them for murder. This is not a show of strength -- it is evidence of fear. And the extremists are doing everything in their power to bring down these young democracies. The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help. And every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them." Anything on Hamas? Nope. Instead this: "The Palestinian Territories have moderate leaders, mainstream leaders that are working to build free institutions that fight terror, and enforce the law, and respond to the needs of their people. The international community must support these leaders, so that we can advance the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security." Goodness gracious, when Lee Bollinger gives a better accounting of our enemies than our President it may be time to purchase one of those Bush countdown clocks.
An Unfortunate Metaphor
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 3:15PM
McCain's comeback strategy, according to campaign manager Rick Davis, "is the Kerry model in a lot of ways." Isn't that the model where you win the nomination because people who don't particularly like you vote for you with the hope that other people will like you, and then you lose the general election because no one, in fact, likes you? I don't think that's a good plan...
Ugly, Bush League Error
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 3:11PM
Look, I have been trying to bolster President Bush for well over a year now, in light of the fact that we are engaged in an incredibly important war and he is trying to do the right thing by insisting that we must win it rather than retreat. But again and again, this president fails to make the best use of "teaching moments." And now, if his statement (first noted by Jennifer yesterday evening) was not taken out of context, he not only failed to use a teaching moment, but he utterly obliterated the lesson. Here was an event, the Ahmadinejad speech at Columbia, playing right into the hands of those of us, Bush included, who argue that the Left is woefully unprepared to stand up to terrorists. And what does Bush do? He says that if Columbia "thinks it's a good idea to have the leader from Iran come and talk to the students as an educational experience, I guess it's OK with me." And so on, as Jennifer reported. Talk about being handed a crepe (suzette, perhaps) and making cr@p out of it!
Please, President Bush: We want you to succeed, because you are our president, and we are at war--and because if you succeed while being publicly identified as a conservative, then it makes it easier for other conservatives to succeed as well at our mission of defending the ideals of limited government at home and defending the national interest in foreign affairs. But it doesn't help when you become like the comedian who repeatedly steps all over his applause lines; or, if you deliver the lines right, you forget to follow through with the right motions (like promising vetoes but failing to deliver).
No, as president of the United States, it should not be okay with you to have our sworn enemy as the guest speaker at a top American university. Sure, you could say the university has an absolute right to ask him (IF, that is, the State Department allows him a visa into the country in the first place, which it ought not to have done), and he to accept -- but that a legal right and a moral right are not the same thing, and it is morally wrong to provide such a forum.
To say it is okay is just, well, rather pathetic. Forgive me if I somehow missed the White House issuing a correction or amendment of Bush's statement -- but if it has not done so, it ought to do so, and soon.
The First Amendment Right to Your Money, Cont.
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 2:41PM
Eugene Volokh argues that there may indeed be constitutional problems with denying public funds to Columbia as punishment for inviting Ahmadinejad. The distinction is supposed to be between attaching conditions to how a subsidy may be spent and attaching conditions to how a subsidized institution may spend other, private funds. Money being fungible, this makes no sense. Of course, lots of things the courts do make no sense, and Volokh, who knows as much about First Amendment law as anyone alive, is undoubtedly right about what the Supreme Court has said. That doesn't mean the Court has been right.
Incidentally, the losing side in the case that Volokh cites as a precedent was represented by Sam Alito. The only justice who is still on the Court, John Paul Stevens, dissented. Perhaps this precedent isn't entirely secure.
UPDATE: Stevens's dissent starts thus:
The court jester who mocks the King must choose his words with great care. An artist is likely to paint a flattering portrait of his patron. The child who wants a new toy does not preface his request with a comment on how fat his mother is. Newspaper publishers have been known to listen to their advertising managers. Elected officials may remember how their elections were financed. By enacting the statutory provision that the Court invalidates today, a sophisticated group of legislators expressed a concern about the potential impact of Government funds on pervasive and powerful organs of mass communication. One need not have heard the raucous voice of Adolf Hitler over Radio Berlin to appreciate the importance of that concern.The reference to a dictator's speech is interesting.
P.S. Volokh writes:
Imagine the deterrent effect if a legislature stripped universities of benefits whenever university officials, or even professors or guests whom the universities had invited, suggested that there might be cognitive differences between men and women, that race-based affirmative action is a bad idea, that certain religions were dangerous, that the threat of global warming is overstated, or whatever else.That would raise the cost of taking government subsidies. This is a problem because...?
Hillary and Romney on Iraq
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 2:18PM
The Concord Monitor has an article on something that Jim noted yesterday -- Mitt Romney's track record of choosing his language carefully to keep his options open so he can reposition himself down the road, something that he has been doing in seeking the Republican nomination with his parsing on Iraq. What makes things interesting is that Hillary Clinton is also keeping her options open, and as Patrick Ruffini has remarked, she won't end the war in Iraq. On Sunday, Clinton would not commit to withdrawing all troops by the end of her first term. "I don't know what I'm going to inherit,'' she said on ABC. "I don't know and neither do any of us know what will be the situation in the region.'' Should Romney get the Republican nomination and face off against Hillary, we could end up with a presidential campaign in which, for all practical purposes, the Republican and Democratic candidates support the same basic policy in Iraq. Romney may say that we can bring troops home because the surge was such a success, and Hillary will say we have to end the war because it is a failure. There will be a lot of bluster on both sides to create the impression of a stark difference in policy--Romney will assail Defeatocrats and MoveOn, while Hillary will attack the disasterous Bush-Republican foreign policy. But after all the shouting, it's quite likely that both candidates would be arguing for some form of "responsible withdrawal."
Re: Can Soft Partition Work?
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 2:16PM
The Joseph-O'Hanlon soft partition plan can be downloaded here (PDF).
Beauchamp News
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 1:49PM
Elspeth Reeve -- Scott Beauchamp's wife -- apparently no longer works at The New Republic. I don't suppose the fact that it's no longer a family matter, so to speak, will induce them to, you know, embrace honesty.
Speaking of which, Chuck Lane -- the TNR editor who fired Stephen Glass -- had a great op-ed in the Sunday WaPo, gutting and filleting Dan Rather.
Can Soft Partition Work?
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 1:33PM
Over at Exit Strategies, the new paleocon foreign policy group blog, Jim notes The New Republic's endorsement of a soft partition in Iraq and comments:
I'd like to favor a soft partition myself... Yet I'm skeptical. TNR acknowledges the pitfalls: "Aside from the Kurds and one Shia party (the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council), none of the main Iraqi players have any interest in carving up the country. The status of Baghdad would pose a Jerusalem-like obstacle to any federal agreement, to say nothing of the details of oil-sharing and shared security. If the plan failed to thread any of these needles, it could inflame sectarian tensions rather than calm them." If those are the obstacles in Iraq, the fact that soft partition could create a bipartisan consensus in Washington sounds rather less reassuring.A couple of points:Such a plan would also require us to maintain large numbers of troops in Iraq for several more years, potentially increasing the risks that the conflict will spread to Iran and putting more American lives in danger. Certainly for it to be deemed preferable to withdrawal we would need a better indication that a soft partition can work -- and can be facilitated by the United States -- than the fact that we can get both Democrats and Republicans to support it.
- TNR seems to be talking about the Biden-Gelb plan
specifically. In my
column* endorsing soft partition (which Jim links to in the
passage I've ellipsised out), I quite deliberately referred to the
plan put forth by Edward Joseph and Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings,
which addresses some of the Biden-Gelb plan's shortcomings,
including the Baghdad question. Joseph and O'Hanlon suggest either
splitting the city along the river or creating a forth region
around the capital. It seems like this can be worked out one way or
another.
- That reference to "one Shia party (the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council)" seems to imply that soft partition is a marginal view in Baghdad. In fact, the SIIC is the most powerful party in the country, with the largest bloc of seats in parliament. It's true, though, that most Iraqis outside of the elite aren't enthusiastic about splitting the country; the main reason is that both Sunnis and Shiites think that they can take over the whole country. There are a couple of trends that suggest that that attitude may recede in popularity: One of them is the prospect of Shiites turning against Iran-backed militias, just as the Sunnis in Anbar have turned against al Qaeda. Diminishing Iranian influences diminishes a driving force pushing toward radical sectarianism, and thus toward civil war. The other is that the Sunnis are becoming better-armed, which for the Shiite majority raises the cost, and (one hopes) diminishes the appeal, of a war to rule the whole country. (It's not strictly true, by the way, that we're "arming the Sunnis," but our financial aid undoubtedly is making it easier for them to arm themselves.)
If we withdraw and leave behind a bloodbath, the nosedive that American prestige has taken in Iraq will be ratified and deepened. Soft partition offers the best hope for leaving behind something stable and reversing that nosedive. It might not work, but it's worth a try.
*Side note: I just noticed that in that I wrote "lemons-out-of-lemonade" in that column when I of course meant "lemons-into-lemonade."
Re: GOP Money Woes
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 12:58PM
GOP Money Woes
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 12:37PM
The monetary gap between Republicans and Democrats is not limited to the presidential race. The Politico reports:
At the end of August, the National Republican Congressional Committee reported only $1.6 million cash on hand, with $4 million in debt. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, by comparison, had banked over $22 million, with only $3 million in debt.
The article goes on to point out the retirement/recruitment problems for Republicans, and infighting between Minority Leader Boehner and the NRCC.
If He's So Darn Popular Where Is He?
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 12:04PM
You may recall a couple weeks back there was some question as to the extent of Thompson's schedule. Thompson caught some flak once the schedule was finally released showing a light calendar. Well, Thompson's team took steps to stop that from happening again. Now, they don't release a calendar for the week and aren't responding to repeated inquiries as to his schedule. It appears other than a radio show here or there all he is doing this week is some medium level fundraising in Tennessee. Pick your favorite explanation --insufficient advance team to set events, wasn't drawing overwhelming numbers at events, doesn't like press scrutiny or that whole work ethic thing. The other camps, of course, are taking notice and one chimed in: "Probably a smart move. This way nobody can ask Thompson about Dobson, Libya, Schiavo, the Everglades, or fundraising."
RE: SCHIP and the Slippery Slope
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 12:03PM
See E.J. Dionne's column. After spending much of the article explaining why the expansion of SCHIP represents a teeny-weeny amount of money, he writes that: "This battle is central to the long-term goal of universal coverage." Make no mistake that SCHIP is a trojan horse for the left. While I agree that the slippery slope argument isn't the best way to win over the general public, it is essential to emphasize the point to wayward Republicans who are inclided to support the measure.
RE: SCHIP and the Slippery Slope
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 11:47AM
John, I think you're quite right that Michael Cannon's argument is better and more likely to resonate among people who aren't economic conservatives. But liberals have been very good at using the adverse consequences of government and non-market-oriented aspects of the existing healthcare system to justify additional government-heavy and non-market-oriented reforms. Conservatives have been much less effective at pointing out that the free market plays a small role in our country's healthcare, and an even smaller one in the aspects that trouble so many Americans.
Iran So Far Away
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 11:43AM
I was going to weigh in on Ahmadinejad and Columbia, but Ross Douthat's views on the subject are pretty much the same as my own.
SCHIP and The Slippery Slope
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 11:39AM
I notice a lot of conservative and libertarian arguments against expanding SCHIP start off with the line that it's "a slippery slope to socialized medicine." (That's a direct quote from an email I got today, plugging this item at Heritage.) That's a rather weak argument, unlikely to persuade anyone who doesn't already reflexively prefer market-friendly policies. A better approach is to argue against SCHIP directly, as Michael Cannon does:
Like its much larger sibling, Medicaid, the program forces taxpayers to send their money to Washington so that Congress can send it back to state governments with strings attached. Both programs force taxpayers to subsidize people who don't need help, discourage low-income families from climbing the economic ladder - and make private insurance more expensive for everyone else.That seems much more likely to resonate beyond the convinced economic right. Besides, is the slippery slope scenario really sound? If SCHIP performs badly, won't it diminish the support for socialized medicine? It might not, but it would be nice if someone would explain the mechanism of this particular slippery slope.
Tension Among American Muslim Sects
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 10:23AM
Troubling story in today's USA Today about the growing tensions among American Shiite and Sunni muslims. A story with similar themes ran in the International Herald Tribune in February. How fine that they have brought with them such quaint folkways. A cause for celebration, no doubt.
The First Amendment Right to Your Money?
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 8:54AM
Matt Yglesias, seconded by Megan McArdle:
Conversely, though, things like Duncan Hunter's new plan to cut off funding to Columbia University is a real free speech issue. The university really has the right to stage an asinine publicity stunt if it wants to without the federal government stepping in.Except that cutting off funding isn't "stepping in" -- it's stepping out. Columbia doesn't have any right to taxpayer dollars; withholding them, for whatever reason, has precisely nothing to do with free speech.
Related: The Supreme Court's unanimously ruling in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, which upheld the Solomon Amendment.
No Gays in Iran
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 7:40AM
One small benefit of Ahmadinejad's visit: Andrew Sullivan is making sense again.
A Silver Lining
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 6:24AM
If there is a bright side to Columbia's lunacy yesterday it is that a great many NY politicians including NY State Assemby Speaker Sheldon Silver expressed with remarkable moral clarity their objections to the visit and, better yet, avowed they would examine public funding to Columbia. Here is my rundown and few additional thoughts.
Collected Wisdom From The NY Times
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 2:08AM
Every once and awhile, the NY Times puts all other publications to shame with its insightful reporting. Today's article on the UAW strike against General Motors is a perfect example:
Final Thoughts on Ahmadinejad at Columbia
Posted by on 9.25.07 @ 1:18AM
Two basic arguments were employed by those who defended Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad. The first was a straw man--that he shouldn't be "barred" from speaking at campus. But given that most critics weren't calling for the NYPD to prevent Ahmadinejad from speaking, this was not the issue. The argument was not over whether Columbia had the right to invite him, but whether it was right to invite him.
The second defense was that by holding Ahmadinejad up to tough questioning, it would show him for who he was. But none of the absurd statements he made at Columbia gave us any better insight into what a lunatic he is than his past statements.
Meanwhile, via Michael Rubin I see this account of the speech from the official Iranian news agency, which includes the line, "The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises." So, he clearly obtained the propaganda victory he sought at a time when he is losing popularity at home as a result of his economic policies.
Monday, September 24, 2007
If Today Were Not Depressing Enough
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 6:51PM
If Columbia University "'thinks it's a good idea to have the leader from Iran come and talk to the students as an educational experience, I guess it's OK with me." And then this: "I'm not so sure I'd have offered the same invitation. I mean when you really think about it, he's the head of a state sponsor of terror, he's -- and yet an institution in our country gives him a chance to express his point of view, which really speaks to the freedoms of the country."
Rudy Point on Columbia's Folly
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 6:10PM
Rudy makes an interesting point in addition to those many have raised about the absurdity of selecting a Holocaust denier and terrorist to speak. By giving him a platform with a crowd to applaud we may be feeding his bizzare perspective on American politics and contributing to his miscalculation about the popularity of his regime. Doesn't this just embolden him and make peaceful deterrence harder? Oh well, not Columbia's concern. They are in the business of giving everyone the stage. (And why not a whole series on terrorists? He's just one nuanced view after all.)
"Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 4:57PM
Once again, a DailyKos diarist makes parody obsolete:
I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon...
Watching the Watchers
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 4:26PM
The strange case of the Dr. Seuss-loving federal judge with egg in his file.
Rudy and Congressional Races
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 3:55PM
Considering the electability of a presidential candidate isn't just about choosing a candidate who can beat the other party's nominee, but also one who could help the party in downticket Congressional races.
Yesterday the Washington Post reported:
A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances.
Re: Teflon Fred
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 3:42PM
I do agree that Romney leaves his options open but I think it unlikely he'd be chastising Republicans (he says Republicans, not Congressional Republicans) and rolling out his "Change" theme now if he didn't think primary voters wanted a departure from Bush. (Again, he could be wrong but that's his big push for now.) I'm at a loss right now to figure out exactly what Thompson's pitch is -- consistent conservative (except for McCain Feingold, No Child Left Behind, comprehensive immigration reform [until this summer]) I think -- but "change agent" or " competent executive" or "master of detail" or "articulate advocate" (which would separate himself from Bush) don't really seem to be what he's shooting for. In short, Thompson's slogan is "Security, Unity, Prosperity"( sounds like a Chinese fortune cookie, I've remarked before) and Romney's is Change.
Re: Teflon Fred
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 3:27PM
With the single exception of his promise to work with Democrats, every change Romney mentions in the Mackinac speech is standard conservative fare. The changes involve becoming more consistently conservative than Bush-era Washington Republicans. So I'm not sure Romney does have a different view of the Republican primary electorate than Thompson. But the Republicans for Change theme is one he can continue to use in the general election.
If you follow Romney's campaigns across his career, he always keeps his options open for when he has to deal with a different electorate. His tortured "took the position of a pro-choice candidate" phrasing was a prelude to him taking a different position. Look at what he told the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus: "I'm governor of Massachusetts, and I'm telling you exactly what I will do as governor of Massachusetts, but I'm not going to tell you what I'd do as mayor of Boston or a congressman or any of those positions." That interview took place in 2005!
Similarly, the surge is "apparently" working so he has room to change his mind in the general election should he so desire. People who don't think he looks ahead don't know Mitt Romney.
Romney's problem is that Thompson's Southern accent makes him seem a more authentic standard bearer for the conservative message. Paradoxically, that folksiness may serve the GOP less well in the general than a Republicans for Change theme. But we'll see.
Applauding Ahmadinejad
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 3:23PM
If audience reception is any indication, he seems to have been a hit with Columbia students.
Compare it to the reaction to Jim Gilchrist's visit about a year ago.
Re: Ahmadinejad on Gays
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 3:20PM
Aside from sounding like Larry Craig, he is probably correct that since open displays of homosexuality are punishable by death there is a lot less open displays of homosexuality there than here.
Re: Teflon Fred
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 3:00PM
James, I think Thompson and Romney have very different reads on the electorate and I think Romney is not pitching to a general electorate audience months before the first GOP primary. His speech in front of Mackinac GOP voters, as inside GOP as you can get, was his pure Change message.
Ahmadinejad on Gays
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 2:58PM
I may have misheard, but I'm pretty sure he just said that there are no homosexuals in Iran. "We don't have that phenomenon."
UPDATE: Here's what he said:
"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country."
The audience booed and hissed loudly. Some laughed, uncomfortably.
"In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon," Mr. Ahmadinejad continued, undeterred. "I do not know who has told you that we have it..."
Ahmadinejad Speaks
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 2:56PM
So far, there's been nothing new. He continues to call for more "research" on the Holocaust and say "if" it happened, it wasn't the Palestinians' fault, and reiterates that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear energy program. I don't really see the purpose of this exercise. The whole idea of people who defend Columbia's decision is that he will face tough questioning and be exposed as a loon. As if we don't know this already. Who cares about asking him questions if he's just going to make stuff up, such as: "Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Women in Iran enjoy the highest level of freedom."
Re: Teflon Fred
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 2:55PM
Phil, I missed your New Coke post while responding to James. Yes, marketing data and polling are sometimes wrong but I raised it in the context of trying to discern what voters think. Yes, public polling is one way but what candidates do based on their own polling is another way. I think there is significant data which Romney is using to support his Change message. Now he may be an imperfect messenger but that's another issue.
World to End, Gay TV Characters Hardest Hit
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 2:45PM
I can't believe someone is paid to count this stuff.
UPDATE: Perhaps Ahmadinejad needs to hire them, since he thinks there are zero gays in Iran.
Re: Teflon Fred
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 2:13PM
The "Change" ads Romney rolled out in Iowa bolster Phil's original point. Romney is placing himself to the right of "Washington Republicans" (and presumably President Bush) on spending, illegal immigration, and other conservative issues. He is arguing that Republicans need to act like Republicans, not Democrats. That's a message designed to appeal to a conservative electorate. But by adopting the "change" theme, he puts himself in a position to pivot if he becomes the nominee -- he can try to appeal to swing voters in the general election as a change candidate.
The only "mixed messaging" involved is that Romney's critics keep pointing out how the former Massachusetts governor tailors his platforms to the desires of different electorates. This has caused some conservatives to distrust Romney, leaving openings for Thompson and possibly Newt Gingrich (I personally think Gingrich's demand that his supporters raise $30 million or he won't run sounds a bit like Oral Roberts in the tower, but I digress). Nationally, Thompson is polling better than Romney. In states where early organization and retail politics are more important, Romney is polling better than Thompson. But I don't see much evidence that Romney and Thompson are reading the Republican primary electorate differently -- I just see indicators that one of them is already thinking of a general election strategy.
Re: Teflon Fred
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 1:37PM
James, it is possible but 1) I don't think multiple messages( too much clutter, too much national news and coverage) are possible or intended and 2) Romney rolled out his "Change" message in ads in Iowa so I think he's convinced that is what appeals to primary voters. Listen, he --like a lot of us -- could be wrong but I'm convinced that it's based on real polling and research they have done. As for Thompson I'm not sure what he "knows" or thinks he knows at this point but Newt Gingrich talking about entering the race (yeah, we'll see) after advising him isn't a vote of confidence.
Re: Teflon Fred
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 1:30PM
Jennifer, you suggest that Romney may have an understanding of conservative tastes because he is research and marketing obsessed. But it is worth pointing out that New Coke outperformed the original formula in taste tests leading up to the launch. George Will has compared Fred Thompson to New Coke, but Will may have it all wrong. Perhaps Romney is New Coke, while Thompson represents what conservatives really want: Coke Classic.
RE: Teflon Fred
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 1:27PM
Jennifer, I would argue that Romney is running a two-track campaign. He is emphasizing "three-legged stool" conservatism for the Republican primary electorate and change/executive competence for the swing voters in a general election. (He may also see the need to re-brand a bit given the flip-flopping charges he's faced in response to his moving right on social issues.) A sensible strategy, though so far it hasn't had much impact in the polls. Romney lags badly in the national polls of people who intend to vote in next year's Republican primaries and also fares worse than either Giuliani or Thompson in head-to-head matchups with the Democrats. So far, his best results are in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, through a combination of retail politics, advertising, organization, and the three-legged stool.
All that could very well change as Romney's name recognition rises, but my guess is that Thompson knows where the numbers stand right now.
RE: Rudy and NATO
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 1:08PM
A lot would depend on what specifically the "new" NATO would entail. The old NATO was an alliance for mutual defense. Do we really want to be obligated to intervene if Pakistan attacked India? How sustainable would such a commitment be in light of our current military overstretch? Or would the new NATO be more of a mutual defense from terrorism pact, something different from the original concept?
A problem with the current structure is that our European allies have military budgets that are just a fraction of the United States'. But that's true of Japan, Singapore, and Australia as well, even though Howard's government has pursued a defense buildup. Would their addition to NATO really add that much?
As for anti-terrorism cooperation, after 9/11 we were more successful in persuading countries that weren't NATO member states to go along with the war in Afghanistan than we were in getting our NATO allies to back the war in Iraq. That had a lot to do with the international political climate in 2001 versus 2003 plus the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of our diplomacy. But it isn't clear that a NATO-like structure including Singapore would have made our tasks any easier. Similarly, it's not clear how the NATO expansion after the Cold War -- to which I was initially sympathetic -- has enhanced our security.
My biggest problem with the proposal is that rather than representing bold new thinking about international cooperation in combating the terrorist threat, I'm afraid it may just be another effort to fit the war on terror seamlessly into the Cold War paradigm, leaving us constantly looking for new Soviet Unions. The Cold War may be a better analogy for dealing with terror inspired by radical Islam than "World War IV," but I'm still not sure it is the most useful model.
There certainly is a need to update our international organizations and alliances to accommodate the threats we actually face today rather than those of the last generation. Maybe Giuliani's proposal satisfies this need -- or maybe we need to make a cleaner break from outdated international institutions and form new ones.
Re: Teflon Fred
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 1:04PM
Rudy and NATO
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 12:23PM
In a previous post, James Poulos led us to some of the blogospheric criticisms of Giuliani's suggestion that we should consider expanding NATO to admit other countries such as India, Japan, Singapore, Australia and Israel. While a lot of the concerns expressed are valid, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding about Giuliani's thinking. Also, it's important to note that this is not some iron clad proposal that Giuliani hopes to ram down everybody's throats, but a suggestion aimed at triggering a debate over what NATO's role should be in the modern world.
When I spoke with Giuliani's top foreign policy advisor, Charles Hill, one thing he emphasized over and over again was the need to strengthen the "international system." The point is that this system--including NATO--was built to confront a threat that no longer exists, and yet we have not created global institutions--or altered old ones--to deal with a new enemy that presents an entirely different set of challenges. Regardless of where anybody is on the political spectrum, there is a broad agreement that building international alliances will be necessary to confront the terrorist threat. Expanding NATO to include countries that share our commitment to fighting terrorism would be one possible way to achieve this.
In his Foreign Affairs essay, Giuliani wrote:
At a press conference I attended last Thursday, Giuliani was asked to respond to concern about his suggestion that Israel be let into NATO. "I think that's a good concern to have, a good debate to have," he said. "Somebody has to start a debate about NATO …I spoke to the NATO meeting in Latvia last year, and there's a real concern within NATO that some of the troops are on the front lines and other countries keep troops further back…The idea is if we're going to have a certain number of NATO members that aren't going to allow their troops to fully participate, maybe we ought to look elsewhere to those who will give us troops."
Perhaps there would be certain restrictions on the participation of new NATO members, or perhaps we should be discussing the establishment of an entirely different global alliance built around the terrorist threat. Certainly, there are many valid criticisms of either approach. But I do not see why the mere suggestion of modernizing NATO should make a presidential candidate laughingstock, as James suggests. I really do think this is a debate worth having.
Arts & Letters Daily
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 11:59AM
Unless I am mistaken, this is the first time the editors of Arts & Letters Daily (a must-visit site) have humbled themselves enough to feature an essay from TAS. And they couldn't have made a better choice than Mr Scruton's "Art, Beauty and Judgment."
Teflon Fred?
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 11:25AM
Mike Allen calls the Thompson campaign so far a "comedy of errors," and he recounts a number of missteps that have been written about on this blog and don't need repeating. But despite these perceived bungles, Fred still seems to be doing well in polls, and I think it's worth expanding on something Jim wrote last Friday about a possible disconnect between the Beltway and the rest of America.
Let us not forget that President Bush was elected despite many stumbles (such as the failed foreign leader pop quiz), a reputation for being lazy, a record as a failed businessman and poor communication skills. One of the reasons was a certain anti-elitist sentiment within the population that produced a backlash against those who criticized Bush. Words such as "misunderestimated" became terms of endearment. This sentiment was heavily concentrated with the Republican base, which remembers how the media also tried to portray Ronald Reagan as lazy and stupid.
The sense here in Washington is that after years of President Bush, there is a desire among Republicans to nominate an executive who is hard working and very competent--something that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have emphasized in their campaigns. But perhaps we have it all wrong. There may be a lot of Republicans out there who still find Bush's style charming. Instead, their problems with him have to do with spending, immigration, and other issues on which he has been at odds with the conservative base. Maybe what Republicans really desire is somebody stylistically similar to President Bush, who promises to be more reliably conservative on core issues.
I wonder if Fred Thompson is tapping into this desire, and the more Beltway pundits slam Thompson for being too slow or lazy or unprepared, the more actual conservative voters want to support him. I think there is a certain feeling that the media anointed McCain, Giuliani and Romney as the only choices, and tried to shove them down Republicans' throats, and Thompson's candidacy is a rebellion against this. He is a man who refuses to play by the so-called "rules" that Washington insiders have imposed on the nomination process--that somehow you have to run for president since you were in the high school choir, hold a certain number of campaign events a day, etc.
Obviously, right now, Thompson is enjoying a post-announcement bump, and maybe his numbers will drop over the next month or so. But if they hold steady or rise, I think Beltway pundits will have to reevaluate how they are judging his candidacy.
Columbia University
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 9:04AM
Apparently not everyone associated with Columbia University has become morally insane. (H/T Powerline.) Perhaps we should not be shocked by Dean Coatsworth's comment on Fox that he would have invited Hitler. ( Before or after the Nuremberg laws?) And yet we are shocked and saddened that individuals with no moral compass let alone common sense are in positions of influence. If this were not occurring, conservatives would have had to invent the episode and the accompanying comments from Columbia's defenders to demonstrate the intellectual and moral feebleness of the academic Left.
Newt
Posted by on 9.24.07 @ 8:43AM
The Prowler's report that Newt may enter the race in part because "there's been nothing, no specifics" from Thompson's campaign already has his opponents salivating. An opposing camp remarks this morning: "It would take quite a bit of air out of a campaign that already looks like a flat tire."
UPDATE: It is interesting that in public statements the only complimentary words about opponents have been about Rudy-remarking recently on Compstat and praising his lead domestic policy advisor Steven Goldsmith.Sunday, September 23, 2007
Beyond Mackinac
Posted by on 9.23.07 @ 8:27PM
To some extent Romney is a victim of his own success. He rounds up supporters, transport and registers them and gets 300 plus votes. That's a sign he has active volunteers, paid staff and a base of support. His opponents sneer that he "paid" for his votes but this is how a straw poll works. Since we have an open primary in Michigan others who have money have a more level playing field through paid media. As for McCain, Michigan like New Hampshire offers him a state where Independents can cross over to vote and where he's won before. Thompson both on the speech reviews and straw poll results demonstrates why pundits have been harsh -- he needs to get his act together and fast. (And there is still no evidence of a public schedule for Thompson for this upcoming week.) As for Rudy, Mackinac may suggest that, like McCain, he is his campaign's best asset and through retail events and media his campaign needs to translate what voters and commentators in the Mackinac Conference room observed to the primary electorate as a whole. One good place to do that: New Hampshire where town halls and debates count and his stand on social issues may be more compatible with GOP voters with a libertarian streak.
UPDATE: A somewhat similar take on the outcome from someone actually there.
Re: Catching Up on Mackinac
Posted by on 9.23.07 @ 12:54PM
These results (26.6%) have to be seen as great news for McCain, another data point to support the comeback narrative, especially given the organizational gap with Romney at Mackinac.
Also, the 10.6 % showing by Giuliani has to be seen as a major disappointment--especially given the indignity of having finished behind Ron Paul (10.8%). Giuliani received rave reviews for his speech, and one recent poll even had him well ahead in Michigan (another had him statistically tied for the lead). It's hard to know what to make of straw poll results, but one would have expected a better showing here.
Fred Thompson's 7.2 percent, should also be seen as a poor showing--and perhaps gives some cover to Rudy for his own bad performance. I suppose Fredheads would argue that Thompson just got into the race and doesn't have the organization up and running yet.
Either way, Paul supporters have a lot to crow about this week as their man beat two of the front-runners.
Re: Catching Up on Mackinac
Posted by on 9.23.07 @ 12:22PM
Well, bad speech or not, Romney won the straw poll there with 39% of 979 votes cast, McCain tallied 27%, Rudy came in just behind Ron Paul and Thompson got a distant fifth. Again, you can't beat organization as Romney got his folks there to vote. Giuliani and McCain must be mighty pleased Michigan went with an open primary rather than a caucus where Romney's organization would have given him a significant advantage.
UPDATE: A helpful round up is here with praise from Michigan GOP chair Saul Anuzis for McCain's speech and muted criticism for Thompson's. His take: the vote reflects the preference of the "party apparatus."
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Strange Newt Respect
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
