- 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
Friday, October 5, 2007
From the Lunatic Fringe
Posted by on 10.5.07 @ 6:46PM
In a major upset, Keith Olbermann has crowned Bob Tyrrell this week's runner-up Worst Person since Hitler, or whatever he calls his world-renowned weekly prize. You can read all about it here at Media Matters, which really should recuse itself from covering American Spectator-related matters, for reasons best known to its proprietor.
Thompson Column Hit Chord
Posted by on 10.5.07 @ 5:09PM
I hope the Fred Thompson campaign folks realize that my strong but constructive criticism yesterday wasn't just a one-man rant. Aside from my column suggesting that Tony Snow run for the Senate from Virginia (before Tony was diagnosed with a recurrence of cancer, which I am confident he will hold in check) -- about which I was inundated, breathatkingly, with messages of "Where do I sign up to help?!?" -- I have never had such a volume of responses as I did to yesterday's column. And I would estimate that something slightly over 90 percent of them were in utter agreement with me. Note that most of those who agreed are either Thompson supporters, or would-be Thompson supporters, or once-were Thompson supporters, who are really, really eager for him to step up his performances but who are really, really disappointed so far. A number of letter writers also specifically mentioned receiving the same platitudinous phone message from Thompson about which I complained so strongly, and every one of those correspondents had the same reaction I did: that the message was actually counterproductive because it came across as an insult to their intelligence. I can't repeat strongly enough, based on the huge volume and intensity of letters I received, that there is a hunger out there for a conservative candidate to mount a strong campaign, that there is a belief that Thompson has at least the potential to mount such a campaign -- and that, so far, his performance since the summer hasn't just failed to light a fire toward that end, but has actually turned people off for a number of reasons.
Mostly, (judging from the letters), people seem actually angry that Thompson keeps slinging around cliches. It's not that people demand 10-point plans for everything, but they do want a sense that the candidate has put at least SOME thought into HOW to put principles into action, and that he respects their intelligence enough not to try to sucker them with a bunch of hackneyed phrases.
Again, people really want to see Thompson do well. But they want somebody to light a fire under him, or put a fire in his belly, or whatever cliche best expresses the same thing. There's ahappy medium between having no sharp edges and offering nothing but gelatin. Right now he's too close to offering nothing but gelatin. He can do better. He should do better.
UPDATE: Ericka at Red State adds more fuel to the fire.
It's That Bad
Posted by on 10.5.07 @ 2:52PM
Jennifer's catchy title and Reid's un-political correctness inspired this news roundup of the absurd. High point: DC's cool new monument, the Tower of Invincibility.
Re: Fiscal Wars
Posted by on 10.5.07 @ 1:44PM
Climate Group Weaving Way Through States
Posted by on 10.5.07 @ 12:41PM
The Center for Climate Strategies is a nonprofit "service group" that has been approaching states and offering to help them develop policies to address climate change. They are funded by several global warming fearmongers like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Heinz Endowments, and Ted Turner's Foundation, which makes them attractive to states because they get to develop a process to reduce greenhouse gases on the cheap. Meanwhile new legislation focused on smart growth initiatives, fuel surcharges and energy taxes gets a big push forward by CCS.
Well, some folks have begun to keep an eye on them through a site called Climate Strategies Watch. Meanwhile I've got my latest piece about them up on the Washington Examiner today. I wrote about CCS for AmSpec in July.
This is Very Cool
Posted by on 10.5.07 @ 12:25PM
The Colorado Rockies have voted to give the widow of Mike Coolbaugh,
a minor league coach in their system who was killed earlier this
year after being struck by a line drive, a full share of the teams
earnings for reaching the playoffs.
Few players on the Rockies knew Coolbaugh, who joined the organization in early July, but last week, they unanimously voted his widow a full playoff share that could be more than $350,000 if the Rockies win the World Series.
"I'm completely shocked in a good way," (Mandy) Coolbaugh said. "I don't even know the correct words to use. I know Mike would feel very honored and proud. This would mean a lot to him, and it means a lot to our family."
Mrs. Coolbaugh is expecting the birth of her third child any day.
Fiscal Wars
Posted by on 10.5.07 @ 10:02AM
The Romney vs. Rudy war for fiscal conservatives' support continues. Romney has a solid new ad touting his No Tax Increase pledge and his idea for tax free savings. It's forward looking and positive. (His opponents will quibble that his line that "he stood firm to roll back taxes" neatly avoids the issue as to whether he actually reduced taxes.) Meanwhile Rudy continues with his "Making Cents" pitch featuring a clip with the Club for Growth logo blazing in the background and a fact sheet explaining how he eliminated the deficit in New York. Both will be speaking today at the Americans for Prosperity meeting and are looking ahead to the Michigan debate next week where they and the others will have an opportunity to blast the Michigan Democrats who pushed through a tax increase --a brilliant strategy in a depressed economy.
Meanwhile, some suggest that free trade and low taxes (subscription required) aren't the selling points they once were. I tend to agree with John Podhoretz that the GOP has simply ceded ground and failed to make the case for conservative economic policies. Romney and Rudy will have their work cut out for them.
Thompson's Week
Posted by on 10.5.07 @ 6:37AM
Amidst the Third Quarter money wars Thompson made news on other fronts this week. Thompson explained his position to the Des Monies Register on a Constitutional amendment to ban on gay marriage here. He explained his proposal was focused on court imposed gay marriage and commented that if a state legislature and a governor signed a gay marriage measure into law "so be it." This drew some attention as did his comments telling off James Dobson. This certainly will endear him to those who appreciate forthrightness and independence. For Thompson, federalism is a value on equal footing with a gay marriage ban and he's not going to go on bended knee for an endorsement. (Does this sound a bit like McCain?) Some voters will surely say "Good for him!" But this may not be the niche he was going after when he entered the race, trying to fill a gap on the right. Then he saw an opening to appeal to the base as the "consistent conservative." Is there room in the race for another "independent conservative" ? It would appear that both he and Rudy in his own way (see here) are banking on going over the heads of social conservative leaders and right to the voters. Will it work? With a fragmented field it could for one of them.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Re: Rudy and Romney Duke It Out
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 9:10PM
Potential GOP Silver Lining
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 8:37PM
Mike Johanns' decision to run for the Senate from Nebraska makes it more likely that Republicans will hold Chuck Hagel's seat. If Bob Kerrey gets in, it will be a dogfight. If not, Johanns has to be considered the favorite. He'd be at least the prohibitive favorite in the primary against Jon Bruning, though Nebraska does have a history of siding with underdogs in these contests, as David Mark recently pointed out in the Politico.
Re: Rudy and Romney
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 8:31PM
To answer your question, Jennifer, I think it is fair to say that some of Romney's "loophole closings" increased the tax burden on Massachusetts residents and workers. The $16 million figure sounds about right though I'm not sure about the contention that Romney was responsible for a net tax increase as large as the Giuliani camp is claiming. Either way, I'd want to know what their source(s) was.
What is McCain Up To Today
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 6:20PM
Rudy and Romney Duke It out In NH
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 5:23PM
The battle for the hearts and votes of fiscally conservative
As to Romney's specific charges Rudy has long argued that his opposition was based on his "strict constructionist" reading of the Constitution and that he does support a Constitutional amendment to permit the line item veto. On the commuter tax as best as I can figure it out (Phil?) the state legislature abolished it making Rudy's task in significantly decreasing other
To the extent that you don't agree with Mike Huckabee that Club for Growth is "Club for Greed" their White Papers and commentary are very helpful. While the report on Rudy verges on ecstatic Romney's is more subdued but he is credited with holding the line on spending and curbing the excesses of the
All this makes one point clear: Romney needed to get back to economic issues and fast to make his case with
UPDATE: A recap of Romney's attack today is here.
Thompson Cash
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 5:04PM
He reports $9.3M raised in the the third quarter ( below Rudy's $11 million [$10.5 primary money] and Romney's $10 million, but remember this is Romney's third quarter and it gets tougher as you go along). This gets added to his June total for $12.7 to date with $7M cash on hand (behind Romney but not by that much). There is no breakdown yet on what portion of Thompon's money is available for the primary and what is general election money but I will update once the campaign responds to my inquiry. Critics will say where's the groundswell? Supporters will say hey, we're about where Romney is in terms of on cash on hand without spending a lot of the candidate's own money. (Romney has had to kick in more with each succeeding quarter going from $2.4M to $6.5M to $8.5M.) The best number for Thompson: 80,000 donors. The reality: he's got enough money to be competitive. Now he has to go win some early states.
UPDATE: Thompson press folks confirm all of Thompson's figures are primary money.
Cellucci, Romney Ct'd
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 4:39PM
I've just read Jim Geraghty's account of Paul Cellucci's conference call on behalf of Rudy Giuliani. In contrasting Mitt Romney's tax-cutting record with Giuliani's and his own, he says, "I was able to cut from 5.95 percent to 5.3 percent. I was determined to get there, just as Rudy was determined to get there when he was in New York City, even though he had an overwhelmingly Democratic city council."
Cellucci's claim is true but misleading. He was not able to get a tax cut of that size from the legislature. To get the income tax rollback, he and groups like Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government had to go directly to the voters. The three-year rollback passed as a referendum question, not as a legislative action. The legislature froze the rollback at 5.3 percent. Romney asked for the full rollback in state budget proposals and also outlined a two-year gradual rollback as a compromise position; he was rebuffed by the legislature.
Commenter Chuck Bowen points out that Romney missed a golden opportunity to capitalize on a state tax revolt, however. The year Romney was elected, Massachusetts considered a ballot initiative to abolish the state income tax entirely. Although the referendum was unsuccessful -- the political class opposed it across the board, including most Republicans -- it garnered 45 percent of the vote. There was clearly antitax sentiment among the voters Romney could have exploited if he had wanted to, which could have made his tax-cutting record stronger.
Craig to Stay
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 4:37PM
Sources close to Sen. Larry Craig - but not that close - say that he intends to announce that he will fulfill his elected term of office. "He's staying, despite the judges's ruling," says a senior Republican leadership staffer.
Craig and GOP leadership have been in long, drawn out talks about a potential early exit, but Craig had refused to talk seriously about while his court proceedings progressed. Craig informed leadership of his decision about 15 minutes ago.
Hillary 'Exploits' 9/11
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 3:54PM
Where's the outrage?
Hillary Clinton's new healthcare ad includes the line, "She stood by Ground Zero workers who sacrificed their health after so many sacrificed their lives." It includes dramatic black and white photos of rescue workers, and one of her wearing a surgical mask, presumably at the site. As Marc Ambinder notes, this is the first ad of the election season to use 9/11 imagery.
If Rudy Giuliani had done it, the media elite would be in an uproar, denouncing him as exploiting the tragedy for political gain.
What do you think, will Hillary get the same treatment?
Tapped Out
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 3:26PM
Larry Craig won't be allowed to withdraw his plea. No word yet on when/if his Senate resignation will go forward.
Rudy's Actual Cash on Hand: Over $11 Million
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 3:07PM
UPDATE: The Giulaini campaign tells me that the actual cash on hand available for the primary is "over $11 million."
The Giuliani campaign reported total cash on hand of $16 million, but hasn't yet said how much of that is available for the primary, forcing me to go back and do some math.
At the end of the second quarter, the Giuliani campaign's press release said that it had "over $18 million cash on hand," but in reality, the cash on hand for the primary was $15 million. We also know that this quarter about $500,000 of Giuliani's fundraisng was for the general. So, if you subtract $3.5 million from the $16 million in total fundraising, you end up with $12.5 million, or perhaps slightly less, as a more realistic measure of how much money Rudy will have for the primary. Still more than his rivals, but not quite as much more.
I caution that I still am awaiting a response from the campaign, and will update accordingly.
Interesting Theory, But...
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 2:55PM
In the lead item to today's Blogometer, Conn Carroll jumps off from a discussion in this space about who Ron Paul will draw voters away from, and from Andrew Sullivan's infatuation with Paul and Barack Obama, to suggest that maybe Paul will attract independents who would otherwise vote for Obama. There may be something to this, but extrapolation from the views of a commentator as idiosyncratic as Sullivan isn't a particularly compelling mode of analysis.
Good "Faith" Effort
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 2:55PM
For a little change of pace, our friend Bob Jones IV, an eminent clinical psychologist and Anglican Catholic priest, has begun a new blog on matters of faith, culture and (at least indirectly sometimes) politics. It's called The Shrinking Cleric. Enjoy.
Re: Third Q Wrap
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 2:53PM
Don't disagree at all Phil. Several items will help round out the picture: 1) Number of Rudy donors? Romney is up to 100,000 for the year and got 23,000 more this quarter. It is one sign of enthusiasm and organizational heft. 2) What is Thompson's cash on hand? This will tell us whether he is in good shape to do what he needs to do well- get in the top few finishers in Iowa and win SC and Florida(or come darn close in the latter). 3) What is Ron Paul going to use his money for? If it is running anti-War ads the other candidates will breath a sign of relief but if he's making clear some of them have not been small government conservatives it may be a problem.
Q3 Money Wrap
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 2:23PM
Now that all of the numbers are in, some thoughts:
--In terms of actual cash available, Giuliani leads the pack, but given that Romney has already ponied up over $17 million of his own money, it's clear that both of them will have the cash they need leading up to Feb. 5.
--Fred Thompson is more of a question mark. Depending on who you talk to, his $8 million haul was either solid considering he was only in the race for a month, or lackluster for a candidacy built on the idea of there being a pent up demand for him. Money may or may not be a problem.
--With just $3.6 million in cash on hand, it's hard to see how John McCain turns his recent spike in the polls, or even a strong showing in New Hampshire, into a nomination. His backers, I'm sure, would counter with the example of Kerry in 2004.
--With just $1 million raised this quarter, it's time to drop any illusions of post-Ames media favorite Mike Huckabee being a top-tier candidate.
--Ron Paul's $5 million haul means he will continue to make some noise, but as Jim noted, he doesn't really steal votes from any top-tier Republican, so his actual impact on the outcome of the race will be minimal.
With all of that said, the big story once again is the disparity between Democratic and Republican fundraising. Much of the attention has focused on how Clinton/Obama more than doubled Rudy/Romney. But perhaps even more indicative of the extent of gap is that on the Democratic side, John Edwards was forced to accept public financing because he raised $7 million this quarter. And yet, that was almost as much as the amount raised by Thompson, the supposed Republican savior and still one of the frontrunners for the nomination.
Money
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 2:11PM
McCain Raises $6 Mln in Q3
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 1:50PM
Slighly higher than previously reported.
From the release:
Rudy Slightly Edges Out Romney in Q3
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 1:49PM
Just in my inbox:
UPDATE II: The Giulaini campaign tells me that the actual number is "over $11 million."
In Other Massachusetts News
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 1:36PM
Michael Barone writes about the Tsongas-Ogonowski congressional race. He argues that Ogonowski is running a "2007 campaign" while Niki Tsongas is running like it is 2006. I'd quibble with only one point: I actually do think the 41 percent George W. Bush won in the Fifth District in 2004 is close to being the area's generic Republican vote. The GOP just hasn't recruited serious candidates since Marty Meehan was elected in 1992, so they've underperformed in congressional races. Most competitive Republican statewide candidates actually do well there or even carry the district, including the recently discussed Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney.
Re: Romney and Fiscal Issues
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 1:18PM
Romney faced a pretty challenging political climate for broad-based tax cuts, because the 87 percent Democratic legislature was resisting tax cuts that had already been passed. In 2000, with the support of then Gov. Paul Cellucci, Massachusetts voters approved by a 3-to-2 margin a ballot initiative that rolled the state income tax rate back from 5.85 percent to 5 percent. (That's right, Taxachusetts has a flat tax on income.) The legislature never allowed the full tax cut to take place -- the tax rate currently stands at 5.3 percent.
Romney backed the full rollback, which could be described as a broad-based tax cut. He proposed more than once to do it in two steps, knocking it down to 5.15 percent one year and all the way down to 5 percent the following year. But Romney didn't have a Peter Vallone figure in the legislature. The closest was probably House Speaker Tom Finneran, a conservative Democrat, who opposed the full rollback and was only speaker for about half of Romney's term.
During the budget crisis, Romney had a brief period where the legislature gave him substantial leeway on fiscal policy. Many, perhaps most, Democrats on Beacon Hill would have preferred to abandon the rollback entirely and raise taxes. Romney was able to balance the state budget without any increase in income tax rates and mostly without raising particularly broad-based fees. But he did make some concessions to get his spending cuts through the legislature. Once the budget was in surplus, the legislature mostly ignored Romney and overrode his vetoes. (Ironically, the rollback was necessitated by the last budget crisis under Michael Dukakis. In 1989, the state approved a "temporary" increase in the state income tax rate from 5 percent to 5.95 percent.)
Romney didn't have as much success cutting taxes as Giuliani. Nor did he have anywhere near the success in working with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislative body, which is certainly a legitimate campaign issue. But both of them were as supportive of tax cuts as they could be in the political climates they faced.
I Never Actually Said It Was Good For the Gander
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 1:14PM
--The Goose
Kos hits Thompson for referencing the Soviet Union. So out of touch! But wait, didn't someone else do that last time around, repeatedly? Oh yeah, it was the netroots Golden Boy. (Once mistaken for its Golden Goose.)
Re: Romney Third Q
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 12:53PM
Romney Hits Rudy on Fiscal Issues, Rudy Responds
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 12:34PM
Mitt Romney has attacked Rudy Giuliani for opposing a line item veto and a cut in the commuter tax as mayor. In response, the Giuliani campaign just held a conference call with a surrogate, another former Republican Massachusetts Governor, Paul Cellucci.
Cellucci called Romney's attacks an act of "desperation,"and said Giuliani's record on taxes was far better than Romney's.
While Giuliani cut taxes 23 times and offered borad based tax relief, Romney did not sign any broad-based tax cuts (the best that can be said is he offered sales tax holidays and limited capital gains tax relief). Furthermore, he increased fees by $500 million and closed loopholes, resulting in a 10 percent hike in the state's tax burden. Ironically, one of the loopholes Romney closed increased taxes on out of state residents who worked or had businesses in Massuchusetts, Cellucci said, arguing that it was far worse than what Rudy did with the NY commuter tax, which was already on the books.
Cellucci said that Giuliani didn't oppose a line item veto, but just thought the constitution needed to be amended to achieve it.
Perhaps Jim, the Mssachusetts native, can shed some light on this.
The Important Things
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 12:00PM
Let no one ever accuse Matt Yglesias of ignoring the critical events of the day.
Politics and Sex (Sort of)
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 11:33AM
Thanks to our friend Jackie Mason, we now have a Republican counterpart to the Obama girls.
Romney's Q3: $10 mln, Plus $8.5 Mln Personal Loan
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 11:33AM
From the campaign:
- Amount Expected To Report In Primary Contributions In The
Third Quarter: $10 Million
- In The Third Quarter, Governor Romney Loaned $8.5 Million To
Romney For President.
- Total Amount Raised In Primary Contributions For The Year:
Approximately $45 Million
- Total Amount Of Revenue For The Year: $62 Million
- Cash On Hand: $9 Million
- Total Number Of Donors So Far This Year: More Than 100,000
(23,000 New Donors In The Third Quarter)
- Contributions Received From All 50 States And Washington,
D.C.
- NO General Election Money Collected (General Funds Cannot Be
Spent During The Primary Election)
Now it's Rudy's turn to release his numbers.
Scalia as "Liberal"
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 11:12AM
Jacob Sullum rightly notes that Antonin Scalia's position on the federal sentencing guidelines belies the left's caricature. Sullum titles his post "Antonin Scalia, Bleeding-Heart Liberal." I think he's being tongue-in-cheek, but it's worth spelling out the point that Scalia's position doesn't really put him on the "left" in this issue; this is an instance where conflating political ideology with judicial philosophy obscures more than it reveals. Scalia has led the fight against the sentencing guidelines because he believes they unconstitutionally attenuate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. This has little to do with the actual results of the guidelines, and everything to do with Scalia's theory on how the Sixth Amendment was originally understood. Originalism isn't supposed to be results-oriented. We only think of originalism as "conservative" not because it leads to conservative policies, but because it's been conservatives who have most forcefully argued that a policy's efficacy doesn't determine its constitutionality. The liberal caricature of Scalia comes largely from the failure to grasp that point (or from incredulity about conservatives' sincerity).
Neoconservatism and Its Discontents
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 10:25AM
A couple of long articles to peruse when you're in the mood to delve into a sophisticated foreign policy debate: First, Charles R. Kesler, in the Claremont Review of Books, presents one of the few critiques of neoconservatism by someone who actually understands who the neoconservatives are and what they believe. (Kesler is one of the "superhawks," like TAS senior editor Angelo Codevilla.) Second, Joshua Muravchik, in Commentary, argues that Iraq has not discredited neoconservatism. Muravchik engages Kesler a little bit, though I wish he had done so more. I'll probably have more to say about this debate as some point, but for now I just wanted to recommend the essential background reading.
Romney Spokesman Responds to Novak Column
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 9:34AM
Bob Novak has a column today contending that Mormonism is a bigger problem for Romney than he was willing to admit but now has a speech ready to go to address this issue head on. Novak also writes that contrary to the claims of the Romney camp, ordinary voters question him about his religion "wherever he goes." I asked Romney Spokesman Kevin Madden about the Novak column. He responded that Romney "has said a number of times previously that he was considering a speech on faith and values" but emphasized that "no decision has been made yet and there is no speech prepared." As for whether ordinary voters ask about Mormonism, Madden says Romney "rarely" gets asked about it, pointing out that "we have done well over a hundred town halls and he has only been asked a handful of times" about Mormonism.
Romney advisor James Bopp Jr. addressed this issue recently contending that voters will "pause" to consider the issue but ultimately come to the conclusion it is a nonissue. For now, I think Romney is wise to spend time in New Hampshire (he's there twice this week) to shore up support and return to some of the economic themes that resonate in New Hampshire. (That's what Rudy is up to this week with his "making cents" appeal.)
Conservatives Should Ponder
Posted by on 10.4.07 @ 7:28AM
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Poll Messages
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 11:57PM
Limbaugh Uproar Spills Over to Congressional Race
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 11:40PM
For those who haven't had enough of the Republican nomination battle at the presidential level, one of the more interesting congressional primary fights could be one in North Carolina, which pits anti-war Republican incumbent Walter Jones against military veteran Joe McLaughlin. Though actual voting is months away, McLaughlin has already taken the gloves off, with a radio ad challenging Jones for saying he would co-sponsor the Democrats' anti-Rush Limbaugh resolution. More here.
Re: Paul's Millions
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 7:23PM
Unless Huckabee starts raising some serious money or his grassroots support shows significant ability to self-organize beyond Ames, he'll have trouble staying in the race as long as Paul. But you are right that Paul's foreign policy views, while a significant driver of his support, do put a ceiling on the number of regular Republicans he can pick up in a primary.
Which answers your earlier question about which candidates Paul would take votes from: Probably not very many from any of them, since a Republican or independent drawn toward Paul is probably too alienated from the rest of the Bush-era GOP to find the others an acceptable second choice (though he might pull a few votes from lower-tier candidates like Tom Tancredo). Paul's bid will mostly just keep these people voting in the Republican primaries.
Another Goes
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 6:53PM
Re: Paul's Millions
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 5:23PM
Re: Paul's Millions
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 4:39PM
I was just on an NPR program with a conservative activist who was making the case that the religious right should coalesce around Mike Huckabee. She downplayed the significance of Huckabee's fundraising woes, saying that the top-tier candidates all have problems with the base (she didn't mention Huckabee's problems with economic conservatives) but the fact that Ron Paul raised five times as much money this quarter shows how unlikely this is. A case can be made that Paul, not Huckabee, sits on top of the second tier.
Re: Paul's Millions
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 3:13PM
And Paul's total is likely in the McCain range. So which one is a more viable candidate? (McCain most would say but Paul's number sure makes McCain look more second tier-ish than he did yesterday.) Figuring out where Paul will do well and from whom he might draw votes is the next item to ponder. For now, we're left mulling why Romney and Rudy haven't released their numbers. Too tiny compared to yesterday's Hillary fortune is one explanation.
Paul's Millions
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 2:47PM
Ron paul has raised over $5 million for the third quarter, an impressive sum that should mean he'll be here to stay for awhile. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee's Ames bounce has not translated at the fundraising level, reinforcing why he shouldn't be viewed as a top-tier candidate. He's raised about $1 million.
A Voice of Reason
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 12:36PM
A call to "patriotic conservatives" to avoid political suicide and forget about a third party candidate. (H/T Campaign Spot)
New Hampshire Is Still Number One
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 11:23AM
Re: Rudy Ad
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 11:16AM
Actually both Rudy and Romney are pushing a very similar theme which in both cases has the benefit of being both true and differentiating themselves (and don't kid yourself everyone is differentiating--Romney didn't put on those jogging shorts for nothing just as Thompson entered the race). Both Rudy and Romney they are stressing their executive experience and readiness to lead. Part of that is that both these guys have put forward a boat load of specific policy ideas they point to as evidence they are ready to govern. That's the line Romney's very capable supporter James Bopp, Jr. pushed (where he overtly differentiated from Thompson's main challenger for social conservative votes) and that's what Rudy is doing. Yes, it's a theme for both independent of what others are doing but that's the phase of the campaign we are in and that's why you have do look at the ads not only in terms of the candidate who runs them but in terms of what it gains them in competition against the others. (Thompson is doing it too --stressing his Republican bona fides -- which he thinks gives him a leg up on the crowd. It will either work or not. ) I'm suspecting that phase 2 of this for Rudy is to start differentiating from Romney on taxes, crime and spending records. (How many times are we going to hear Romney raised $500M in "fees"?) There's nothing unusual or odd about this --it's exactly how the game is played.
On an unrelated note the $1M for Huckabee is just plain awful which will delight both Thompson and Romney who don't need him nipping at their heels. If Huckabee were strategically savvy he'd just camp out in Iowa and stay there. If he gets a finish in the top 3 he'll be in the mix but if not (and with no money) it'll be time to figure out who to endorse.
RE: Rudy Radio Ad
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 10:48AM
Jennifer, I think your fixation with Fred Thompson causes you to see every shred of news through the prism of how it makes him look bad, but you're way off base on this one.
I don't think this ad has anything to do with Thompson whatsoever. The idea that Giuliani gets results is one that he has been pushing throughout the campaign, at virtually every appearance. In fact, even before he became a candidate.
Here's what he said at a speech in January in New Hampshire, while he was still in the "exploratory phase" (and while Fred was still on Law & Order):
Drawing on his background transforming New York City as mayor, he elaborated that, "When I say to you that we should reduce taxes to stimulate an economy, I'll say it to you because I did it, and I saw it work. When I say we have to bring peace and security...I'll say that to you because I saw that happen in New York, and I made it happen. I did it."
My account of his speech here.
Rudy Radio Ad
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 9:33AM
"RUDY: "I've been tested in a way in which the American people can look to me. They're not going to find perfection, but they're gonna find somebody who's dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results, results people thought were impossible."
VO: Listen. That's Rudy Giuliani. A leader with clearly defined goals.
RUDY: "There are two big things at stake for the country… what direction we go in on terrorism and what direction we go in with regard to our domestic economy. If you elect me we're on offense against terrorism. And I want us to be on the offense for a growth economy in which we lower taxes, reduce the size of government… that's how you create growth. "
VO: Principle. Experience. Results. That's Rudy.
RUDY: "We laid out a very, very specific set of goals that we want to achieve because I want people to look at those and say if I agree with most of them, then this is a person who can bring them about. And if they disagree with it, they should vote against me, because I am going to bring it about.
VO: Rudy Giuliani. The Republican that Democrats just don't want to run against."
Poll
Posted by on 10.3.07 @ 6:31AM
So much for the Thompson bounce? The internal numbers in the Washington Post/ABC poll indicate that the themes Rudy has been stressing -- leadership, electability and ability to deal with issues like terrorism, healthcare, immigration and the economy -- seem to be working. Just one poll but after Rudy's September (and Thompson's debut --gosh was the press right after all?) it makes sense.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Re: Where Were You in '94?
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 9:16PM
Well, James, the back to the future line would work if Thompson had been a fire-brand in the Republican Revolution but he really wasn't. On the list of issues in the Fox News piece today plus others Thompson just wasn't leading the band. Truth be told, he has an ACU rating and a profile pretty much like McCain (although Thompson's tax cutting record is better). (By the way, McCain folks chime in that in 1994 he was fighting for the line item veto.) Bringing up 1994 inevitably leads to the "What did you do in the war?" question. That is why the call to Thompson's past Senate life works not so well I think. ( And lobbying and acting aren't great professional platforms to run on either, which is why less resume and more ideas might be a better way to go. Do you think David Broder has noticed he's not going to get an entitlement plan from Thompson?)
Yes, every claim has a comeback but generally your pitch shouldn't put you on the defensive and help your opponents at least as much as it does you. (If the Fox News report is accurate, this whole back to '94 pitch was hotly debated in the Thompson camp, so my argument here likely was raised by the "losing" side.)
Re: Where Were You In 1994?
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 8:26PM
There are very few charges that can't produce countercharges. Every campaign has a narrative for itself and a counternarrative for its opponents (watch what the Democrats will try to do with Giuliani's crime record in New York City). Fred Thompson is running not just as conservative comfort food, though that is certainly part of his appeal -- he is taking advantage of conservative nostalgia for times, real and imagined, when Republicans were seen as more principled. He subtly exploits Reagan nostalgia; he much less subtly exploits 1994 nostalgia (the latter a huge driver of fantasies on the right that a figure as unpopular as Newt Gingrich would make a viable presidential candidate). The other years you mention just don't have the same place in the conservative imagination as 1994. He didn't pick that year arbitrarily -- picking a year when he backed the same campaign finance reform law that all his top-tier opponents also supported would be arbitrary.
The other candidates' resumes may trump that nostalgia -- judging from the statements you quote, they certainly hope so. But it will still be true that Thompson was part of the Republican congressional takeover the same year that Rudy Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo and Mitt Romney was running away Ronald Reagan. (John McCain hadn't done much wrong from a conservative perspective by that point.) The other candidates just have to argue that there are more important things for the voters to care about, and perhaps they will succeed.
Can't say I'm surprised
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 7:09PM
The New York Times is reporting that Vlad Putin will run for prime minister in an effort to hold on to power. story here.
Where Were You in '94?
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 6:06PM
Romney's 10,000 Ads
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 5:41PM
Advertising Age reports:
Painting the Map Rudy, Uh, Red
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 5:10PM
Via The Corner and Campaign Spot, I see that the Giuliani campaign has apparently drawn the 2008 electoral map as they see it at this point. I'm not sure which is more remarkable: that the Giuliani campaign seems to assume that there will be practically no blue states or that they see so many once-red states in play. I also have no idea where Green Mountain Politics gets the figure that Giuliani and the Republicans will definitely be outspent 2-to-1.
Romney's Pitch
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 3:34PM
While religious conservatives have not fallen in love with Thompson it is always possible many, if not all, will support Romney. His chief advisor on life issues is the well known conservative lawyer James Bopp, Jr. My interview is here and he makes a case for social conservatives to pick someone who can actually run a campaign and govern. (And although the interview was conducted before the third party threat was raised, he does not strike me as a fellow who'd do anything to increase the chances of a Hillary presidency in the event his man didn't win. )
Obama Hits Clinton on Foreign Policy
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 3:07PM
Obama, marking the fifth anniversary of his speech opposing the Iraq War, delivered his strongest attack yet on Hillary Clinton's foreign policy and outlined a vision that promises to be a break from the Washington foreign policy consensus.
Though he doesn't mention her by name, Obama specifically counters Clinton's argument that when she voted for the Iraq War, she was really voting for inspections:
Well I'm not running for President to conform to Washington's conventional thinking - I'm running to challenge it. I'm not running to join the kind of Washington groupthink that led us to war in Iraq - I'm running to change our politics and our policy so we can leave the world a better place than our generation has found it.
So there is a choice that has emerged in this campaign, one that the American people need to understand. They should ask themselves: who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right, and who got it wrong. This is not just a matter of debating the past. It's about who has the best judgment to make the critical decisions of the future. Because you might think that Washington would learn from Iraq. But we've seen in this campaign just how bent out of shape Washington gets when you challenge its assumptions.
When I said that as President I would lead direct diplomacy with our adversaries, I was called naïve and irresponsible. But how are we going to turn the page on the failed Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to our adversaries if we don't have a President who will lead that diplomacy?
When I said that we should take out high-level terrorists like Osama bin Laden if we have actionable intelligence about their whereabouts, I was lectured by legions of Iraq War supporters. They said we can't take out bin Laden if the country he's hiding in won't. A few weeks later, the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission - Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton - agreed with my position. But few in Washington seemed to notice.
The last line being a clear hit on Hillary Clinton's calculating nature and inability to take a clear stand on anything. I'm tied up with another project right now, so I don't have time to go through the speech and analyze all of his proposals from a policy perspective. But from a political perspective (at least within the context of the Democratic primary) I think this is a very effective speech. The hard-hitting tone is a contrast from months of acting trigger shy, and he really needed to paint Hillary as representing more of the same. Rather than being defensive or excessively cautious about his proposals, Obama is now getting a lot bolder, which is crucial for somebody running as a change agent, especially somebody who is so far behind. To be sure, Hillary has opened up a huge lead in national polls, and most state polls save Iowa. Obama still has his work cut out for him. But this is exactly what he needs to be doing. And he sure has the money to get his message out.
Parliament Mad About Plan to Reduce Their Power
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 2:53PM
This was utterly predictable, and it isn't an argument against soft partition. Soft partition is becoming the consensus position in Washington because the government in Baghdad has failed to demonstrate that it can run the country. If they don't like it, they ought to get their act together.
Inconvenient Youths
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 12:17PM
Lord, if anyone missed this wonderful article by Ellen Gamerman on pint-sized environmental advocates driving their parents crazy, click on through to see perhaps the definitive counterargument to that whole spare-the-rod school of thought. Here are a couple bites:
Nicole Thomas thought her 4-year-old son's interest in the environment was cute -- until he told her she needed to quit drinking coffee. Ailer said he's worried that coffee growers in Central America are cutting down forests to grow their crops. "Going to a coffee shop with a kid who's saying, 'Mommy, you can't have a cup of coffee' isn't very pleasurable," says the 35-year-old mom from Boulder, Colo.
***
Benjamin Adelson, a first grader at Poughkeepsie Day School in New York, started asking his parents to conserve more energy after he watched a presentation about recycling performed by third and fourth graders. The 7-year-old recently decided he should try to help the cause by turning off his night-light. But when his older sister, Rowan, unplugged it at bedtime, he was soon screaming, "Help!" from his bunk bed. "I'm scared of the dark, so it's a real problem," says Benjamin. His father, Jay Adelson, founder of the social Web site Digg.com, says Benjamin's conservation concerns border on the obsessive: "He sees the cutting down of a tree as a sacrilegious and awful event."
The piece includes a handy sidebar, "How to Manage Your Activist Kid."
Re: Pro-Life Rudy
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 11:05AM
This is precisely the dilemma pro-lifers face in the next election. They can support a pro-choice candidate and hope that it will do no practical damage to their movement because he will mostly side with them on the issues that are in play -- or even define the pro-life label down to the point where he qualifies. They can support a candidate with a long, mostly pro-life voting record who has never seemed comfortable with the issue and disagrees with pro-lifers on at least one major issue that is in play. They can support a candidate who agrees with them on every issue but has only done so since late 2004, early 2005. Or they can support a candidate with no chance of being nominated or elected.
That's one of the reasons so many people waited for Fred Thompson to get in. And, as we've covered on this blog, he has proved to have his own problems from a pro-life perspective.
Would a Rep. Giuliani Be Pro-Life?
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 10:46AM
I don't think Rep. Pete Sessions is helping his preferred candidate by making this assertion:
"Since you're asking me...
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 10:23AM
...I'll say the Earth rules the world."
Wow. Lars Ulrich of Metallica. On politics. Yikes! Let's get this straight: The Earth rules the world, but Bill Clinton should be its president? Hillary is not going to like such subversive talk, Mr. U!
Not as levelheaded as his bandmate, apparently.
Tony Perkins on Rudy
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 10:08AM
Byron York posts a transcript of the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins talking about taking a stand against the GOP if it nominates Rudy Giuliani. Practically, I think it would hurt the pro-life cause more to have Hillary Clinton as president on the judges issue alone. Even if some conservatives are skeptical about Giuliani's promises to point strict constructionists, they know that Clinton will appoint judges in the mold of Ginsburg and Breyer. With that said, I can totally respect Perkins when he says, "there comes a point where you draw a line on principle. And I think this this is the principal issue, the issue of life. We are not going to sit down at a table and negotiate away the protection of human life and shake hands and get up and go forward. That's not going to happen on my watch." The question is how large is the contigent of Republicans that feels the same way and would literally stare Clinton in the face, and decide they'd rather have her as president for four or eight years than pull the lever for somebody who is pro-choice?
Also interesting in the exchange is that Perkins emphasizes that "there are other options," suggesting that he (and perhaps other social conservatives) would finally rally around one of the other GOP candidates to prevent a Giuliani nomination. But I found his assessment of the rest of the field rather odd:
UPDATE: It seems as though stem cell research is the sticking point for Perkins when it comes to McCain. So, evidently, Perkins would rather support Romney, and send the message that it's okay to be pro-choice for over 30 years as long as you announce you're pro-life within two years of announcing a run for president.
Hillary Beats Obama's Q3 Fundraising
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 9:35AM
She raised $22 million for the primary, and a total of $27 million including general election funds. She added more than 100,000 new donors. As I noted yesterday, Obama raised $19 million for the primary and $20 million total, which is impressive. But as you can see by the amount of general election money raised this quarter ($5 million for Hillary, $1 million for Obama) Clinton is benefiting from the increasing perception that she is the inevitable nominee. People are jumping on the bandwagon.
Re: McCain's Money
Posted by on 10.2.07 @ 9:19AM
The McCain camp is raising caution regarding the third quarter fundraising numbers that Jonathan Martin reported yesterday and that I cited--$5 million raised, over $2 million in debt. No new details, they just aren't confirming those numbers. So stay tuned.
Monday, October 1, 2007
A Bisl Mistake
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 11:42PM
John McCain hopes to clarify and fend off criticism from Jewish groups who don't agree it's a Christian country with this: "It's almost Talmudic. We are a nation that was based on Judeo-Christian values. That means respect for all of human rights and dignity. That's my principle values and ideas, and that's what I think motivated our founding fathers," McCain said.
["Bisl"? You should look it up and be well.]
And yes, there is a world of difference both factually and politically between the terms "Judeo-Christian" and "Christian" and, yes, I think McCain understands this.
Re: A Real Christian Candidate
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 8:20PM
Well this suggests maybe some aren't quite ready to jump off the cliff: "[James]Dobson attended the meeting, but is not yet participating in any planning for a third party, said Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family Action. Dobson and others spoke out against the idea at the meeting, even though both major parties could nominate candidates who back abortion rights and other policies that conservative Christians oppose, Schneeberger said."
Re: Kurtz Spun?
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 6:49PM
This is a network affiliate TV report so is it local or national news reporters that sock it to him here?
Tomorrow's Iraq Debate, Today
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 6:37PM
Over at Brainwash, I suggest that the debate over Iraq will soon revolve around how many troops are needed to safely execute a soft partition.
Re: Yankees-Cubs
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 4:44PM
Phil, it is amazing to me how alike are the worries of Red Sox and Yankee fans. In local baseball talks around Boston, I've been voicing my worries about the Sox: that they leave too many men on base, that they walk too many opposing batters, that they rely too heavily on two over-40 pitchers, and that they aren't truly strong up the middle, the hallmark of a great team. I'll add to that that the Red Sox seemed to have gotten psyched out playing the Yankees late in the year -- with that one glorious exception.
More on Fred's Numbers
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 4:20PM
Team Fred notes:
(1) More than 60% of that $8 million came in after Fred Thompson's September announcement. Our "quarter" was mostly the month of September.
(2) Donation levels post-announcement = approximately $200,000/day.
(3) Donor base = about 70,000. That is a first quarter donor base larger than that of any other Republican candidate.
Re: Kurtz Spun?
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 3:46PM
Re: McCain's Money
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 3:34PM
McCain's Money
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 3:07PM
Jonathan Martin reports that he raised $5 million this quarter, and still has $2 million in debt. Perhaps not as bad as the worst fears, but it reinforces the fact that despite his recent surge, he'll have a tough time raising enough money to win the nomination, especially if he's forced to take public financing.
UPDATE: The McCain campaign is not confirming these numbers.
Rudy and the Roots
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 2:29PM
In light of recent reports of a Christian conservative third party challenge in the event of a Giuliani nomination, Jim Geraghty speculates on whether a Republican can win a general election without energizing the pro-life grassroots. The way I see it, however, such a question will be rendered moot by the outcome of the GOP nomination battle. If Rudy wins, then it will demonstrate he is better at mobilizing support and getting people to the polls than his rivals. If he loses, then it will show the opposite to be true.
Obama Q3: $19 mln, 93,000 New Donors
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 2:18PM
Another huge quarter for Obama.
The highlights:
Third quarter totals:
--Primary dollars raised: at least $19 million
--Overall dollars raised (with general election): at least $20 million
--Number of new donors: over 93,000
Total 2007
--Primary dollars raised: at least $74.9 million
--Total number of donors: 352,000
Yankees-Cubs?
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 1:25PM
It's the time of the year in which I'll spend nervous late nights cheering for the boys from the Bronx, but now I have an incentive to root for the Cubs in the National League. In last week's debate, you might remember, Hillary Clinton said she would have to "alternate sides" in the event of a Yankees-Cubs World Series. I'd love to see that happen.
Not sure if it will though. I'm still worried about whether the Yankees pitching (especially the middle relief) will hold up. Also, while their championship teams of the late 1990s were known for incredible situational hitting, their bats have gone cold in October for the past several years. A-Rod has had an incredible year, but when playoff time rolls around, he tends to have an affinity for striking out and grounding into double plays at the most crucial moments.
Kurtz Spun?
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 12:54PM
Club for Growth Responds to Forbes (re: Rudy & SS)
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 12:35PM
Steve Forbes's response seems to have alleviated most of the Club for Growth's concerns about Giuliani and Social Security, although the group urges him to go further by offering a detailed free-market reform perposal.
Pat Toomey writes:
Dear Steve:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of Mayor Giuliani and your kind words about the Club for Growth. You have been a stalwart defender of American taxpayers throughout your career and your assurances regarding Mayor Giuliani’s position on Social Security go a long way toward alleviating our concerns. We were especially pleased to read your detailed description of the Mayor’s interview with the Associated Press and of the Mayor’s strong opposition to raising taxes, including as part of Social Security reform.
As we pointed out in our white paper on Mayor Giuliani’s fiscal record back in May, we are familiar with his numerous pro-growth accomplishments and his implementation of tax cuts in liberal
New York City. We are also pleased that Mayor Giuliani supports additional tax relief. Social Security is a particularly sensitive area as many Democrats, and even a few liberal Republicans, advocate raising taxes as part of a Social Security reform package. As you know, such a policy is both unnecessary to address Social Security’s solvency and unwise in the damage it would do to the economy. In addition to opposing Social Security taxes, we hope Mayor Giuliani will go one very important step further and offer a detailed free-market proposal for reforming Social Security that includes personal savings accounts and returns choice and freedom to individual taxpayers.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pat Toomey
President, Club for Growth
Re: Baby Bonds
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 12:24PM
Those poll numbers on the proposal (60-27 against) are comforting. What I found interesting about the whole episode is how sloppy it was for Hillary Clinton. This whole campaign, she has tried to present herself as the responsible, moderate, thoughtful leader who understands political realities and is already thinking as if she's president. Everything she has done has been carefully calibrated to further that message. But this proposal smacks of political amateurism and communicates the exact opposite--that she's still the radical college student fantasizing about establishing a leftist utopia. Had Obama made the same proposal, the Clinton campaign would have slammed him as naive and not up to the serious task of being president. A rare stumble for the heavily cautious and programed Clinton campign. I guess no amount of discipline can beat the statist impulses out of her.
RE: A Real Christian Candidate
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 12:14PM
There are a fair number of pro-lifers who cannot, as a matter of conscience, vote for a pro-choice candidate. Whether they are numerous enough to swing an election, I don't know. But there will be a far bigger opening for a conservative third party with Giuliani as the nominee than there has been in decades. All it would take is 1 to 3 million votes.
That said, you can't beat somebody with nobody. Just as Christian conservatives lack a candidate in the Republican primaries, there is no logical head for their third party. Ron Paul and Alan Keyes are running as Republicans. Roy Moore is a possibility, but he has declined politically since losing the 2006 gubernatorial primary to Bob Riley in Alabama. The Constitution Party's best showing was with Howard Phillips in 1996, and even then they drew less than 200,000 votes. When Phillips stopped running in 2004, the CP had to turn to Michael Peroutka, a no-name-recognition candidate who wasn't able to gain any traction from conservative dissastisfaction with George W. Bush.
If they are going to be stuck with a candidate whose name recognition is closer to Peroutka's than Pat Buchanan's, the conservative third party effort would have to have already started raising money to compete seriously. There is no indication that this has happened at a level that will impact the presidential race. Given that reality, my guess is that James Dobson himself would have to run to pose a serious threat to a Giuliani-ized GOP.
Political Shouting Match
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 12:10PM
A new blog aggregator has just launched called Political Shouting Match. Instead of allowing users to choose the content (which often devolves into a celebrity gossip fest), this site filters out more substantive content from a limited number of A-list blogs, and allows the reader to click on arrows to get a teaser of what is being written on each blog about a given topic. Worth a look.
Re: Memory lane
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 11:31AM
Responding to the Thompson invitation to go down memory lane the Rudy Team is putting out a detailed list of what he was up to as Mayor in the 90's. The headings include: Cutting Taxes(23 times in $9B in savings), Reducing Welfare Rolls(640,000 people removed from rolls for 58.37% reduction), Cutting The Bureaucracy(20% reduction in city workforce and city budget went from $2.3B deficit to $2.9B surplus), Dramatically Reducing Crime(56% reduction overall and 66% drop in murders) and To Make NY Safe for Families( getting addicts and beggars off the street and throwing out porn shops for example). What first struck me about this is -- Good grief, I'd forgotten what a hell hole NY City had become. (Cutting 640,000 from the welfare rolls makes you wonder what the ratio of working to nonworking people was and cutting $9B in taxes boggles the mind when you consider how much revenue prior regimes had to work with.) But more immediately, I think both directed at Thompson and with Romney we're going to enter the "comparative" ad and campaign season for Rudy. The crime figures on Romney's Massachusetts were a gift but I imagine Rudy's folks will start talking about the "fees" and "close tax loopholes" in the Romney record. The latter issue is going to be key in New Hampshire--home of no state income tax.
The Judith Problem
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 11:19AM
John Fund has a strong column on what may prove to be Giuliani's Achilles' heel.
That's What She Said
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 11:18AM
Fans of The Office, one of the best shows network television has to offer, will definitely enjoy this great new blog by an labor attorney which considers "how many zeros a company would have to add to the settlement check if the antics of the folks at Dunder Mifflin appeared in a real lawsuit."
Re: Money
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 10:57AM
McCain and Romney supporters remind me that McCain raised $13M in his First Quarter and Romney raised $6.5M in a single day and $21.2 in his first reporting period. By way of comparison and to highlight the fundraising gap between Democrats and Republicans, Edwards reportedly raised $7M this quarter, which leaves him in such desperate straits he's going to take matching funds, and Richardson raised $5.2M. These two fellows would be highly competitive in the GOP race.
UPDATE: A good summary here.
Thomas Speaks
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 10:49AM
For any of you who missed Clarence Thomas on '60 Minutes' last night, I strongly urge you to watch it when you get a chance, (transcript, with links to video, here.)
Ann Romney
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 10:45AM
Re: A Real Christian Candidate
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 10:35AM
It's pretty clear to me that these conservative leaders are making noise about a third party now in hopes that they will preemtively derail Giuliani in the primaries by weakening one of the best arguments for his nomination--that he's the most electable. The argument would be a bit more credible if those same leaders were getting behind another candidate, but they aren't. Richard Viguerie, for instance, has released a report titled, "Fred Thompson, the Faux Conservative." Viguerie has made been attacking Republicans for betraying conservatives for decades, and was a thorn in the side of Ronald Reagan, who had this to say about Viguerie in his diary of Friday, February 26, 1982:
Social conservatives understandably have more of a beef with Giuliani than they ever could have had with Reagan. And I'm sure if you did a poll you could get some frustrated conservatives who will tell you now that they'd vote for a third party if Giuliani were the nominee. But with over a year before Election Day 2008, in the midst of the Republican primary, with the threat of a Hillary Clinton presidency still in the abstract, it's easy for disgruntled conservatives to tell a pollster they'd hand the White House to Hillary rather than vote for Giuliani. But as next November approaches, and the stark contrast between Clinton and Giuliani becomes apparent, as conservatives see the Clintons on TV every day and realize that's what they'll be exposed to again for the next four to eight years, I would say that the actual number of Christian conservatives who would be inclined to stay home or vote for a third party would be quite small. This is especially true if Giuliani nominates a solid social conservative as a VP candidate, and keeps emphasizing the judges issue. Will social conservatives vote for a third party if the choice is between a candidate who is promising to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and one who they know will make appointments in th mold of Ginsburg and Breyer? I just don't see it happening on a large enough scale to swing the election.
Money
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 10:13AM
Thompson Surprises
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 10:11AM
Marc Ambinder is reporting that Fred Thompson insiders are telling him that he raised $8 million. If true and accurate, then Thompson deserves credit for exceeding expectations for the quarter. Most reporters and news outlets had set the bar at $5 million, while others had estimated "between $4 million and $6 million." More important, it appears his donor base is better than expected. It will be interesting to see how Thompson did with online donors.
Social Conservatives
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 10:07AM
The press reports this morning and over the weekend about the looming social conservative schism overlook one fact: the pro-life issue, while important, is no longer the main concern of social conservatives. Gay marriage is, and that is why the issue has been so important in this year's runup to the presidential nomination process.
"We have a court that we're happy with on pro-life issues," a prominent social conservative told us last week. "Protecting traditional marriage is what we're focusing on now. It's what has been driving our fundraising and messaging for close to 18 months to two years."
Re: A Real Christian Candidate
Posted by on 10.1.07 @ 6:44AM
Another report here explains where they are coming from: "There is a great deal of anxiety that some in the Christian community have put security and the fight against Islamo-fascism ahead of the pro-life movement." It is not just the GOP that would be damaged of course by a third party candidate. The unity and influence of these religious leaders who decided to go find such a candidate would also be permanently damaged. (The individual who accepted would likely have to be someone with no real prospects -- ever -- in the GOP since it would be political suicide for the individual who accepted the nod.) Backing a third party candidate either would not prevent Rudy's election -- sending the message these voices can be ignored in the future -- or would hand the election to Hillary and forever make the spoilers the subject of millions of conservatives' ire. We'll see...
UPDATE: Powerline guys have a similar take, contending that these leaders "are not stupid" and neither they nor others in the conservative movement would throw the Presidency and the future Supreme Court away with a third party gambit.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
A Real Christian Candidate
Posted by on 9.30.07 @ 11:35PM
It appears the Christian right is intent on splitting the vote and ensuring a Hillary presidency. Of course it could be an empty threat. Fortunately the Rev. Robertson and one-time presidential candidate Gary Bauer do not seem to endorse this self-destructive tactic. Apparently it comes down to who wins the Florida primary.
Romney Interview
Posted by on 9.30.07 @ 9:20PM
In this week's Newsweek Romney gets the cover, a substantial article and an interview which includes this:
How do you think history will judge the presidency of George W. Bush?
I'm not a historian, and we haven't got enough time and distance to assess that. But I think that it will be seen as successes and accomplishments where he gets good grades, and places where he will not get good grades. And clearly, as I've pointed out, with regards to the post-Saddam-collapse management of the Iraq conflict, he will not get good grades there. I think on education and No Child Left Behind, he'll get a good grade. I think [he'll get a good grade on] rebuilding the economy, pulling us out of what could have been a very severe recession or worse following 9/11 and the collapse of the Internet bubble. We were already headed down. We were in the normal, cyclical downturn when the president came in. We could have really gone into a tailspin and he was able to help pull us back. And he brought dignity and personal integrity back to the White House after a very unfortunate series of events during the Clinton years.
It seems an odd answer. Of Bush's accomplishments wouldn't two superb Supreme Court judges and the absence of any further attack on our homeland since 9-11 be at the top? And No Child Left Behind is a great accomplishment? (As I've argued before, ripping it out by the roots would please a lot of conservatives and even more nonideologically motivated parents.)
The biographical article in this issue I think is quite balanced -- explaining Romney's considerable talents and abilities but questioning whether he has an emotional core and the ability to connect to average voters.
Memory Lane
Posted by on 9.30.07 @ 6:35PM
Fred Thompson is going down memory lane this week with a "Where were you in '94?" pitch to remind voters that while he swept into power with the Republican majority his opponent Mitt Romney was running as a pro-choice candidate in 1994 and Rudy Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo that year. But his opponents have been waiting months for this and will come out blazing with a number of points which supporters of opponents are happy to offer up: 1) Thompson did not sign the Contract on America and was less than enthusiastic about Newt Gingrich. ("Everything [House Speaker Newt Gingrich] says or does is not perfect by any means, and you can say that about all of us, but he's out front." [NPR's "All Things Considered," 3/10/95]). 2) He was not a stalwart conservative in the Senate and his staff memorialized in a memo his departures from much of the conservative agenda. ("The memo cited broad areas in which he had taken a contrary position to a majority of Republican senators: Congressional reform, notably campaign finance reform that conservatives vigorously opposed but which he supported. [The archive also contains notes from Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, thanking him for his work in support of the bill.] Consumer protection, including votes to protect the ability of injured people to recover damages and 'to preserve the deterrent value of punitive damages'; for securities litigation reform to 'protect investors' ability to recover for wrongs they suffered,' and against loosening federal meat and poultry inspections. Other issues like a vote against opening the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve to oil drilling." [Richard Locker, "Letters Reveal, Yet Add Mystery," The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal, 8/19/07]). 3) Three words: McCain-Feingold-Thompson; and 4) Thompson opposed tort reform again and again and again.
Other than smudging up Thompson's record I suspect we'll hear a variation on the following from his opponents: 1) From Rudy: "I was cutting crime, taxes and bureaucracy--what did you do?"; 2) From Romney: "Let's talk 2002-You were on a TV set when your party and country needed conservatives and I was battling liberals in Massachusetts"; 3) From McCain: "That's ancient history--where were you the last three years while I was turning around the failing Iraq war policy?"
This approach by Thompson is an odd choice both because his own Senate record is so thin and because it assumes voters are concerned with where the candidates were 13 years ago, rather than today. It seems a -- dare we say-- lazy man alternative to developing and explaining policies he NOW holds which would distinguish him from the field and convince conservatives he is a better choice.
Re: Did Newt Ever...
Posted by on 9.30.07 @ 2:50PM
John: Perhaps we should be grateful to Newt for reconfirming where his priorities lie. For all his flirty talk about maybe running, once it came time for him to say yes definitively the idea of losing all the big earnings and perks he enjoys as head of American Solutions was more than he could handle. Recall that Newt's never really been the same since trying to cash in big after the 1994 elections, by signing a $4.5 million book deal with HarperCollins. In his memoir Bob Novak blasts Newt on this:
When three days after his 1994 election triumph Gingrich laid out to me his plans to rule the House of Representatives, he did not reveal his collateral design to amass a personal fortune and do it quickly. The desire of politicians without inherited wealth to become powerful and rich has been documented through the centuries although I believe it intensified in the 1960s. As politicians dealth with fabulously rich benefactors benefiting from their legislative decisions, they yearned for their share of the gold.Gingrich wanted to much, too soon. Ironically, he shared the desires of Jim Wright, whose clumsy implementation of those desires enabled Gingrich to drive him out of the Speaker's chair. Actually, Wright's scheme of having organized labor buy bulk copies of his paperback memoir--a booklet more than a book--was penny ante compared to what Gingrich attempted.
If we haven't learned by now that the best Newt can do is talk the talk but never walk it, we never will.
Incidentally, Bob Novak's incredible memoir, The Prince of Darkness, is scandalously underreviewed in today's Washington Post Book World, lumped in with three other books that comparatively have all the heft of a Jim Wright booklet. Who's afraid of Robert D. Novak? All of establishment Washington, evidently, because he's as straight-shooting about it as he is about Newt Gingrich.
Did Newt Ever Seriously Consider Running?
Posted by on 9.30.07 @ 12:39PM
I expressed skepticism back in January about Gingrich's insistence that he wouldn't decide on a presidential race until after Labor Day; his explanation, in light of the state of campaign finance law, didn't make much sense. Now his explanation for why he's decided against running doesn't make sense, either: "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday." Come on, we're supposed to believe it just occurred to him that campaign finance laws wouldn't allow him to promote himself tax free? (Or that it would be really hard to raise $30 million in a few weeks?) All this time, part of his schtick has been to bash consultants for having no sense of history, as if McCain-Feingold had changed nothing and the race was starting earlier than it has in the past for no reason. It's hard to shake the feeling that he's too smart to have really believed that.
All year, Newt has been a hot commodity on the speaking circuit, in part because of speculation that he'd become a presidential candidate. If he's been teasing about running while knowing full well that a campaign was never in the cards, isn't there something slightly unseemly about the way he's been raking in speaking fees?
Iowa
Posted by on 9.30.07 @ 12:02PM
Is Iowa up for grabs? Thompson seems to think so and is spending a number of days there but drew some flak for ducking the press and the crowd this weekend. The most critical part of his week for him may be his meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board. David Yepsen is well known as the dean of the Iowa press corps and the Register folks are known, as one GOP strategist put it, for "drilling down" during their interviews and pressing candidates on their views. If Thompson impresses and shows a command of his material this could be a boost; if not, it's a problem.
Re: McCain WANTS that Tape Out
Posted by on 9.30.07 @ 10:58AM
That would be true if McCain is really willing to stick by his statements but he's not. His campaign spokeswoman provided this:
"Dear Mr. Kuo,
Your article misconstrues the context of Senator McCain's remarks
on the religious heritage of the United States. The transcript of
the interview makes clear that he intends to say that this nation
was founded on Judeo Christian principles and that our nation is
tolerant of the practice of all faiths and beliefs.
Regards,
Jill Hazelbaker"
This is the "annoy everyone" position-- those who think his original statement was accurate will be peeved he is backpedaling and those who were uncomfortable with the original statement will see this as evidence of pandering. (And by the way his statement that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation is nonsense.)
McCain WANTS that tape out
Posted by on 9.30.07 @ 4:10AM
Jennifer, I think you are very mistaken if you think McCain does not want the "Christian nation" video to get much attention. Instead, I think it is a deliberate attempt by his campaign to reach out to conservative Christians as part of his effort to claw back into the race. And if you listen closely to what he said, he couched the statement very carefully. What he said is, indeed, simply a matter of fact: The nation was overwhelmingly Christian when founded, and the government they created was seen by them as one based on Christian principles and to serve a largely Christian people. Granted, Thomas Jefferson had a different conception of Christianity than most, but he was an outlier at the time. Meanwhile, there is nothing in what McCain said that indicates this nation does not welcome other faiths. George Washington and James Madison, among many others, made it clear that people of all faiths, and none, were welcome and had/have equal rights. Parsed carefully, there is nothing in the "Christian nation" statement that is exceptional.
(Now, might it have been wiser to say "Judeo-Christian"? Yes -- and it also would have been true, although there is a bit of a substantive difference between the two statements. But properly understood, even without the "Judeo" part verbalized, it is always included anyway, because there is no Christianity without Judaism. As for other faiths, or no faith at all, people of those persuasions enjoy the exact same political rights as do Christians and Jews and everybody else, even if the nation they live in was and is overwhelmingly culturally Christian.)
But back to McCain. This is a controversy he relishes. Its free media for a cash-strapped campaign. And in the end, very few GOP primary voters that were going to vote for McCain will do otherwise just because of this statement, but there are plenty of GOP primary voters who will give him another look the more he is attacked and pilloried for defending faith's historical role. In short, if there is to be controversy over this, it is a briar patch of McCain's own, deliberate creation. It's a briar patch he will relish at any and all times between now and the Minneapolis convention. (And if "briar patch" is culturally insensitive, too, well, throw ME into THAT briar patch, please, because it is a perfectly good literary reference.)
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- Evolve or Die
- Progressive Derangements
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
