- 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, October 20, 2007
What Happened This Week
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 9:56PM
FRC Wrap
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 4:09PM
Having now figured out --thanks Phil -- how badly Huckabee beat Romney among voters who saw them, it is a stunning result. If a substantial number of social conservative activists say Huckabee could be their guy, this is someone who we trust and don't have to compromise with, then Iowa becomes a very, very interesting race. This is true especially if this support materializes and brings with it money. As for Thompson, what one GOP insider at the FRC described as a "delivery problem" showed up in the voting.
RE: FRC Straw Poll Results
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 3:30PM
Wow. Romney with online voters and all his outreach to get supporters to pay their $1 and vote, he barely beat Huckabee: 1595 to 1565. Ron Paul came in next at 865( do they only flood free online polls?) and then Thompson at 564 in what will likely be seen as a disappointing result. Who said Iowa was in the bag? Huckabee and McCain have committed to the AARP debate there on October 25. Will Romney be compelled to show as well to defend his turf? For now everyone is on to Florida for tomorrow's debate.
UPDATE: What is also surprising is that even with a solid speech and a life long pro-life voting record McCain loses to Rudy. Seems remarkable.
FRC Straw Poll Results
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 3:27PM
The Values Voter Summit Straw Poll results are in. Here's the deal.
Mitt Romney just slightly edged out Huckabee when you include
Internet votes, by less than a half a percent. But pro-Romney
Websites were
pushing readers to vote for their guy. When you look at onsite
votes of people who had a chance to watch all the candidates speak,
Huckabee blew Romney out of the water--51 percent to 10 percent.
Everybody who was at the conference saw how Huckabee wowed the
room. It will be really hard for Christian leaders meeting this
weekend to choose Romney as their candidate for pragmatic reasons
when it's so obvious that Huckabee is the choice of their base.
Also, a weak showing by Fred Thompson at 8 percent, especially
because Giuliani was at 6 percent. Interestingly, the Giuliani camp
should be happy with this result. This is an audience that should
be the most hostile to his candidacy, yet he polled better onsite
than Duncan Hunter, John McCain and Sam Brownback (who I imagine
would have done better were it not for news that he was dropping
out).
Which of the following candidates for President would you most
likely to vote for?
| Mitt Romney |
Re: Rudy Reconsidered
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 3:14PM
Accountability? Nah
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 2:04PM
The Senate yesterday voted against restoring funds to the Office of Labor Management Standards, which is responsible for oversight on how labor unions spend their members' dues. This is one of the few parts of the government that the current Congress seems interested in cutting. (Hat tip: David Freddoso.)
RE: Rudy Reconsidered
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 1:42PM
"You have nothing to fear from me," sounds like a rather low bar for any non-dysfunctional relationship. I won't be trying it as a pick-up line anytime soon.
That said, Giuliani's speech seems to have gone over well before an important but not terribly friendly audience. And social conservatives achieved a small victory with Giuliani's emphatic public declaration that he will veto any Democratic attempts to weaken the Hyde Amendment. On to veto pledges for the Freedom of Choice Act, Hatch-Feinstein, legislation to repeal or weaken Mexico City, etc.
Re: Rudy Reconsidered
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 12:55PM
Huckabee the Rock Star
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 11:56AM
To say that Huckabee knocked it out of the ballpark here at the Values Voter Summit would be to understate his performance. Early in the speech, he set the stage by saying that he was here "as one who comes not to you, but one who comes from you." He talked about his backround as a Baptist minister, and then plunged into a number of issues in a speech litered with biblical references and folksy humor.
You know he owned this crowd, because he received multiple standing ovations, and it wasn't just on social issues. From tax policy to immigration, from energy independence to fighting Islamofascism, he had this crowd on its feet. Throughout his speech, almost as if he were giving a sermon, the crowd nodded and spoke out "yeah."
He also took aim both at Romney and Giuliani.
"It’s important that people sing from their hearts and don’t merely lip-sych the lyrics to our songs," he said. He added that, "It’s important that a person doesn’t have more positions on issues than Elvis had waist sizes."
He said that certain issues--such as life and marriage--should be considered non-negotiable.
"Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics," he said. "Not now, not ever."
He made biblical references to David and Golaith and Jesus feeding the masses to demonstrate the limitless potential of God, and essentially pitting himself as an underdog. His pitch was that if conservatives should be true to their principles by supporting him rather than give in to "expedience and electability" arguments.
"For me, I do not spell G-O-D, G-O-P," he said. "Our principles are more important than any party."
Rudy Reconsidered
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 11:17AM
After speaking with a number of attendees--and obviously this a an unscientific, limited sample--I think Giuliani did better than I initially thought.
To be sure, several attendees said they couldn't support him in the primary, and were disappointed that he didn't speak about the gay marriage issue. But most people I spoke to came away thinking they had more in common with him than they believed coming in. Most importantly for Giuliani, I didn't speak to anybody who said they'd have to vote for a third party candidate if he were the nominee--descriptions ranged from "political suicide" to a "wasted vote."
I also got a sense that Romney has proved a good foil for Giuliani. Rudy's appeal that at least he's honest, went over well with most of those who I spoke to. Meanwhile, several folks told me that while Romney said all of the right things he was "too smooth" and "too packaged."
Fred Thompson, meanwhile, didn't seem to impress. Those I spoke to felt he was "too slow" and "didn't have fire in the belly." One man I spoke with said while he thought either Giuliani or Romney could "duke it out with Hillary," he didn't think Fred could.
Rudy Speaks
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 10:15AM
Giuliani was politely and respectfully received by the crowd, though I noticed that while much of the audience stood, some remained seated.
I've seen Giuliani speak on many occasions, and I thought he was definitely less comfortable than he usually is, at one point he had to avert an embarassing moment when he discussed adoption and started to say he was comitted "to decrease adoptions..." then he had to correct himself by saying "decrease abortion, and increase adoption.
His strategy was two fold. First, to tell the audience that they might not agree with him on everything, but they'll agree on most things, and in as a way of contrasting with Romney, he said that at least he's honest with them and won't bend with the wind.
"I'm not going to pretend to you that I can be all things to all people," he said.
He also appealed to the idea that "Christianity is about inclusiveness."
And said, "You have nothing to fear from me."
The second part was focused on his accomplishments in New York City, fighting crime, promoting adoption, slashing the welfare rolls, getting porno shops out of Times Square, and fighting the Brooklyn Art Museum.
Then he talked about the pro-life policies that he would support as president: use the veto on an attempt to water down the Hyde Amendment, supporting parental notification, and opposing partial birth abortion.
He then moved on to talking about the war on terrorism, winning in Iraq, his support for Israel and standing up to Iran. The problem was his delivery was pretty flat for him. If he would have struck the same tone as he did at the Republican Jewish Coalition earlier this week, he would have had this crowd on its feet.
I'm going to try and talk to some folks and get a better sense of how this all went over.
He's Kidding, Right?
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 9:37AM
Mel Martinez resigns as head of the Republican National Committee after less than a year at the post, and here's his reason:
Yep, it's pretty much a done deal for the GOP next year. And the candidates are inspired, too.
Huckabee Literature
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 8:14AM
Entering the Value Voters' Summit today, conference participants are being greeted by fliers imploring them : "Do Not Compromise Your God's Values." The flier details Mike Huckabee's record on social issues and asks them to "join the growing grassroots support for the ONLY authentic conservative." While most of the several hundred media here will focus on the Rudy Giuliani speech, many in the audience may be more interested in hearing from Huckabee.
Romney at the Value Voters Summit
Posted by on 10.20.07 @ 1:35AM
Mitt Romney gave a solid performance, and I think one thing that helped was that much of the speech focused on family--something that Romney has a much stronger personal and political record on--than abortion, on which he is more vulnerable. Also, with heavy references to his wife and kids, it drew a contrast with Giuliani.
There was applause through most of his speech, but the problem is that with his volunteers on hand clapping at every oppourtunity, it's hard to get a gauge of the room. Some people I spoke to after thought he did well, while others didn't feel he really lit a fire in them. This might get to the emotional intellegence problem I've written about with regard to Romney--he says the right things on an intellectual level, but doesn't seem to connect on an emotional level. You talk to people about a Romney speech and it's like the old cliche about eating in a Chinese restaurant--you're full when you walk out, but are hungry an hour later. One thing that benefits Romney, I think, is that many people seemed underwhelmed by Thompson, even those who were once favorably disposed toward him. (My initial post gave him good reviews, but part of it might have been that I was sitting near a group of several dozen vocal FredHeads, so I may have gotten a skewed view.) Romney just seems to be working harder for votes, so I can see a lot of leaders coming out of this weekend and rallying around Romney as an anti-Giuliani measure. But I think that the rank and file values voter will remain very conflicted. I hope to do more floor reporting tomorrow after all the candidates have spoken and get a better sense.
"I'm pro-family on every level, personal and political," Romney said early on in his speech.
He talked about the family as the basic "economic unit" and "building block of society." However, he said, "The American family is under stress."
He talked about how as President, he would try to promote stronger families, and that his wife as First Lady would be dedicated to that purpose. He said he would eliminate marriage penalties in the tax system and perform an audit of every government program to weed out any ones that are detrimental to families.
He veered into nanny-statism with his anti-Internet pornography crusade, which he referred to as a "modern plague" and he proposed requiring that computers have an anti-Internet porn filter for children.
He spoke about the gay marriage issue, and his experiences with it in Massachusetts, and also addressed his Mormonism.
"By the way, I imagine that one or two of you may have heard that I'm Mormon," he joked. "I understand that some people think they couldn't support someone of my faith, but I think that's just because they've listened to Harry Reid."
That seemed to go over well.
Toward the conclusion of the speech, in a clear attempt to draw a contrast with Giuliani, he spoke about how "The First Family represents America to the world."
All that stuff was fine, but he was less convincing when he said. "I will be a pro-life president, just like I was a pro-life Governor."
Friday, October 19, 2007
Romney Good but Not Great?
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 10:21PM
Byron York questions whether he went a bit
overboard and notes some crowd unsettled murmuring on the "I was a
pro-life Governor" lines (well, pro-life after running and saying
otherwise for two years of his term, knowledgeable folks would say)
but that he was very "professional." (Is that the political
equivalent of "what nice features he has"?) Jonathan
Martin notes one thing I have observed seeing Romney in person
-- he speaks too fast -- and says he got frequent applause but that
"many in the audience here plainly remain uncertain as to whether
they can get behind Romney or any of the imperfect, top-tier GOP
candidates." Redstate is more enthusiastic. The
most interesting comment of the evening: Gary Bauer: "Evangelicals
have always been against suicide and a third party is political
suicide."
Now Hear This
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 9:26PM
Latest contraindication for users of Levitra, Cialis, or Viagra: it may affect your hearing. You may never hear "no" again.
Brownback's Missed Opportunity
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 4:19PM
Everyone knows that Sam Brownback's presidential campaign is pretty much over -- he may not be confirming it, but he's also not denying it (which of course he would be if it weren't true). The activists at the Values Voter Summit, presumably, include Brownback's core supporters. It seems to me that Brownback missed an opportunity this morning to time an endorsement for maximum impact.
Of course, I'm assuming that he's planning on making an endorsement more specific than "anyone but Giuliani." If he's interested in actually defeating Giuliani, the smart play would be to encourage his constituents to pick one candidate rather than remain divided -- but perhaps Brownback prefers to hedge his bets as long as possible, the better to maintain good relations with any future administration.
Re: Back and Forth
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 3:00PM
Luckily for Romney, his campaign did not take my advice on how to respond to the Rudy attack. (To be fair, the Romney people put out the "can't act like Hillary" attack line last night to get the ball rolling.) Instead they simply ignore it and come back with the prospect that a Rudy nomination will spell defeat in 2008, saying: "Governor Romney is the Republican who can best represent the coalition of national security, economic and social conservatives that serve as the three pillars of the Republican Party's foundation. Republicans can bring conservative change to Washington with a nominee like Governor Romney who is willing to speak about all three of these issue platforms, not just one or two of them.Mayor Giuliani's positions on gay marriage and abortion are clearly at odds with many conservative Republicans. We simply disagree with those positions. If the Republican Party nominates a candidate who shares the same positions as Hillary Clinton on social issues, then we risk losing our identity as a party and we risk losing the White House to her."
This is smarter than trying to explain the Rudy charges or getting into why his MittCare really wasn't like HillaryCare or recapping how he came to change views on some of these issues. (On gay marriage by the way I think Rudy has said clearly he is against gay marriage. Like McCain he does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.) The ball will be in Rudy's court tomorrow to explain why social conservatives should not fear him and why in a Hillary-Rudy face off he will through appointment of judges and other policy decisions be the better choice for Republicans who care about social issues.
Ron Paul's Turn
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 2:47PM
Paul talked about watching an abortion during the 1960s and seeing a breathing two pound fetus being tossed aside in a basket and left for dead.
"That is an outrage," he hollered. "One of the most despicable decisions is Roe vs. Wade and one of our goals should be to get that overturned."
His anti-government statements are getting big applause--i.e. pull out of the UN, abolish the Department of Education.
His anti-war statements--we need to get out of Iraq to protect our borders, we need to change our foreign policy--not as widely popular, but generated scattered applause.
Duncan Hunter Speaks
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 2:39PM
Hunter did fine, but what struck me is that most of the speech could have just as easily been given by Giuliani, with tough talk on defense:
"We are going to leave Iraq in victory" and "As President, I will never allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon."
Interestingly, when he said of Israel "that postage stamp on the map" has always stood by America, and that America will always stand by Israel, it prompted a standing ovation, with some in the audience waving Israeli flags. This reinforced something I've felt for a while, that the Israel issue is one that Giuliani can use as part of his outreach to evangelicals. I wouldn't be surprised to hear him recount his ejection of Arafat story tomorrow.
Hunter also talked about getting tough on China on trade as part of efforts to rebuild American manufacturing.
He touched on abortion toward the end, and said unlike other politicians, he isn't vague about what kind of judges he would appoint. He said he would show any judicial candidate a sonogram and if they "can't tell it's a human life, I will not appoint that candidate to the federal bench."
Interview With "An Awful Person"
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 2:21PM
Regular AmSpec contributor Andrew Cline interviews John Bolton. It's an interesting bit, no doubt foreshadowing some of the ground to be covered in Bolton's soon-to-be-released book. The end of the piece is particularly illuminating, though:
At the end of the interview, a woman from the Clean Air, Cool Planet conference taking place in the ballrooms a few yards away, Debbie Grinnel of Massachusetts, came over and accosted Bolton. She berated him for supporting the Iraq war, said he was an awful person, and asked how he could live with himself. She said there was no reason to invade Iraq, to which he asked if she'd ever seen someone burned by chemical weapons, but she had already turned and walked away. Bolton said he rarely gets that kind of treatment, though it happened a few times in New York City.
Extra: Clarence Thomas' take on young Bolton.
Unfortunate Slouch
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 2:06PM
J.P. Freire opens up a can of Eh, whatever on Fred Thompson's Value Voters performance:
He sure is folksy, that Thompson. But his opening story? Lame. He talked about how a little girl wanted to stand in the limelight with him throughout his speech during a campaign spot. In a way, that story seems to reflect how Thompson is doing -- he's enjoying being in the limelight, but he doesn't seem to have much to say.
The saga continues here.
Back and Forth
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 12:43PM
Club for Growth
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 12:36PM
I asked CFG Communications Director Nachama Soloveichik what role CFG would play as the campaign progressed. Will they update their White Papers as the candidates provide more detail or in some cases modify their views? "It is something we are considering. It is our goal to provide the public with as much useful information as we can about the candidates, their economic records, and their campaign proposals." What about an endorsement? "Most likely not, but it remains to be seen."
Re: Mitt Grief
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 12:03PM
Andrew Roberts
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 11:47AM
Who can be read here, received a nice mention in Thompson's speech.
Thompson and Europe, Together
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 11:38AM
The substance of Thompson's speech was solid, but the delivery often seemed halting and he delivered a few of his applause lines underwhelmingly. Thompson doesn't quite seem to have hit his groove yet.
And did they really play Europe's "Final Countdown" before the debate between Richard Land and Jim Wallis?
Fred's First Hour
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 11:33AM
Thompson just concluded his speech by saying he didn't know what he would do in his first 100 days in office, because it would depend on the circumstance, and based on the principles he is always talking about.
But he said he knows what he will do in the first hour. " I will go into the oval office and close the door and pray for the wisdom to know what is right," he said to applause. "I would pray for the strength to do what is right."
He exited to a standing ovation, with supporters chanting "Go Fred, Go!"
Thompson
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 11:28AM
Fred Thompson entered the stage to a rousing reception here at the Value Voters Summit, and is speaking now, to a standing room only crowd.
He talked about his "100 percent pro-life voting record" in the Senate. "That's who I was then," he said. "That's who I am now. And that's the kind of president I'd be."
However, he said his feelings on the issue became stronger once he had children.
"My political record and my head was always there," he said. By talking about the feeling of seeing his babies' sonograms, he said, ""My heart now is fully engaged."
He said, "No legislation will pass my desk that funds or supports this procedure without my veto."
Also, the Romney Iran/lawyer comment is the gift that keeps on giving for his rivals. Thompson, talking about his record of supporting conservative judges, said, we need a president who "doesn't have to call his lawyers to know the difference between a good judge and a bad judge."
Stand By Your Man
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 11:10AM
At the end of a talk by two socially conservative women who serve in the House, Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) called on the Values Voters Summit crowd to back whoever the nominee is even if they don't agree with him 100 percent. The alternative is "that woman" who will be much worse, she argued, on their issues. This is obviously a reference to Rudy Giuliani as being superior to Hillary Clinton. The remarks received applause from the crowd.
Romney in SC
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 11:05AM
LiarDogFake
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 10:46AM
Michael Orsi's column this morning about calumny in the blogosphere is perfectly timed, because it comes one day after a post at Firedoglake so defamatory, indeed so slanderous by dictionary definition at least if not by legal definition, that it arguably is almost legally actionable. In it, site proprietor Jane Hamsher attacks Georgia Democratic Congressman Jim Marshall because Marshall was one of only two Dems who voted NOT to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP (health welfare for the middle class) expansion bill. But rather than merely disagreeing with Marshall (much less actually offering any substantive argument against his position), Hamsher tried not just guilt by association, but (apologies to Maxwell Smart) a particularly vicious example of "the old guilt-by-unrelated-and-irrelevant-and-false-association trick." See, Marshall was discussed on a radio show with guest host (and Red State blog director) Erick Erickson, who talked about the SCHIP vote and approvingly noted Marshall vote. Erickson, a councilman-elect in Marshall's town of Macon, GA, happened to be a driving force behind Georgia voter photo ID law. Hamsher cannot imagine ANY reason, apparently, to be for a photo ID law other than sheer racism. Therefore, I guess, Erickson is by definition a racist. And by some bizarre form of transitive property of equality, this makes Marshall a racist, too, for happening to agree with Erickson on the completely unrelated issue of SCHIP. So Hamsher, showing her usual lack of restraint and lack of class, accused Marshall of a "bigot embrace" and of "cavorting with racists" (merely because Erickson cited him approvingly on the show that Erickson guest-hosted).
Them's fightin' words.
Not only have courts thrown out race-based challenges to voter ID laws because plaintiffs could find no evidence that they cause racial hardship (i.e., support of the laws is not "racist"), but the very idea of accusing Marshall, of all people, of racism or even of indifference to racism, is laughable. Marshall is, by national Democratic standards, a moderate rather than a liberal, but one of the issues on which he always has been mainstream left is on race. He owes much of his political success to the support he has well earned among the black population of Macon, which he served as mayor. Imagining Marshall as part of a "bigot embrace" is like painting Gandhi as a warmonger.
Then there is Erickson, directly called a "racist" by Hamsher. Oh, really? Then how does Miss Vicious explain Erickson serving as campaign manager for black, Democratic Macon Councilwoman Miriam Paris? How does she explain Erickson's public endorsement of black mayoral candidate Lance Randall over white candidate Robert Reichert? Again, what Hamsher has printed is slanderous. (As for opposition to overexpansion of SCHIP somehow being the sign of being "anti-child," Erickson also has put his own pro-child values first in arguing AGAINST a judge's decision to take a troubled child away from the lesbian who had cared wonderfully for her and made a difference in her life.)
Erickson, of course, is perfectly capable of defending himself and of putting a mirror up to Hamsher's own record of hatefulness. He notes, for instance, Hamsher's execrable tactic of doctoring a photo of Joe Lieberman to make it look like Lieberman is in blackface. And that's just the tip of the hate-berg for Hamsher and/or Firedoglake. Just lat night at 7:52 p.m., for example, consider this absolutely sick, demented, vicious, callous reference to the late Terry Schiavo. The outrageous reference to Schiavo (no matter what one's position on that case, making fun of the poor woman is hateful beyond belief) comes in a post mocking conservatives' "culture of life." The post is full of invective and absolute nutcase references to thoroughly discredited reports of a million (!!!) Iraqi civilian deaths. "Am I missing some big part of the Right that isn't about killing people and blowing things up?," asks the blogger. To which I ask: "What is WRONG with you people? Are you utterly incapable of arguing your points without making vicious and scurrilous attacks on our motives and our character?"
And so on.
A disclaimer: Back during the Libby trial, I twice sent notes to Hamsher praising the depth and breadth of Firedoglake's coverage of the trial, even though I disagreed strongly with their analysis and conclusions. I was impressed that they at least did their homework, and I thought that they might possibly be serious enough people to have a respectful, cross-blog debate with. (I was not aware at the time of Hamsher's record of pure hatefulness toward the right: the stuff I was reading had some pretty nasty edges to it, but still -- barely -- within the realm of merely snarky rather than purely hateful.) But Hamsher never had the courtesy to respond. The more I see of her site and her ad hominem attacks even against honorable Democrats such as Jim Marshall, the more I understand that common courtesy is as foreign to her as is decency and self-restraint.
In the battle of decent people against bigotry, I'll take Lieberman, Marshall, and Erickson over Jane Hamsher any day.
Brownback: Rudy Won't Be the Nominee
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 10:44AM
Sam Brownback, speaking to reporters after his remarks here at the Value Voters Summit, said he didn'd think there would be a third party conservative candidate, because the Republican nominee will be pro-life.
This was his way of indirectly saying that Giuliani would not get the nomination.
"I will support whoever the nominee is," he also said. "The nominee will be pro-life."
Brownback would not confirm reports that he is dropping out of the race later today.
Cook Reconsiders Rudy
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 10:38AM
While Rudy waits for his turn to speak to the FRC until tomorrow, his campaign is sending around a column (subscription required) by Charlie Cook. The Rudy people highlight the conclusion that " I'm now very much questioning the wisdom of declaring in February that 'I am more likely to win the Tour de France next year than Giuliani is to win the GOP presidential nomination.' I could still be right about that, but there's a more than fair chance I'm wrong. " Even more interesting is Cook's take on the rest of the field. On Thompson he concludes that he "got in too late and too tentatively. He is lackadaisically playing a poor game of catch-up." On Romney: he finds him the "most perplexing" explaining: " That Republican core value of competence should have been Romney's strength. A world-class, proven manager with a keen, analytical mind who promised to make important decisions based on data and listening to the best possible advice, Romney should have been the candidate of competence.Instead, he has projected the image of an ideologue, and a pandering one at that -- parroting the bottom-feeders in the primary field in a way that raises questions about his authenticity. Some observers question whether even he knows who he is anymore." Cook concludes that Romney now appears to be "the pandering pol." It makes one wonder if Romney would have done better to leave one or two issues off the "ok I'll switch" list (e.g. guns, McCain Feingold, marriage, cloning).
Thompson Flier
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 10:27AM
Friends of Fred Thompson is circulating a flier here at the Value Voters Summit (similar in format to one circulated at the NRA) contrasting his abortion record with Giuliani and Romney. The flier is filled with quotes from the candidates, divided into three columns: "Fred Thompson Has A 'Demonstrated Record Of Supporting Human Life'";"Rudy Giuliani Is Vocally Pro-Choice"; and "Mitt Romney Was Proudly Pro-Choice Until 2005."
McCain At His Best
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 10:08AM
John McCain just turned in a tremendous performance here at the Value Voters Summit. This was McCain at his best, the heroic soldier who survived years of captivity through his love of country and faith in God, who fights pork barrel spending, and who is determined to defeat terrorism and protect America without losing touch with our values. The speech had a lyrical quality to it, and avoided easy red meat lines.
His case for the pro-life position was especially strong, and he
did something he needed to do--remind the audience of his long
pro-life record, but not in a tacky way:
I have been pro-life my entire public career. I believe I am
the only major candidate in either party who can make that claim.
I am pro-life because I know what it is like to live without human
rights, where human life is accorded no inherent value, and I know
that I have a personal obligation to advocate human rights wherever
they are denied: in Bosnia or Burma, in Cuba or the Middle East;
and in our own country when we fail to respect the inherent dignity
of all human life, born or unborn. That is a personal testament,
which you need not take on faith. You need only examine my public
record to know that I won't ever change my position.
McCain's Pitch
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 9:52AM
McCain's pitch to the FRC is not that dissimilar from Thompson and is designed to say "at least you know what you get." AP quotes him as saying: "I know you might not always agree with me on every issue, but I hope you know I'm not going to con you." The article continues: "'I have been pro-life my entire public career,' he says, drawing a contrast with Giuliani, who backs abortion rights, and Romney, who now opposes such rights after once supporting them. 'I won't ever change my position to fit the politics of the day.'" Thompson (a very effective interview is here) and McCain are in essence making both a tempermental appeal (we are mature, not cloying, not grasping) and substantive (solidly pro-life). Neither has accomodated themselves to the demands of most social conservative leaders for a consititutional amendment with an outright ban on gay marriage. Although certain leaders may find Thompson and McCain lacking it may resonate with average voters.
UPDATE: RedState liked his speech. And true to his "I'm not going to tell you everything you want to hear" approach he tells them "don't federalize issues not in the constitution" (that's marriage, of course).
Romney Tries To Get Out of Doldrums
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 6:29AM
Ron Paul Poised to Win Value Voters' Straw Poll
Posted by on 10.19.07 @ 12:08AM
Hear me out.
This morning, the Value Voters' Summit kicks off in DC. (Check back here for updates.) In conjunction with the conference, the Family Research Council will conduct a straw poll. A unique feature of this one is that the FRC is opening up voting to anybody over the Internet, provided they give a minimum $1 donation. Given Ron Paul's dominance in online polls, one would have to say he has the early edge -- unless his libertarian supporters are too cheap to pony up a few bucks to vote for their candidate or unwilling to make a donation to the FRC.
Via Evangelicals for Mitt, which is urging its readers to vote for their man.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Another Poll
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 8:19PM
McCain's Second Act
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 7:21PM
Kate O'Beirne makes a strong case for why John McCain should get a second look from conservatives:
A veteran GOP congressional aide who has been a critic of McCain, most recently on the issue of immigration, recently surprised himself by concluding that the Arizona senator would be the best general-election candidate. This strategist seeks a nominee who will unify and energize the base, who has the potential to win, and who makes fellow Republicans competitive. He notes that McCain is pro-life and strong on national security, and has long been in favor of fiscal restraint. In addition to unifying social, economic, and national-security conservatives, he argues, McCain has a maverick image that can appeal to the independent voters who abandoned the GOP in droves in 2006.
I still think that McCain's poisoned relationship with many conservatives and his money woes will ultimately keep him from winning the nomination. Also, were he forced to accept public financing, it would severely undercut his electability argument. But I wouldn't write him off in this environment.
Re: Viguerie Slams Huckabee
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 6:28PM
Viguerie Slams Huckabee
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 4:38PM
Another reason why the conservative mutiny over Giulaini may not amount to much. Richard Viguerie, one of the leaders of the charge for a third party movement, has just issued a missive entitled, "Mike Huckabee: Wishy-Washy Republican:"
An excerpt:
Some voters pining for a principled conservative Republican presidential candidate are pinning their hopes on former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee. But while Gov. Huckabee stands strong on some issues like abortion that are important to social conservatives, a careful examination of his record as governor reveals that he is just another wishy-washy Republican who enthusiastically promotes big government.
The point is that conservatives angry about the prospect of a Giuliani nomination would have more influence if they could say, "Rudy is unnacceptable as a nominee, but we'd support X." Once the entire field is deemed unacceptable by conservative agitators such as Viguerie, it makes it seem as if they are just determined to be cranky toward the GOP no matter what.
Romney vs. Rudy on PowerPoint
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 4:25PM
MyManMitt has gotten a hold of a PowerPoint presentation by the Romney campaign arguing the superiority of his electoral strategy over Rudy Giuliani's. The main thrust of the presentation is that Romney's strategy of winning in the early states is proven while Giuliani's national strategy is not. While an argument can be made to support that theory, I found this slide problematic:
-- A victory in Iowa and/or New Hampshire will provide "kindling" for the nomination--and Governor Romney will "catch fire" nationwide."
-- Previously successful campaigns: Kerry 2004, Clinton 1992.
The Kerry and Clinton analogies are flawed. In 1992, Clinton skipped Iowa and lost New Hampshire, but went on to win the nomination. If anything, his election proves the exact opposite of what the Romney camp is trying to convey. Also, Clinton was running against a field of Democrats who were referred to as "dwarfs." None of them had the national stature or political skills of Giuliani. While John Kerry's nomination was fueled by victories in early states, Giuliani is no Howard Dean. Kerry started the year as the frontrunner, but Dean quickly vaulted from nowhere to the top of the field and was pretty unhinged. Giuliani, on the other hand, has lead in most polls for nearly three years, and though many of his critics warned of a meltdown on the campaign trail, so far Giuliani has kept his cool and run a rather disciplined campaign. (If anything, the Kerry analogy most closely applies to McCain--a flawed early frontrunner with money problems that voters come home to at the last minute.)
In reality, it's impossible to draw comparrisons between this race and past nomination battles. The contracted primary schedule has made this a whole new ballgame. Perhaps the Romney strategy will prove successful, but it's a mistake to say it's "proven."
Pete Sessions
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 3:36PM
I interviewed Rep. Pete Sessions today on Rudy and social issues. If Rudy says to the FRC on Saturday what Sessions says Rudy says to him, it may make a difference to some (but not all) social conservatives. Sessions gave a flat "yes" when I asked if Rudy would, for example, veto a Democratic bill to repeal the Hyde Amendment.
Re: Mitt Grief
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 1:57PM
Team Romney clarifies their candidate's call to get out of the UN Human Rights Council. (As he did at the RJC, Romney in a SC stop said : "''We should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council.'' I pointed out that the U.S. is already off the Council.) Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom explains via email what Romney meant : "The governor believes we ought to withdraw completely from the UN Human Rights Council, and that means ending our financial support in addition to not seeking a seat on the council. We should not legitimize the council, either with financial or diplomatic support."
As for the "parent weekend" Fehrnstrom denies Romney is calling
for a national plan. Fehrstrom writes: "The parenting class was a
proposal by Governor Romney to help parents in our underperforming
school districts on how to support their children in school - for
instance, what TV is good to watch, the importance of developing
good study habits, and so on. The way it was structured was to make
these resources available to parents whose kids are enrolled in
state-subsidized day care in underperforming school districts.
These parents already have to go through a regular counseling
session, and we were going to incorporate this additional
information into those sessions.He did not suggest a national
program. He was talking about what we did at the local level." I
am not sure this defense of such a robust government program is
going to put to rest concerns of small government conservatives.
But in any event, we'll look for the transcript and tape of the
Club for Growth event to see if the press account of Romney's
remarks was accurate and report back.
With Browback Out of the Way
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 1:36PM
The Alan Keyes surge can begin. And tomorrow, the world! (Cue evil laughter.)
What Does It Look Like Close To A Pipe Dream?
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 1:11PM
Joe Trippi, he of the lesser version of "American Pie," gives us a glimpse through the looking glass at the upside down world of EdwardsLand:
Imagine election night 2008. From around the country the results are coming in thick and fast.
By the time the election night dust settles, the Washington pundits are speechless-the Democratic Party has won 280 seats in the House and 61 seats in the Senate, majorities that allow the new Democratic president to implement bold and vigorous change. The day of deadlocked agendas and timid politics is over.
A pipe dream? Far from it.
A Defense of Romney
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 12:52PM
Charles Mitchell offers another one in response to my post about Romney answering a question about his Mormonism before a Jewish audience. Mitchell argues that Romney wouldn't want to be seen as a victim or compare the plight of Mormons to the plight of Jews.
He writes:
And I don't think Romney needed to give a response that likened the Holocaust to attacks on Mormons in the 19th Century to celebrate the ideals of religious tolerance in America, or to point out that just as a Jewish candidate should be judged independently of his religion, so should a Mormon candidate. Really, it's hard to think of many audiences in America that would be more receptive to such a message than a group of Jewish Republicans.
We know Romney has a high IQ, I'm just saying that his EQ seems to be lagging.
"Bush Just Likes to Blow Things Up"
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 12:36PM
More reasoned debate on SCHIP, sans hyperbole or scare tactics, from Representative Pete Stark:
You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.
And if you think Stark is bad, you should've watched CNN's American Morning "news"cast today.
Life, Liberty, Property
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 11:44AM
Resurrection Song introduces us to a Republican who is actually getting it right on the local level in Colorado.
Brownback to Drop Out
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 11:37AM
The AP reports.
At first glance, Huckabee would seem to be the most likely to pick up the support of Brownback's socially conservative supporters in Iowa, though at this point Brownback was only polling in the 2-5 percent range in the state. Given all the bad blood between them, I wouldn't count on a Romney endorsement.
Mitt Grief
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 11:18AM
Team Rudy chimes in on the Romney big government ideas: "I know Mitt Romney was fighting for a nanny state as Governor of Massachusetts, but jeez…hasn't he been trying to convince us he'd changed his mind about all that now that he's running for President?" I'm surprised Team Thompson which has made small government conservatism a theme hasn't pounced too.
Meanwhile a Romney rival points out that Romney's repeated calls
for the U.S. to get off the UN Human Rights Council don't make much
sense since we already have left that august body.
Re: Is Mitt Channeling Hillary?
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 10:41AM
Combined with the "parent weekend" I wrote about and which you researched a bit, Phil, it does seem a curious case of big government, dare I say,"compassionate conservatism", for which I see virtually no constituency. Romney may need to address concerns he does not project a muscular enough foreign policy presence but the last thing he needs is the sense -- for which there is some support in his Massachusetts record -- that he is too enamored of government solutions, especially federal solutions, to problems.
Mitt's Parenting 101
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 10:29AM
I have to say, I was utterly stunned when I read this about Romney's speech to the Club For Growth:
Ironically, this came in the same speech that he likened Hillary Clinton to Karl Marx. I'm not sure whether Romney sees this as a way to reach out to evangelicals, and he accidentally mixed up the speech he was supposed to give to the Value Voters Summit, or what, but the idea of spending taxpayer money on federally-mandated parenting classes is like taking a dagger to small-government conservatives. It would take the idea of a paternalistic government to a whole new level.
I did some initial research, and this looks like the Massachusetts proposal Romney was referring to:
These parents will also receive a guidebook developed by the
Department of Education, the Office for Child Care Services and
other organizations, to help them better understand what they can
do to help their child. The Governor's Budget includes $300,000 to
publish this guide in five languages for the parents of over 60,000
children.
I'd like to find out more details about how his federal plan would work.
Is Mitt Channeling Hillary?
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 10:25AM
You be the judge.
Here was Mitt Romney talking about student aid in Davenport, Iowa yesterday, according to the AP account:
Here was Hillary Clinton talking about student aid in New Hampton, Iowa on Oct. 7, as recorded and transcribed by yours truly:
Iowa
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 8:35AM
He Should Have Asked The Lawyers First
Posted by on 10.18.07 @ 12:14AM
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Hillary '08! Jeb '16! Chelsea '24! George P. '32!
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 10:36PM
In all seriousness, I do wonder how many voters are starting to feel that 20 years of Bushes and Clintons has been enough. A day after Mrs. Tsongas's victory, we hardly need reminding that a famous political name is generally an asset to a candidate. But is there an inflection point where voters who gravitate toward familiar names begin to be outnumbered by voters who are sick of seeing the same families running the country indefinitely?
Re: Is Romney the Ivan Drago Candidate
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 9:35PM
I make essentially the same argument here but I think part of the issue is that the commander in chief cloak fits him poorly. Running against two tough guys, one of whom makes ads out of his POW films, makes the job harder. That said, I do suggest some steps that would help, including narrowing to a few (one?) basic themes, engaging people at an emotional level (for example, sound like you care when the military dad in the NH debate asks for an apology or when the lady in the NH diner tells you about her horrible family health problems) and connecting his business experience to the argument that he has been a leader under pressure. Even his second favorite blogger Dean Barnett is worried. I think the next couple of weeks including the debate on Sunday will be very telling.
You Don't Like Me. You Really Really Don't Like Me
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 9:03PM
We can go hang out in front of the American Spectator building, flick cigarette butts at the neocons there and ask them when they're going to get up off their dead asses, quit spectating and finally do something right for a change.
The Randi Rhodes messageboarders revel in my bit from today.
Is Romney the Ivan Drago Candidate?
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 8:38PM
Yesterday, I commented that I found it odd that Mitt Romney, asked about his Mormonism before a Jewish audience, focused his answer on his good relationship with evangelical leaders. Charles Mitchell of Evangelicals for Mitt disagrees, and I thought I should clarify my point.
The reason I found Romney's answer odd was that I thought it was a missed opportunity for him to connect with a Jewish audience by emphasizing a kinship he may have with them as a member of another minority religion. Though I've been critical of Romney's candidacy, I have defended him against attacks aimed at his religion. I think part of this may be attributed to the fact that as a Jew, I'm sensitive to religious bigotry. Yesterday, he gave a standard answer on Mormonism and evangelicals supporting his campaign rather than tailor his response to a Jewish audience that would have been very sympathetic to a message of a shared commitment to religious tolerance.
The larger point here is that Romney has often displayed a certain tone-deafness, or emotional obtuseness, due to the scripted nature of his campaign. I recall the
This may be one reason why Romney's unfavorable ratings remain so high nationally. For all his talents and marketing savvy, he doesn't seem to be connecting to people on an emotional level.
He comes accross as Ivan Drago, but the audience will always root for Rocky.
Re: Romney At Club for Growth
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 8:07PM
Romney did not attend Club for Growth in person but (as he did before the NRA) made an appearance via video. His campaign released excerpts. He of course mentioned the line item veto, saying "I should also note that perhaps the best way to get our spending down was to be able to use the line-item veto. I used that 844 times as Governor of Massachusetts. I'm glad I had it." He spoke in favor of the Bush tax cuts, abolishing the death tax and reducing in the corporate tax, remarking that: "it's never popular to talk about lowering corporate taxes. But when corporations have more money, they're able to invest in the future. And when corporations look at
CORRECTION: Romney did field questions as reported here. Unfortunately he apparently praised No Child Left Behind and spoke in favor of a national weekend training program for parents of children in schools that rank in the bottom 10%. Now for a guy trying to live down government intervention in healthcare in Massachusetts I think this is one bad idea. And a NATIONAL plan? I suppose Republicans have learned little in the last 6 years if they go for that.
Re: Thompson at Club for Growth
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 6:52PM
Re: Thompson at Club for Growth
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 5:52PM
I was at the Fred Thompson speech and am just getting caught up now. Speaking to a friendly audience, Thompson reiterated our need to return to the traditions of our founders and support the rule of law, free trade, low taxes, and strict constructionist judges.
He talked about keeping capital gains taxes low, pointing out that the capital gains tax cuts were worth 800 points to the Dow, and asked, what would happened if we hiked the rates back up?
He got a hearty laugh when he joked about the odd incentives caused by the estate tax expiring in 2010 and going back into affect in 2011. If you're elderly, "be careful, you might not want to spend New Year's with the kids."
He also spoke about the "unsustainable" entitlement mess. "You'd think this would be the biggest thing we'd be talking about other than national security," he commented. "So we've got to, we've got to talk about it."
A solution would have to come through a bipartisan basis.
"You can come up with 15-point plans all day long…and that's important, that's part of the dialogue," Thomson said. "But the underlying principles are even more important."
One idea he presented was indexing Social Security benefits to inflation rather than wages.
In the question and answer session, he was asked about some of the areas in which he differed with the CFG.
On campaign finance reform, he said, "It was a valid concept, but we went too far." While the
On tort reform, Thompson prompted the audience to "remember our principles of federalism." He only thinks the federal government should be involved on matters of interstate commerce, but said we shouldn't be "allowing states to abdicate their responsibilities" by passing reform at the federal level.
Ron Paul Radio
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 5:40PM
Last weekend, Ron Paul started running radio ads in New Hampshire. The script hits familiar themes -- it talks about his service in the Air Force, the number of babies he delivered as an OB-GYN (which also may subtly remind some voters that Paul is pro-life), the facts that he refused his congressional pension and has never voted for a tax increase or unbalanced budget. All areas of common ground between Paul and most other Republicans, emphasizing his purity from a conservative perspective.
What the ad rather conspicuously doesn't mention in Paul's opposition to the Iraq war (though it does suggest people visit his campaign website, which makes his antiwar views fairly clear). The only position it emphasizes that would be controversial among conservatives is that he's never voted to increase executive power (though certainly that position can be said to have a conservative pedigree). We'll see whether this will help Paul broaden his base or whether is plays down the very attribute that makes the Texas congressman different from the rest of the GOP field.
Geraghty Calls My Bluff
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 4:54PM
Over at NRO's The Campaign Spot, the perspicacious Jim Geraghty challenges my column today to the effect that I said Hillary Clinton's Democratic opponents might benefit from making an issue of her massive record of corruption.
He writes: "... on every scandal, most grassroots Democrats came to her defense, and insisted she was the blameless victim of a partisan witch hunt. When health care reform went down in flames, they had to overlook her faults. Chinese fundraising? Renting out the Lincoln Bedroom? Time and again, they looked at emerging facts - or perhaps the proper metaphor is closed their eyes - and declared, 'it is not her fault, she has done nothing wrong.'"
He then says that it would hurt, not harm, the other candidates' political chances to attack Hillary because "Democrats aren't just supportive of Hillary Clinton's rise to the presidency: they're emotionally and intellectually invested in it."
Read his whole post. It's a good one. I actually think that every point he makes about the Dem voter psychology is right on target. If Obama, for instance, goes after Hillary, the odds are that he would be digging his own grave.
But -- and here is the "aha" moment -- he's getting crushed by the Clinton juggernaut anyway. The only chance he or anybody else has of beating her is to roll the dice. In this case, the winning dice roll would cause the big media to not just repeat but make a cause (again) of the Clintonite corruption, so much so that even though most Democratic voters would want, psychologically, to rally to her side, they would be brought up short by the impression that Hillary would be so much of pinata that they risk losing the White House yet again. Changing metaphors, making the ploy work would be the equivalent of a quadruple bank shot in pool, along with a sidespin bump at just the right time.
But if you are Joe Biden, for instance, what is there to lose? Especially since the charges he could make against her have the virtue of being true.
So I agree with everything Jim wrote. But if I were advising one of Hillary's opponents, I'd tell them to start attacking her anyway. Then again, that might just be me looking for a good public spectacle to watch.
Thompson At Club for Growth
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 3:12PM
Katie Levinson from Team Rudy shot back: "In the real New York City - not the one on TV - Rudy Giuliani cut taxes 23 times. But, why let the facts get in the way of a good script?" No word from the Romney folks yet but it's still early.
Is Iowa Tightening?
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 2:03PM
Team Huckabee wants to make sure we focus on the latest Rasmussen poll from Iowa showing Romney at 25%, Thompson at 19%, Huckabee at 18% and Rudy at 13%. This shows a smaller lead for Romney than others including the recent Des Moines Register poll showing him with a 9 pt lead. So is this a bit out of the norm or is something changing there? Well, Romney is spending couple of days there this week which tells you things may be getting tighter than he would have liked. The benefit of the large investment of time and money for Romney was that it built a big lead in Iowa; the downside is that when the numbers float down and others gear up it looks like he is losing steam. Suffice it to say it would be very bad, maybe campaign ending news if Romney somehow were to lose Iowa( I think this is very unlikely given a caucus is about organization and Romney outstrips everyone) but if Huckabee beats out Thompson does that shift the race almost as much? And of course, Rudy would be a lot happier to get a third rather than a fourth. But with everyone in a tizzy about primary and caucus dates it's hard to gauge just how important Iowa will be.
UPDATE: Jonathan Martin has this informative account of Romney in Iowa. He of course wants to defend Iowa's first place status ( his comment that Iowa is special because you have to meet people not just buy ads is a bit nervy since he's spent at least $2M in ads there) given that it is still his best state. What is interesting is that he promises to be spending time in Iowa, NH, SC, and Michigan. But where is Florida?
Did Thompson Oppose The Internet Tax Moratorium?
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 1:22PM
Giuliani on Social Security, McCain-Feingold
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 12:05PM
Speaking before the Club for Growth conference today, Rudy Giuliani emphasized many of the themes of his economic agenda: lower taxes, spending restraint, less regulation, and legal reform. As he has done in the past, he has said that unlike other politiciians who talk about fiscal conservative principles, he actually has a record to back it up.
Much of the interesting discussion came in the question and answer session.
On the heels of his recent back and forth with the Giuliani campaign over payroll tax rates, CFG President Pat Toomey asked Giuliani himself to clarify his position.
Giuliani left no doubt about where he stood on raising payroll tax rates as part of an effort to reform Social Security. "I would rule out a tax increase for that purpose or for any other purpose," he said. Giuliani noted that the reason why he supports a bipartisan commission on Social Security reform is that any proposal by Republicans would be "like putting out your chin for Demcrats to sucker punch you" by saying you want to deny benefits to senior citizens. But he said in addition to ruling out tax increases, he would insist on at least the beginnings of private accounts.
Toomey also asked Giuliani about his past support for McCain-Feingold. "It is one of many occasions in which I can point out to you that I'm not perfect, that I've made mistakes," Giuliani acknowledged. "And that has turned out to be a big mistake." He spoke about the restrictions it has placed on free speech as well as the problems with 527s and said he now realizes that the best system would be one in which you ditched the focus on spending limits in favor of more transparency.
Rudy to SoCons: Let's Respect Each Other
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 11:16AM
In his press conference, Giuliani also gave a preview of his speech to the Family Research Council's Value Voters' Summit on Saturday.
"We look at the world in a much more similar way than people think," he anticipated saying to that audience, echoing a theme he has emphasized throughout the campaign. While there are differences, he said, "I ask you to look at the whole candidate, the whole picture."
Recognizing that some social conservatives will have to draw a line in the sand and not support him, he said, "I never ask people to give up their principles. I ask people, 'Is there enough we agree on?'"
He added, "If somebody disagrees with me very strongly on a matter of principle, and they believe it should be a single-issue situation, I respect that. I'm not going to get every vote."
Asked about reaching out to Southern evangelicals, Giuliani gave an indication of how he may draw a contrast with Romney.
"You don't twist yourself up into a pretzel and change your positions," he said, without mentioning his opponent's name.
Eavangelicals, he said, were "the last people you want to do that with."
"They are people who have great regard for a number of issues, but they also have great regard for integrity," he said, and posited, "Maybe one of the reasons I'm doing so well in front of that group of voters is that I go to them and I'm honest with them."
Ultimately, though,"What I really want is a relationship in which we respect each other, even if we disagree.� I respect very very much their participation in the process. I respect very much their position and the integrity of it. And I hope they respect the integrity of mine."
Mass. Hysteria
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 11:06AM
There has been a fair amount of chatter about Massachusetts' Tsongas-Ogonowski congressional race, especially on the left side of the blogosphere. I haven't seen detailed exit poll data yet, but if the trends in the last public polling held, even in defeat Republican Jim Ogonowski carried independents and voters under 35. This was a decent showing by a good candidate, who Republicans would be wise to keep an eye on in the future.
But let's not get carried away. Former Congressman Marty Meehan, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and the inept Massachusetts Republican Party have made the Fifth District appear more solidly Democratic than it really is. Ronald Reagan carried the Fifth twice; George H.W. Bush beat native son Michael Dukakis there in 1988. Even George W. Bush, who is very unpopular in the Bay State, managed to break 40 percent there against John Kerry in 2004. In gubernatorial elections, Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, and Mitt Romney all won the district. Deval Patrick took just 51 percent there even though he won by 20 points statewide. The district was represented by Republicans in Congress until Paul Tsongas was elected in 1974. One of the district's Democratic strongholds, the city of Lawrence, has a Republican mayor. The other, Lowell, has also elected Republicans in the past.
A good Republican candidate can be expected to get 40 percent of the vote in the Fifth. The state party simply hasn't seriously contested it in years. With an open seat and a weak Democratic candidate thrown in, it is only the relative weakness of the GOP brand that kept them from sending Mr. Ogonowski to Washington. Democrat and Republican bloggers shouldn't be so quick to ascribe his showing to the power of "change."
The Inauthenticity Race
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 10:56AM
Paul Sands updates the "phony" numbers again.
Endorsement Derby
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 10:51AM
Perry is a nice catch but Romney is busy too, collecting a number of Christian conservatives and Florida Congressman Connie Mack (son of the former and very popular Senator). These endorsements do matter at some level --transmitting to Christian conservatives in Romney's case, and southern conservatives more generically, in Rudy's case, that "the guy is ok." It gets a media moment and a helpful surrogate. What do we hear from Fred Thompson? He tells us... are you sitting down... that he raised more money in Texas[ Tennessee too?] than any other candidate. (Well, it's hard when you don't have many appearances or endorsements to make news so you work with what you've got.) But Thompson also sends around a nice piece on "don't tax the internet" on Club for Growth conference day.
Perry Compares Rudy to a Pickup Truck
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 10:44AM
Texas Gov. Perry announced his support for Giuliani at a press conference in Washington this morning, before they took the stage the Club for Growth conference.
Perry emphasized that he supported Giuliani because he was a proven leader who got results in New York City on crime, taxes, and spending restraint, and would be the best candidate to fight terrorism and handle crises. In a jab at his former fellow Gov. Mitt Romney, Perry said Giuliani would "act against threats, without dialing up a lawyer first."
Asked how he reconciled his support for Giuliani with their disagreements on social issues, Perry said, "When I go to buy a pickup truck and it's got one option on it that I'm not particularly fond of...I don't discard that pickup truck. I'm looking for results."
He also said he was reassured by Giuliani's comittment to appointing strict constructionist judges. He said he "looked him in the eyes" and has "taken the measure of the man."
Meanwhile Erik at RedState notes Perry's controversial executive order requiring all school age girls to get the HPV vaccine, and warns Rudy against touting the endorsement to evangelicals.
Do They Read Their Own Stories?
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 7:39AM
The USA Today poll shows that the public by a 52-40% margin favor limiting SCHIP to families at 200% of the poverty line, just as Bush wants to do. But remarkably, the USA story itself then includes this line: "Taken together, the results show that while Bush may be losing the political battle with Democrats, he may be doing better on policy." Well, no actually. It says he is winning the battle of public opinion, sometimes referred to as "politics." And I don't recall any announcement that the Democrats found votes to override the veto. In fact, the article goes on to say: "Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have said they're willing to talk if Thursday's veto override fails, as both sides expect." Well, "losing" I guess means making the op-ed page editors really mad. ( And of course the story headline that the poll results are "mixed" is utterly misleading. A 12 pt. margin is mixed?)
Mukasey Up At Bat
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 7:00AM
Judge Mukasey's confirmation hearing for Attorney General gets underway today at 10:00 a.m. The arrogance of special interest groups and the notion that somehow THEY determine the proper bounds of questions and who deserves confirmation is on display in this account. ("The nominee is not allowed to leave the [Judiciary] committee without making clear commitments," said Chris Anders, the ACLU's senior legislative counsel. "We are looking for yes-or-no answers.") On a brighter note, it appears that even Sen. Leahy couldn't find anything wrong with the Judge and is prepared to confirm him promptly.
Does It Matter?
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 6:12AM
My and other accounts describe the candidates' performances at the RJC. George Bush got 25% of the Jewish vote in 2004. At least with this group of voters(and based on yesterday's reception) Rudy would seem to have the greatest chance to improve upon that. I asked Larry Sabato if it mattered and what would happen if Rudy in a general election got up to 35 or 40% of the Jewish vote. He said: "It could be very important as long as the election is truly competitive. The Democrats are on the move in Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and maybe some other states. The GOP nominee has got to win some Blue states to balance out the Red or Purple states that go Democratic. Rudy's pull among Jewish voters could make New Jersey and Pennsylvania more competitive. NY and California and Illinois are probably out of reach even for Rudy and his Jewish voter contingent. Votes taken from the other party's column are worth twice as much as votes simply added to your party's column. Most Jewish votes for the GOP are double valued in this way."
Tsorry Republicans
Posted by on 10.17.07 @ 1:39AM
Niki Tsongas defeated Jim Ogonowski, as I suspected. But it was close: she won 51 percent to Ogonowski's 45 percent. It's an entirely respectable showing, even with the caveat that a good Republican candidate ought to be able to break 40 percent in the Fifth District, especially with an open seat.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Texas Gov. Perry to Endorse Rudy
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 11:08PM
Marc Ambinder reports that Texas Gov. Rick Perry, President Bush's successor, will endorse Rudy Giuliani in the morning. Having a southern social conservative onboard is obviously a boost, especially if it kind of breaks the taboo and makes other social conservatives come out for him. Perry also received a B in Cato's 2006 fiscal policy report card, the second highest score handed out.
Perry was a guest at The American Spectator's Newsmaker Breakfast last November, and discussed immigration.
Re: Contemplating the Meaning of Rudy
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 9:14PM
ABC News does the Best of Rudy reel.
Re: More Romney at the RJC
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 7:00PM
Fred at RJC
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 6:33PM
Fred Thompson gave a trademark low-key performance, with a sweeping view of what America should stand for, rooted in our founders. He unabashedly repeated his line about Americans shedding more blood for liberty throughout the world than all other nations combined. What separates us is a commitment to rule of law, free trade, and smaller government with lower taxes and less regulation.
Thompson spoke of "major challenges to our security and prosperity," rattling of a list of challenges including mandatory spending. Recounting the Democratic vision of government, he said, "this liberal philosophy must be rejected at all cost."
In a remark that seemed to be channeling his recent target, Rudy Giuliani, Thompson said that, "We have yet to come to terms with the fact that Islamic terrorism is at war with us."
He said that this conflict can be traced back a long time and that it "will be with us well after Iraq is in the rear view mirror."
Thompson emphasized his support for Israel and their "mutual security interests."
On Iran, he said, "We must make it clear that we will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon."
In the question and answer session, he was asked whether he would consider pardoning Jonathan Pollard, and to his credit, Thompson didn't pander to the questioner. He said he'd have no reason to consider it, unless some new information came to light. "He was convicted of spying against my country," Thompson noted.
He handled a question about federalism well, arguing that when the government is considering action, you must ask two questions: 1) Is this a proper job for government? And 2) If so, is it the proper level of government?
One woman asked for him to compare and contrast himself with his Law and Order character, Arthur Branch. Thompson said when Branch is "humble, lovable and cuddly, he's like me," but when he's "mean, surly, and short-tempered, he's not like me."
In response to what would be needed to beat Hillary Clinton, Thompson reopened his thinly-veiled attack on Giuliani, saying that Republicans don't need to turn into Democrats to win, but to adhere to strong conservative principles.
He also warned Republicans against worrying too much about
Hillary. "We need to focus on ourselves," he said, meaning that
conservative ideas will attract voters.
More Romney at RJC
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 6:10PM
On a more serious note, the RJC was generally receptive to Romney's message on Iran,� the global jihadist movement, and his strong support for Israel.
While Giuliani had talked about his ejection of Arafat from Lincoln Center and rejection of the $10 million Saudi check after 9/11, Romney highlighted his denial of security to Mohammed Khatami as governor and his recent letter to the UN opposing the invitation to let Ahmadinejad speak.
"Jihadists want to conquer the world," Romney warned, and discussed the importance of supporting the surge in Iraq to deny a safe haven to Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.
"Many in the Democratic Party are in the most serious, delusional, and politically-driven denial since Neville Chamberlain," Romney said.
On Iran, he ditched any of the lawyer talk from the recent debate, restating his support for sanctions, divestment by public pensions, and, if necessary, military action.
"It's time for Democrats to break their silence and answer this question: Will you act to stop a nuclear Iran?" he posited. "Let me assure you of one thing: I will."
He went on to say that Iran needs to know that, "Not only is the military option on the table, it is in our hand."
During the question and answer session, somebody asked why Mormonism scares so many people. Romney responded by pointing to his support among evangelicals, particularly how James Dobson has had ruled out Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain. "Well, that sort of left one guy left standing," Romney observed light-heartedly, raising both of his hands. He also said that although polls show a certain number of Republicans say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, there were also many who wouldn't vote for somebody over 70 or somebody who has been married multiple times, but one of them has to win. I found it odd that he would focus so much on the evangelical angle before a Jewish audience that is sympathetic to other minority religions and opposed to the idea of religious tests for office.
Re: Contemplating the Meaning of Rudy
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 6:07PM
After today Jim, I could not agree more. Sometimes we get obsessed with theories of why someone is winning and what issues matter. But if you see the candidates on display as they were at the RJC -whether in person or via the web - what struck you most was the performance gap in presentation between the candidates. Yes, it was a very pro-Rudy crowd but he made the most of it and his political skills are sometimes not fully appreciated. He is good in a big room and in debates and that matters. It's not everything but it counts. A very talented politician usually, but not always, beats less talented ones.
Henny Youngman Gets No Respect From Romney
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 5:20PM
Speaking before the Republican Jewish Coalition today, Mitt Romney joked, "Remember that old Rodney Dangerfield line, 'Take Jimmy Carter, please.'"
Romney corrected himself after an audience member informed him that the phrase was associated with the legendary King of the One-Liners, Henny Youngman.
I guess he missed the briefing on Jewish comedians.
Contemplating the Meaning of Rudy
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 5:14PM
I mostly agree with Ramesh Ponnuru's points here -- Giuliani's nomination might make the Republican Party less pro-life, but he won't win because it has already become less pro-life. If he is nominated, it will be because of his strengths as a candidate and a divided field. But I do think it also shows the extent to which social conservatives have suffered as national organizations like the Christian Coalition have declined and the ones that have replaced them have been much less effective.
Re: Gallup Poll
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 1:44PM
A few more notes on the poll Jennifer mentioned earlier.
--Ron Paul is experiencing a surge, with his support more than doubling in this poll to 5 percent, almost as high as Huckabee's 6 percent.
--I don't think you can attribute Romney's problems in national polls just to inferior name recognition. Not only are Romney's unfavorable ratings up, but he is the only one of the major seven candidates in both parties with a net negative favorable/unfavorable rating (he's at -8%). Also, not only are Republicans the least enthusaistic about Romney's candidacy, but 22 percent of Republicans polled said they would either vote for the Democrat or stay home if he were the nominee. For all the talk of Republicans bolting the party in the event of a Giuliani nomination, his combined number was at 15 percent. (In perhaps another slap at conventional wisdom, McCain was also at 15 percent and Thompson was at 16 percent).
--Though the poll has Giuliani up 14 points in the nomination battle, one bad sign for him is that his favorability rating has dipped to 49 percent, the first sub-50 percent showing this year, and an indication of his transition from a 9/11 hero to a Republican presidential candidate. In January, he was at 62 percent. His net favorabilty rating is still +10%, which is better than any Republican.
--In bad news for all Republicans--and this reinforces what we see from the fundraising numbers--Democratic voters are much more enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. Only 10 percent would defect or stay at home, while 64 percent would vote enthusiastically.
McCain Digs Rudy on Iraq
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 1:18PM
John McCain, following Rudy Giuliani at the Republican Jewish Coalition conference, opened by joking that he felt like Zsa Zsa Gabor's fifth husband. He ditched the lectern for a casual stump-style speech, roving around the podium, microphone in hand, and was also warmly received by the crowd.
McCain spent much of his time talking about Iraq, emphasizing that he was a lonely voice calling for more troops several years ago. This was part of larger point he made about his superior national security credentials due to his own military service and his work in the Senate.
"I am prepared to serve this nation, " he said.
Then, in an apparent reference to Giuliani not having visited Iraq, McCain said, "You have people running for president who have never been there."
Asked in the question and answer session whether a president needs to have military experience to be a good commander in chief, he said no, pointing to Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. But he added that it would still be beneficial because, "It helps to know what the young men and women are going through."
Rudy Mocks Obama, Clinton, and Romney
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 12:59PM
Rudy Giuliani spoke this morning to the Republican Jewish Coalition conference, an audience that is about as close to a home crowd as he could get. As mayor of New York City, Giuliani had close ties to the Jewish community, especially Jewish Republicans, who still remember when he ejected Arafat from a UN concert at Lincoln Center and returned a $10 million check from the Saudi prince who implied U.S. support for Israel was partially responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Giuliani had the crowd eating out of his hands with flashes of humor, tough talk on Iran, and a hard line against futile diplomacy with Palestinians who seek to destroy Israel.
"We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons," Giuliani said. "If I'm President of the United States, I guarantee you, we will never find out what they will do if they get nuclear weapons." That lead to one of several standing ovations.
He mocked Barack Obama for saying he would negotiate with leaders of hostile regimes with no preconditions, and said when Hillary Clinton initially condemned Obama's comments, it was "the first time I agreed with her since she announced she was a Yankees fan."
He pointed out that Clinton has already reversed herself, and joked, "That was one of the longest positions she's held."
Then, he recounted his decision to eject Arafat from Lincoln Center as a way to draw contrast and poke fun at his rivals in both parties.
"I didn't hesitate like Hillary Clinton hesitates when asked questions about what she would do about Iran," Giuliani said about the incident. "I didn't seek to negotiate like Barack Obama."
Then, in a clear dig on Mitt Romney, Giuliani joked, "I didn't call for a team of lawyers…to tell me 'well, on the one hand you can throw him out, on the other hand you can't.'"
He continued to exploit the moment for maximum value.
"'Maybe you could partially throw him out,'" he chided. "'Maybe you could have him sit, like, further up.'"
Then he got to the moral of the story.
"I just made a decision," Giuliani said. "See, I lead. That's what a leader is about."
Romney will get a chance to address the audience this afternoon.
UPDATE: Also worth noting is that during his speech, a cell phone rang, and Giuliani said, "I'm not going to anwer that!" He joked that he just found the vibrate setting to his phone.
Nearing the Finish Line
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 11:56AM
In today's Massachusetts congressional race between Democrat Niki Tsongas and Republican Jim Ogonowski, the latest SurveyUSA poll has Tsongas ahead with 51 percent and Ogonowski at 42 percent. An early October internal Republican poll reportedly has Tsongas at just 44 percent and Ogonowski at 39 percent.
McCain's Money Problems
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 11:18AM
John McCain has made great strides since his campaign was written off a few months back. He has been a presence in the debates, he continues to outpoll Mitt Romney nationally, and he has kept himself in the mix. But there's one reason I've never taken the McCain comeback theories as far as others: money.
Marc Ambinder has parsed the FEC data. The McCain campaign effectively has no money, owing rent, a past due American Express bill, and other debts totaling $94,000, even after you factor in the $1.8 million they raised toward the general election. And contrary to initial reports, it appears that Ron Paul actually did outraise McCain for the primary in Q3.
Worse, if the campaign accepts public funding they might hit the spending caps: they've already spent $288,000 toward Iowa's limit, $234,000 toward New Hampshire's, and $230,000 toward South Carolina's. That means McCain could only spend $584,000 in the must-win state of New Hampshire.
McCain could have a suprise is in store for us, but these numbers place serious constraints on his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
Re: Polls and Places
Posted by on 10.16.07 @ 5:18AM
The newest Gallup/USA Today poll is out with Rudy increasing his lead to 14 pts., with Thompson down a couple points from the last poll to 18%. Romney's "unfavorables" rose 8 pts. from last time to 34% (26% favorable). McCain is at 14% and Romney at 10%. Interestingly, the poll asks if each of the top contenders were the nominee whether GOP voters would be "enthusiastic". The "yes" percentage for each: Rudy 51%, McCain 38%, Thompson 37% and Romney 25%.
Monday, October 15, 2007
When It Rains It Pours
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 7:58PM
Others have noted the rough patch for Romney --"in the ditch" Richelieu posits. It is easy to string two bad debates, a couple gaffes and a few less than stellar polls and wind up in trouble in this race. The test of a candidate is whether he can pull it together when things begin to go off the rails. He has assets, not just the bank account, which others don't such as business skill, a presidential "look" and a very fine political organization. But is he great on his feet and believable as a commander in chief? If anyone needed an "I paid for this microphone" moment it is he.
Re: Mugged by Reality
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 7:32PM
Phil, I'll do you one better: From my hotel window diagonally across from the corner of Central Park South and Central Park West at Columbus Circle during the Dinkins years (a term avoided by tinted-glasses wear Mr. Yglesias), I remember watching drug-dealers making transactions in broad streetlight, with nary a cop ever in sight. As for Third Avenue, I walked it at night a few times in the East 60s in those years -- and it was as empty as Northern Virginia became after hours when the sniper killers were on the loose several years ago. I presumed then that fear of muggers was keeping everyone safe indoors. Empty streets are frightened streets.
Re: Fred Takes Aim At Rudy
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 7:28PM
Why not go after Rudy on something that makes sense like abortion? Well here are some possibilities. First, maybe he really wouldn't mind being VP-- a great supporting role for a supporting actor. Second, he may figure it is better to let Romney and McCain or third party groups do the nasty work while he rides above the fray on abortion and gay marriage (where he has his own issues with social conservatives). Third, Thompson has not exactly been aggressive on the stump or in debates and maybe this is just him --nice guy, steady conservative but no instinct for the jugular. Fourth, I think the name of the game right now with Thompson and McCain is to inflict permanent damage on Romney and become the conservative alternative to Rudy around which the base can rally. If you compare the language used against Romney -- nearly dripping with contempt -- and that focused on Rudy I think there is no doubt who the first target is. But then, maybe Thompson just forgot his lines and with script in hand at the Voters Value Forum will ream Rudy.
Fred Takes Aim at Rudy
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 6:44PM
Ahead of his speech tonight before the Conservative Party of New York, Fred Thompson spoke with Fox's Neil Cavuto and went after Giuliani for not being a conservative. "I don't think the mayor has ever claimed to be a conservative," Thompson said, and argued that Republicans won't be able to win by acting like Democrats.
While that might be the start of a promising line of attack for Thompson, oddly, Thompson avoided any mention of Giuliani's greatest vulnerability: social issues. Thompson said he was a "consistent conservative" because he supported "tax cuts, welfare reform, and conservative judges." But Giuliani has a strong record on the first two of those issues, and has pledged to appoint strict constructionists. Thompson could have mentioned abortion, but didn't.
Thompson also complimented Giuliani for his handling of crime and the aftermath of 9/11, then said, "But we're talking about the future security and future prosperity of our country. What's going to bring about prosperity? And what about the unity of the American people?" Again, Giuliani's record and current campaign is perfectly consistent with a security and prosperity definition of conservatism.
Why is Thompson holding back on going after Giuliani on the abortion issue, especially at a time when some social conservtives are making noise about a third party?
In other news, Thompson said he would support any of the other Republican candidates if he weren't the nominee, but that he wouldn't want to run as a VP.
UPDATE: Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella passes on the following response: "Fred Thompson can talk about labels all he wants, but labels are meaningless without results. Mayor Giuliani has done more than just talk like a Conservative, he's governed like one and has the record to prove it."Look For that Party Label
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 6:13PM
Jay Cost has a strange post up at RealClearPolitics attempting to argue that the lack of party discipline is a serious problem. His main example? Ron Paul, the subject of my column today.
Cost frets that the "Republican Party has so little control over its members that the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president can run and win as a Republican just four (sic) years later." But Paul is able to run and win as a Republican because Republican primary voters choose to nominate him as their candidate, and he then goes to Congress and joins the Republican caucus. When Paul returned to the House in 1996, he defeated a congressman -- backed by the party establishment -- who had been a Democrat two years before. Paul has served ten terms in Congress as a Republican, and although he bolts the party more than anyone else, he still votes with the GOP 75 percent of the time.
It's also worth noting that Paul was far less controversial on the right and in the GOP in the 1990s than he has become since the Iraq war. On domestic policy, Paul is a tax-cutter, budget-cutter, pro-lifer, and Second Amendment supporter, all important parts of the Republican brand. On foreign policy, most Republicans were then opposed to the Kosovo war and other Clinton military interventions, showing that the party brand can change over time too.
Finally, it is not even clear that the party leadership's lack of power over the rank and file is really that big of a problem. Let's look at some Republicans who are far less controversial than Paul: Jeff Flake, Jim DeMint, and John Sununu. The have all watched their National Journal rankings drop for opposing things like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Would we, or the Republican brand, really be that much better off if Flake and DeMint had to do whatever the party leadership said?
Polls and Places
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 5:42PM
More Rudy and Religious Conservatives
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 4:20PM
Robert Novak's column today looks at the complicated relationship between Rudy Giuliani and religious conservatives. As I noted in my own piece on the subject last week, polls show Giuliani is actually leading among voters who attend church regularly despite his social liberalism. Novak suggests that maybe Dobson and company are out of touch.
Two quick points. The first is that there are in fact legitimate questions about how representative leaders of the religious right are of conservative Christian voters as a group. Without even getting into tradtionalist Catholics and other members of conservative religious communities, evangelicals have gotten bigger and more diverse. The politically active among them are fairly well integrated into the Republican Party. They aren't going to be easy for some half-hearted third-party effort to dislodge.
Second, I'd be careful about jumping to too fast a conclusion in the other direction. The Gallup poll shows Giuliani with a small 27 percent plurality, just three points ahead of the lesser known Fred Thompson. All of the other candidates have their own problems and many of them, including Thompson, have also been criticized by the Dobsonites. This is a far cry from the unified religious conservative support George W. Bush enjoyed. There is as of yet no evidence that Giuliani is unacceptable to a majority of religious conservatives, but neither is there any that he is their runaway favorite.
If you haven't had enough of my commentary on this topic, tune into the Lynne Breidenbach Show after 6:15 this evening.
Care to Repeat That?
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 3:23PM
Oh Lord, Drew Cline catches the New York Times editorial board trying to have to both ways. Embarrassing!
Ladies First
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 3:04PM
On Friday, I wrote about how Hillary Clinton is making the prospect of becoming the first woman president a central part of her campaign. Today, Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn sent out a memo reinforcing the point. According to Penn, about 65 percent of those who come to Clinton's rallies are women and they comprise 58 percent of the Democratic electorate. But Penn speculates that her gender will help her beyond the Democratic primary:
So perhaps the most important impact of women's support for Hillary will be felt if she is the party's nominee. In our own polling, 94% of young women tell us that they are more likely to turn out and vote if the first woman nominee appears on the ballot. Often, we have seen increased turnout for members of certain groups that make up a small part of the electorate. Women are 54% of the electorate and even a 10% increase in turnout among women on top of the current polls would give Hillary a significant edge in a general election, opening up a wide number of states.
Today, Clinton appears on "the View" and speaks at the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee's Annual Fall Campaign Luncheon and on Wednesday "nearly 1,000 women contributors from 47 states around the country will convene for a women's summit in support of the Clinton campaign - a full-day event that will raise well over $1 million."
Clinton and McCain
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 2:51PM
Their respective Foreign Affairs' pieces are now up, here and here. More to come.
Authentically Inauthentic
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 2:28PM
Over at Alarming News, Karol looks at the capitalist undertones of Radiohead's recent anti-capitalist promotional stunt--and laughs at anyone who bought into the ploy by the world's most beloved crybaby rock artists.
The NYT's Token Conservative of Doubt
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 1:58PM
Somehow I think David Brooks's blurb for the paperback edition of Andrew Sullivan's book tells us more about David Brooks than the book.
Mugged By Reality
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 12:56PM
The New York Times has an article today poking fun at Rudy Giuliani for painting an overly grim portrait of New York City before he became mayor, and notes that Giuliani talks of a time when "a New Yorker couldn't walk up Third Avenue without being on the lookout for muggers." Matthew Yglesias chimes in that, "I've been known to remark on how formerly no-good spots like Avenue B have become hip, but I can't ever remember a time when 3rd Avenue was particularly dangerous."
My personal experience in pre-Rudy NYC was different. I was the victim of two muggings during the Dinkins administration, and the first one occurred in broad daylight on Lexington Ave. (one block west of 3rd Ave.). As a matter of fact, I did walk up 3rd Ave. on the lookout for muggers following that incident.
For what it's worth, I was never the victim of a crime during the Giuliani years.
Massachusetts Special Election
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 12:47PM
Tomorrow is the special election in Massachusetts' Fifth Congressional District, pitting Democrat Niki Tsgonas against Republican Jim Ogonowski. (I've written about the race here.) Early polls showed the Tsongas-Ogonowski contest closer than expected. If Ogonowski pulls an upset or comes close, it will help create a narrative of Republican recovery. If Tsongas wins handily, it will feed into the mantra of Democrats triumphing over the GOP's weakened brand.
Both interpretations should obviously be taken with a grain of salt, but one recent development is interesting -- if ultimately probably not that important to the outcome. Dave Weigel notes that the Boston Herald and the Lowell Sun endorsed Tsongas over Ogonowski. Both papers endorsed President Bush over native son John Kerry in 2004, and they both usually endorse competitive Republicans. Do the editors think Ogonowski is unlikely to win? Or did he not perform well in the editorial page interviews?
Re: McCain Is Right
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 12:35PM
Good News in Iraq
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 12:25PM
To its credit, the Washington Post ran an editorial yesterday touting new numbers showing declining civilian deaths in Iraq, and today a front page story co-authored by Thomas Ricks reports that Al Qaeda in Iraq may be crippled. To be sure, everybody should view these developments with a degree of caution, because in the past positive developments have been short-lived, followed by a sudden spike in violence.
With that said, it is worth noting that Iraq has been seen as a major liability for Republicans going into 2008, but nobody has really entertained what it will mean to Democrats next year if things really do turn around in Iraq, and the surge really is perceived as having worked.
McCain is Right
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 11:09AM
John McCain is right to push back against Mitt Romney who-channeling Howard Dean of all people-purported to represent the "Republican wing of the Republican Party."
If you look at the actual records of the two candidates, McCain would have to be seen as the more conservative. Back during the Reagan years, when McCain was a conservative in good standing, Romney was a proud independent. In 1992, when McCain was running for re-election to the Senate as a Republican, Romney was supporting liberal Democratic candidates such as Dick Swett and Paul Tsongas. On abortion, McCain has been solidly pro-life throughout his career, while Romney was pro-choice from at least 1970 to 2005, and pro-life for just the past two years. On gun control, McCain voted against the 1994 ban on assault weapons, while Romney signed a ban on assault weapons as governor. McCain was one of the few Republican senators to vote against the Medicare prescription drug bill, while Romney drastically expanded the role of government in people's lives by imposing an individual health insurance mandate on Massachusetts citizens as part of a healthcare plan that is already wildly over budget. On national security matters, aside from being a war hero, McCain has been one of the leading hawks in the Senate for over two decades, and was among the first to call for increasing troop levels in Iraq, and he defended the surge strategy at the cost of losing political support among independents. Romney, meanwhile, has crafted a carefully nuanced position on Iraq and expects everybody to believe he'd be a tough commander in chief because he uses the words "jihadist" and "caliphate."
Obviously, McCain has had his problems with conservatives, but even in those areas Romney's record is not spotless. The biggest indictment of McCain among conservatives is on campaign finance reform, but in 1994 Romney supported campaign spending limits and the abolition of political action committees -- measures arguably far more drastic than McCain-Feingold. In 2002, Romney supported taxing political contributions at 10 percent to help publicly fund campaigns. On immigration, Romney thought a McCain-Kennedy style compromise was reasonable until he started running for president, and he refused to publicly support the Bush tax cuts that McCain opposed.
That's not to say that Romney doesn't have any arguments he could make for himself as a presidential candidate. Clearly, he is a very intelligent and accomplished businessman who could have credibly run as a competent manager and turnaround artist. But instead of emphasizing his strengths, for some reason, he's tried to run as the only true conservative in the race, something that his record simply does not support. McCain's problem has been that when he has broken with conservatives, he has made a public show of it--making friends with the liberal media in the process. On the other hand, Romney's deviations from conservatism occurred at a time when most of the country didn't know who he was, and since he has no qualms about changing his positions to suit the political environment, many are first getting to know him through his current posture as a conservative Republican.
Save Missile Defense!
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 11:08AM
Rep. Trent Franks has a column at Human Events about what cuold well be the single most important long-term issue involved with saving many millions of American lives. Read it. Now. And read it again. And spread it -- WIDELY.
Talk of Partitioning
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 10:37AM
Independent war correspondent Michael Yon emails Glenn Reynolds:
All the talk back in America of partitioning Iraq is a mistake. There is some desire by the Kurds, but overall Iraqis seem very much against the idea of partition.There seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly "all the talk back in America" is really about. There are at least three different proposals out there that involve devolving power in Iraq to regional institutions. The Biden-Gelb proposal, as Biden has tried to explain, is more like "federalism" than "partition" as normally understood, and Biden and Gelb themselves prefer the former term (though their plan is often refered to by others as a type of "soft partition"; I think I've probably done this myself). The Joseph-O'Hanlon Brookings paper, which I've more or less endorsed, is properly labeled "soft partition" by its authors -- it involves internal borders with security checkpoints and protection for, and aid to, internally-displaced refugees. A few commentators, though not very many, have endorse a "hard" partition -- that is, splitting Iraq into three countries. I get the impression that in Iraq, lots of people assume that we're talking about the latter proposal in Washington, when in fact very few of us actually are (and for good reason -- it's hard to see how the Sunnis would quietly go along with sacrificing their claim to most of Iraq's oil).
And anyway, all the interest in devolving power from Iraq's government is driven by the inability of the national government thusfar to achieve a reconciliation based on the mutual assumption that neither Sunnis nor Shiites will win dominance over the whole country. Talk of reducing parliament's power could conceivably scare them into reaching such a reconciliation. If it does, it will be hard to argue that merely talking about devolving power from parliament was a mistake.
My previous writings on this topic are collected here.
A Self-Refuting "Defense" of The Peace Prize
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 8:55AM
Now this, from James Fallows via Matt Yglesias, is rich:
But the great majority stand up very well. Desmond Tutu, and then Mandela and deKlerk. Albert Schweitzer. George C. Marshall. Lech Walesa, Willy Brandt, and Mikhail Gorbachev. The Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi.In the course of rattling off the "good" Nobel winners, Fallows cites not one but two useful-idiot apologists for anti-Israel and/or anti-American terrorism (Tutu and Mandela). And these are the ones that are supposed to "stand up very well!"
Yglesias goes on to descend into self-parody by defending Arafat -- as if it somehow wasn't obvious in 1994 that Arafat was a mass murderer who hadn't earned the benefit of the doubt.
(P.S. As a commenter points out, I owe an apology to the Swedes. The other Nobel Prizes are awarded in Stockholm, but the Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegians.)
Rudy's People
Posted by on 10.15.07 @ 7:06AM
Saturday night Rudy was honored by the Italian American Foundation. An amusing report of the festivities is here. I asked Larry Sabato if Italian Americans have a distinct voting profile and could be a factor if Rudy is the nominee. He answered: "Italian-Americans were heavily Democratic until the 1970s, when a long decline began in their Democratic voting patterns. It varies from election to election, and they are a swing group, much like Roman Catholics (there is a large overlap, of course). They are concentrated in Northeastern States, Illinois, Florida, and California. Should they be attracted to Rudy Giuliani, it will help him close the gap in places like New Jersey and Pennsylvania--though a Democrat will still be favored to carry those states, probably." It may be an ethnic identification or perhaps a sense that he is a urban figure who cuts a different profile than the southern and western GOP leaders of the past, but this is a key aspect of the electability argument Rudy is pushing so hard.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
What the GOP Contenders Were Up To Today
Posted by on 10.14.07 @ 8:40PM
- The Pearls of Pauline
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
