- 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 27, 2007
Trying to Make A Two Man race
Posted by on 10.27.07 @ 10:19AM
Romney would like nothing better than to get into a 2 man race with Rudy. There is a good argument that only he has a viable plan and resources to knock off Rudy but if he will have to improve ( in Alabama he's at 9%, only 2 pts ahead of non-candidate Newt) in Deep South states and hold his lead in NH and Iowa.
UPDATE: But Huckabee on another Sunday talk show appearance tomorrow will argue that Romney's poll numbers are soft both nationally (an outlier or the beginning of a trend?) and in Iowa. As Phil points out, if social conservatives get an in person comparison between the two, as many Iowa caucus voters do, Huckabee may upset expectations.
Filing Deadlines
Posted by on 10.27.07 @ 9:54AM
According to Thompson sources, the candidate's time in New Hampshire is pegged to the need to file papers for the primary election. It's not clear if Thompson himself will submit the papers.
Given that Thompson and his team have made it clear that New Hampshire is not the priority in their strategy for the primary season, it's not surprising that he's spending comparatively little time in the state compared to Iowa or Florida.
Friday, October 26, 2007
But No, They Keep Digging
Posted by on 10.26.07 @ 11:57PM
Rumors of TNR coming to its senses are false.
Marc "Armed Liberal" Danzinger picks apart TNR's statement.
Can McCain Come Back?
Posted by on 10.26.07 @ 11:29PM
Campaign Releases Late on Friday
Posted by on 10.26.07 @ 7:01PM
Schedules tell a lot about where a campaign is and what they
feel they can and need to do. Rudy's schedule for this upcoming
week shows multiple dates --Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday --
in NH. Who says they are waiting for Florida? Thompson also goes to
NH -- for one day(his press release lists appearances for him both
for filing his papers and opening his campaign office). This
seems to be a nod to those who have
complained he gave up on the state and in response to some other
bad news from the Granite State( a campaign advisor Dan Hughes left
to join McCain and polls show him lagging others --even Ron Paul in
one tally). But does a day do anything? It is a Catch-22: he feels
the need to make an effort but the price may be diversion of time
and money better spent in places like Florida where he is
faltering. Moreover, the downside may be that when he places behind
other rivals in January(or December?) he can not claim that he
didn't mount a campaign there. The most revealing part of the
schedule is his Wednesday in California-- a list of "closed press"
events. Now why advertise that he is not letting the media view
him? Likely because he is sensitive to charges that he is not
working and not doing enough on the trail. All of that is a whole
lot of effort aimed at responding to criticism from pundits and
Washington insiders-- all those people who supposedly don't
matter.
By the way, Rudy issued a press release decrying the release by Yemen
yesterday of Jamal al-Badawi, the al-Qaeda mastermind behind the
bombing of the USS Cole. Did the entire media miss this story?
Re: Huckabee/Fund
Posted by on 10.26.07 @ 4:54PM
Quin, I've been away for a couple of days, and I'm only now just getting caught up on my news reading. Superb column on Huckabee Wednesday. When I read Fund's column today, my first thought was, "Quin says there's a whole lot more wrong with the guy than that." Kudos, colleague. Keep hammering.
Is there something in the water in Little Rock?
Nerd Alert
Posted by on 10.26.07 @ 4:40PM
If this week's CSI:NY or The Office got you curious about Second Life, you may be interested in my article on the topic at TCS Daily. (The Office's depiction was much, much more realistic, by the way.)
Confirmed: Huck Beats Romney Among Values Voters
Posted by on 10.26.07 @ 3:47PM
While this should not come as a surprise, I just received official word from the FRC that Mike Huckabee comfortably beat Mitt Romney in the straw poll among actual attendees to last weekend's Value Voters' Summit. Though results showed Huckabee trouncing Romney by a 51 percent to 10 percent margin, some Romney supporters insisted that a lot of attendees opted to vote online rather than onsite at the conference. Romney advisor Gary Marx even told Townhall's Matt Lewis that 1,600 conference attendees voted online. Well, it took a few extra days to tabulate, but I just learned that the actual number was just 62. So, even if you were to give Romney each and every one of those votes, he would still get clobbered by Huckabee, 48 percent to 16 percent. So, at best, Romney lost by a 3-to-1 margin rather than a 5-to-1 margin.
Romney, of course, did slightly edge out Huckabee on the overall
online straw poll, which included nearly an extra 5,000 votes. So,
if the Romney camp wants to argue that its success in manipulating
online straw poll results speaks to organizational prowess, which
will translate into superior get out the vote efforts in the
caucuses and primaries, fine. But to try and tout this poll as in
any way indicative of Romney being the top choice of social
conservatives, is pure folly. Anybody who was at the conference for
all of the speeches knows that Huckabee was the runaway crowd
favorite. And perhaps his showing online against the Romney
machine, just as in Ames, demonstrates that his grassroots support
could go a long way.
Re: Fund on Huckabee
Posted by on 10.26.07 @ 3:13PM
Lucas Roebuck attempts a refutation of John Fund's column. Ron Paul supporters won't buy his contention that "even hard core fiscal conservatives" back tax hikes for roads. Roebuck's defense of the Huckabee fiscal record might be more persuasive overall if it weren't for the fact that the philosophy of government Huck has articulated is more expansive than, say, Ronald Reagan's. Fiscal conservatives don't seem ready for Compassionate Conservatism 2.0.
This and That
Posted by on 10.26.07 @ 3:00PM
Fund on Huckabee; Plus an Offer
Posted by on 10.26.07 @ 10:00AM
Over at the Wall Street Journal, the incomparable John Fund pops more of Mike Huckabee's bubbles. He paints the former Arkansas governor as fiscally moderate-to-liberal, a mediocre long-term manager, and as somebody who harmed rather than built his state Republican Party.
On the matter of Huckabee, his campaign manager's two letters complaining about my column earlier this week are a little worrisome, in that I do take my obligations as a journalist -- to be fair and accurate -- seriously. If my columns are "riddled with inaccuracies, allegations and half-truths," I would feel horrible about it. For instance, I quickly corrected my mistake to the effect that rapist Wayne Dumond was released via Huckabee pardon. (Instead, according to considerable evidence to which I linked yesterday, Huckabee reportedly lobbied the parole board to release Dumond, and as I mentioned in the letters section today, David Sanders of the Arkansas News Bureau, a former Huckabee aide, added to the story last week.)
But other than that small distinction, I have continued to stand by my story, for the plain reason that the words I used are accurate descriptions of what occurred. I did NOT say, for instance, that Huckabee broke any criminal laws. Instead, I described the actions themselves, actions where the facts have long been established even if the explanation, or interpretation of what they mean, can be in dispute -- just as, in the realm of opinion, all sorts of facts can be spun all sorts of different ways. Example: Fact: The weather is partly cloudy right now. Interpretation one: That means it might rain. Interpretation two: It is not raining right now. By analogy, the reporting in my column, though, is of the variety that merely says, yes, there are indeed clouds in the sky. Of that, there can be no dispute.
Unless there is something I am missing, the FACTS as stated in my column remain unchallengeable. And I stand by my contention that there is no need to call a campaign to get explanations when the explanations are already on record, especially because I was there in Little Rock when some of the explanations were offered in the first place and covered them at the time. My column Wednesday dealt entirely with the public record, and provided the links to back it up.
But -- and this is the point of this post: Here is a very sincere offer: If the Huckabee campaign will specify to me where my facts -- not intepretation, but facts -- are wrong, and convince me thereof, I will correct those facts just as quickly as I corrected my self-editing oversight concerning the use of the word "pardon." I do not want to leave an inaccurate record -- and firmly believe that I have not done so.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
NY Times: Resumes R Us
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 9:37PM
Apparently the criticism that Hillary is lacking some executive experience is finding its mark. So the NY Times rides to the rescue with an unintentionally hilarious article which explains: “Mrs. Clinton has never led a large enterprise, a point her Republican rival Rudolph W. Giuliani has made in recent days. She has overseen a Senate office (staff of 55), a first lady’s office (staff of 25), an ill-fated ‘health-care task force’ (involving 511 people), a presidential campaign (staff of more than 500) — and attended many, many meetings (‘I’ve decided to declare meetings as my major,’ Mrs. Clinton wrote jokingly in a letter in her college days).”
Where to start? Well, first I am certain there are some
Position Wanted: Leader of the Free World.
Experience: Organized meetings that result in failed health care plan; Opposed welfare reform; Participated in
Greatest Strength: Last Name
Greatest Weakness: Not good at adding figures over $100M
References: Bill
Re: Brownback and the Religious Right
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 6:19PM
Jonathan Martin has details on how it went. Stranger things have happened. . . I'm thinking, I'm thinking...
UPDATE: And another account saying Brownback seemed on the "verge" of backing Rudy. The article explains that ther was no endorsement but Brownback " praised him as an 'excellent leader' and said he was 'much more comfortable' with Giuliani's views on abortion and gay rights issues after the meeting. Asked by reporters in a brief press conference after the meeting with Giuliani if he could support a 'pro-choice' nominee, Brownback said 'I don't know that he described himself...as a pro-choice candidate' and then said he wanted to let Giuliani explains his own view. Giuliani reiterated his view that he does not like abortion and would like to live in a country without abortions, but that he did would not push for banning it."
We'll see..
Spooked
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 5:06PM
Perhaps the Thompson folks were spooked by the NH poll showing their guy behind Huck and Paul in NH but they put out a silly over the top email declaring a national poll shows them tied with Rudy. They cite Rasmussen -- the bouncing ping pong ball of polls -- which today shows the gap only at 2 pts. Considering the gap between Rudy and Thompson in some rather widely reported polls is rather substantial ( Bloomberg/LAT 17%), Gallup( 14%), CBS and others (8%) and Fox(13%) and the overall average at Realclearpolitics has widened recently as we and others have pointed out, it seems silly to call attention to national polls right now. Aren't there any good state ones for their guy?
UPDATE: And to make things worse Fox is out with a new national poll today : Rudy 31%( up 2 pts from last poll), Thompson 17%( up one pt.), McCain 12%( no change), Romney 7%( down 4 pts.) and Huckabee 5%( no change).
Taxes
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 3:51PM
Charlie Rangel has quite a tax plan for you. Rudy and Romney roundly criticize it.
But their agreement ends there. Romney sends around this on his Massachusetts record. Rudy responds with an email by taking issue with Mass. growth figures during Romney's time, his failure to lower the top corporate tax rate and his use of the phrase "closing loopholes."
On this last point they have a point. Romney uses this phrase in debates and in a letter to the Boston Herald Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom yesterday wrote: "He balanced the budget all four years he was in office without raising taxes, and instead of losing thousands of jobs every month, we were adding thousands of jobs every month. Corporate loophole closings are not tax increases. When companies use the law to avoid taxes in a way that was never intended, that's a loophole and we closed them. That's called tax enforcement."
Now critics will argue that this simply isn't correct. Enforcement is enforcing existing laws and "closing loopholes" means changing the laws so the government gets more money. ( Even Charlie Rangel knows what "closing loopholes" means.)
"An Italian-Born Plumber of Questionable...
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 3:16PM
...Legal Status."
The singular J.P. Freire pads his resume with yet another accomplishment: Solving the California arson.
Mike Huckabee
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 2:48PM
Is also ahead of Thompson in the poll I mentioned earlier. Will be interesting to see if this is a trend or an outlier. (New Hampshire polls can be quite volatile.)
Rudy Responds
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 12:29PM
respond to comments made by Attorney General Mukasey, the Mayor said 'We should not torture. America should not stand for torture, America should not allow torture. But America must engage in aggressive questioning of Islamic terrorists who are arrested or who are apprehended. Because if we don't we leave ourselves open to significant attack. And the line between the two is very delicate and very difficult. But we can't abandon aggressive questioning of people who are intent on coming here to kill us, or killing us overseas.'"
McCain: Rudy's Torture View Shows
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 11:47AM
John McCain, speaking to bloggers in a conference call, said that Rudy Giuliani's statement that he wasn't sure whether waterboarding was torture revealed a lack of experience.
Asked by Townhall's Matt Lewis about Giulaini's comments on waterboarding, McCain likened them to Mitt Romney's statement that he'd have to consult lawyers to figure out what to so about Iran.
"My friend Rudy should know what waterboarding is, and should know whether it is torture or not," McCain said.
Those with military experience understand that torture is a "notoriously unreliable" way obtain information, McCain said, because if you inflict enough pain on somebody, that person will tell you what you want to hear.
A full transcript of Giuliani's remarks on torture can be found here.
Florida
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 11:39AM
Re: Ron Paul Beating Thompson
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 11:32AM
Well it is one poll but it is not out of the imagination since Thompson has essentially bailed on the state. At some point if he is not going to campaign there, do the townhalls and coffee shops and make an organizational commitment he should pull out. Coming in behind Paul would just be humiliating.
Re: Judas Giuliani
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 11:32AM
I see nothing strange about Rudy's statement that he'll root for the American League team. I've always been an American League fan, and have always done the same.
Except for that strange 18-year outlyer when I lived in Los Angeles.
Ron Paul Beating Thompson in N.H.?
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 11:26AM
That's what a new Saint Anselm College poll says. It shows Mitt Romney in the lead, up 11 points over second-place Rudy Giuliani. John McCain is in third place at 15 percent. Ron Paul is in fourth, at 7.4 percent. Fred Thompson is at 5 percent.
Re: Brownback and the Religious Right
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 11:09AM
The danger for Brownback in endorsing Rudy would be that he
would be seen as a sellout by grassroots social conservatives
without really convincing any of them to support Giuliani. I find
it highly doubtful that he would endorse Rudy in the primary. Just
last Friday, Brownback gave a press avail after his speech at the
Value Voters Summit, and essentially predicted that Giuliani would
not be the nominee. "I will support whoever the nominee is,"
Brownback
said. "The nominee will be pro-life." It would be pretty odd to
make a statement then turnaround and endorse Giuliani. I think it's
much more likely that he'd get behind McCain or Thompson.
Possibly Unreliable Beauchamp Scuttlebutt
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 11:03AM
I'm hearing a rumor this morning that TNR is about to stop defending Beauchamp, having belatedly realized that he's a nutcase. (Duh.) This is hearsay, though, at least two gossip-spreaders removed from TNR's editors, so take it for what it's worth. Just thought I'd pass it along.
Re: They Should Ask Him About This
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 10:53AM
Better to ask if he's been on a UFO.
They Should Ask Him About This at the Next Debate
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 10:15AM
According to Shirley MacLaine's new book, Dennis Kucinich believes that he's seen a UFO. Is anyone surprised?
Kurtz Buries the Lede
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 9:37AM
Howie Kurtz talks to Frank Foer:
While Beauchamp "didn't stand by his stories in that conversation, he didn't recant his stories," Foer said in an interview. "He obviously was under considerable duress during that conversation, with his commanding officer in the room with him."Wait -- back up there. Foer had another conversation with Beauchamp? Is there a recording? Are there notes? What exactly was said? What parts of the story did Beauchamp defend? Did he answer specific questions about the articles? Why hasn't TNR felt the need to tell their readers of this conversation?While the discussion "was extremely frustrating and engendered doubts," Foer said, Beauchamp defended his story in a subsequent conversation that was conducted with no superiors present.
And why did Kurtz stick this bit of news at the end of paragraph seven, without any further explanation?
World Series Pounding
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 9:04AM
Judas Giuliani must be ecstatic this morning after last night's trouncing of the Rockies by the Red Sox. Short-in-stature but tough-as-nails second baseman Dustin Pedroia, a rookie, started the evening with a home run on the second pitch he saw:
But he admitted that he did head up there thinking about setting a tone. And he sure accomplished that.
"Yeah, it was great," (Red Sox third baseman Mike) Lowell deadpanned, "because it meant he could come back to the dugout and tell us how hard he hit that ball."
This guy needs to be leading battles in Afghanistan or something.
Rudy and the Religious Right
Posted by on 10.25.07 @ 8:40AM
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Foer's Chutzpah
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 9:12PM
Frank Foer talks to The New York Observer:
Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, said in an interview that the documents relating to Scott Thomas Beauchamp that Matt Drudge posted this afternoon--and removed several hours later without explanation--could have only come from the Army.Wow. Where to begin?Mr. Foer said he called TNR's contact there, Major Kirk Luedeke, as soon as the documents appeared on Drudge's site. According to Mr. Foer, Major Luedeke told him that the Army was "investigating the source of the leak," though they did not explicitly take responsibility for it.
"It's maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that we've been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests," Mr. Foer said. "This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs."
"The Army" didn't leak this. Someone in the Army certainly did -- it's obvious that the transcript came from their end of the phone line (the "unintelligible" bits are mostly on the TNR side, and there's a note when Beauchamp takes a sip of water). But the leak wasn't an official act by the Army. My best guess as to why Drudge took the story down is that Drudge's source asked him to, because he (the source) is worried about getting in trouble for leaking.
FOIA requests take forever to process. TNR may be waiting on a request to see the memo, just as Bob Owens has been waiting on a request to see the memo and the phone call transcript. But TNR didn't need to see the transcript. Foer was involved in the conversation! And his only response is to attack the Army for letting it leak?
That's the kind of obvious question that The New York Observer strangely didn't ask Foer -- which explains why he'll take their calls and not mine, I suppose.
The Beauchamp Transcripts
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 8:05PM
For some reason Drudge has taken down the .pdfs he posted earlier, but I saved them while they were up. The links, along with my analysis and highlights from the conversation that Frank Foer and Peter Scoblic had with Beauchamp on September 7, can be found here.
Frontrunner or Open Race?
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 6:36PM
Re: Southwick Confirmed
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 5:56PM
"Are Atheists the New Religious Right?"
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 4:56PM
Our friend James Poulos is moderating a roundtable on that topic tonight in Washington. I can't make it, but if you can, you should; the panel is loaded with smart guys.
Southwick Confirmed
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 4:35PM
The confirmation of Leslie Southwick shows that when it comes to judges, conservatives can still hope for some Democratic votes. Red-state Democrats -- like Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor -- and less ideological liberals -- like Daniel Akaka and, especially, Dianne Feinstein -- were pivotal.
Re: Judas Giuliani and Street Gangs
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 2:00PM
Jim: We'll have to ask Phil to show us his tattoos.
Re: Judas Giuliani
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 1:23PM
It's clearly a move to get out ahead of the former Massachusetts governor in support of this year's World Series winner.
At least he didn't proclaim himself a fan of Manny Ortez (audio).
UPDATE 1:25 p.m.:
Boston Dirt Dogs worked this up:
Re: Judas Giuliani
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 1:04PM
Wlady, is it really necessary to insult members of street gangs like that?
Re: Judas Giuliani
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 11:55AM
Phil: You make being a Yankee fan sound like being a member of street gang. Now I know where the term "diehard fan" comes from. Rudy as always is displaying a largeness of spirit, a sense of belonging to something greater, within reason.
The real Judas is Major League Baseball, as one can infer from this story in today's Washington Post. After the Colorado Rockies won the National League pennant last week, star hitter Matt Holliday thanked God for His help. According to the story:
When the interview was posted on the Major League Baseball Web site, however, the mention of God was gone."We try to present what the players are saying in the clearest and most concise way possible for the fans," Matthew Gould, spokesman for MLB.com, said of the excised references to God. "Space on the Web site is limited."
We hear space in heaven is also limited.
Judas Giuliani
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 10:25AM
The NY tabloids are all over Rudy's statement that he'll be rooting for the Red Sox in the World Series because they are the American league team.
Speaking as a Yankee fan myself who is a conservative, I would vote for Hillary Clinton--perhaps even wave a "Go Hillary!" sign at a campaign rally--before I would root for the Red Sox in a pre-season game, let alone the World Series.
Maybe the experience of being beat up as a kid for being a Yankee fan in a Brooklyn Dodgers neighborhood made him develop a deeper hatred for the National League, or maybe he really is trying to win over New Hampshire voters. Either way, it is like a dagger to the backs of his fellow Yankees fans.
Go Rockies!
Debates and De Beatings
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 10:02AM
John Stossel today mocks Al Gore's (and others') claims that "the debate is over" on global warming, which made me think the Burmese junta is saying the same thing!
Southwick
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 9:36AM
Slight Correction
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 9:33AM
In an exchange of e-mails last night with ABC's cordial and classy Jake Tapper about yesterday's post on Fred Thompson and the Terry Schiavo case, Tapper told me that it was a local reporter, not he, who asked the question to which Thompson was responding, and thus that if there were indeed any "faulty premise" (I stand by that assertion, by the way) that set the context for Thompson's answer, the premise was that of somebody other than Tapper. I do stand corrected; I thank Tapper for correcting me; and I apologize for the error.
More later....
Romney and Huck
Posted by on 10.24.07 @ 9:09AM
Romney has a new ad. (Political junkies will note it looks like it was shot in the same location and with the same shirt as his Jihadist ad.) The ad makes the connection (one which many have been urging him to make) between his business experience and the fiscal challenges in Washington.
Meanwhile, Huckabee continues to nip at his heels.In addition to the LAT poll showing Huckabee leading Romney among Christian Conservatives there is a Georgia poll showing him nosing Romney out by a point in that state.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
New Poll
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 10:46PM
The LAT/Bloomberg national poll is out and it has lots of interesting stats. First: Rudy 32%, Thompson 15%, McCain 13%, Romney 11% and Huckabee 7%. (In June Rudy led Thompson by only 6 pts.) Even more interesting is the breakdown among subgroups within the GOP. Rudy leads in every group except among the Christian Right where Thompson leads 25-23% (in this category Huckabee -- wow -- outpolls Romney 14-9%) but McCain comes close to Rudy among moderates/liberals trailing only by 2 pts. Among voters who go to religious services once a week or more Rudy leads Thompson 29-17%(here Romney noses out Huckabee 13-11%) . But good news for everyone: only 36% are certain of their choice. There are interesting issue questions on immigration (GOP voters they favor an enforcement plus guest worker plan over enforcement only 50-45%[but amnesty is not given as an option]), abortion (among GOP voters, 68-29% illegal to legal with gradations in between,), and gay marriage ( for GOP voters 45% say no marriage or civil union but 31% are ok with civil union). The bad news: everyone loses to Hillary but Rudy is at least under double digits. (On this, you poll gurus should look at the methodology explanation at the end -- a bit confusing what the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was for the general election match ups.) Oh - Hillary leads Obama 48-17% (think Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont).
McCain Channels The Onion
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 8:40PM
"[T]hey must be tried and convicted in a U.S. court of law, so that President Bush can, on live TV, pump bullet after bullet into their bodies, starting with their feet and slowly working his way up. Then, after a great deal of soul-searching and consultation with his top advisors, the president must toss their lifeless, bullet-riddled bodies into a shark tank." - "Larry Tempel," on the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks
"I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products" - John McCain, at a gun factory
(""I would not shoot him myself," McCain later clarified. Dang!)
Re: Romney's PowerPoint
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 7:28PM
Thompson and Schiavo: Update
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 6:01PM
With regard to the story about Fred Thompson talking about Terry Schiavo linked to in "Re: Social Conservatives," I want to tread carefully and respectfully here. The full video is here. And the written ABC report is here. Thompson's answer is very moving. It explains why he was reluctant to talk about the case earlier. Hearts should go out to him on the issue. And, indeed, the moral issue about end-of-life decisions is not the subject of this blog post.
The problem is that Tapper (in the written article, and presumably in his question to Thompson) framed the issue inaccurately, and Thompson's answer seemed to accept Tapper's faulty premise and thus it lent itself to more confusion about what actually happened. This is a particularly important topic to me -- not so much the specific family decision about Schiavo, but what the courts and Congress actually did or didn't do to "intervene." Tapper, although a good reporter, bought into the myth that Congress "overstepped its bounds in March 2005 by preventing Schiavo's feeding tube from being removed." But that is just not true. Congress did not prevent the tube from being removed. (More on that in a minute.) And, despite what Thompson said, it was NOT an issue of the federal or state government or the courts stepping INTO a family matter. It was a case of INTERPRETATION of EXISTING laws and constitutional issues about end-of-life questions, laws and constitutional issues that any society must have in order to protect the innocent, protect family rights, etc., i.e. in order to determine where one set of rights begins and another set ends and vice versa. Second, it was not just a case of "letting the family decide." It was a complicated case about WHICH part of the family--parents or (former) husband-- would decide, or, more accurately, how the identity of the "family" was to be determined, IN ORDER THAT the family as defined by law could indeed decide.
Now, back to what Congress did. It did not order anything to be done or not done. All it did, pursuant to its constitutional grant of power to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts, was to provide an appellate avenue to the federal courts for Schiavo's parents (yes, her FAMILY) to make a case de novo about new constitutional issues and perhaps new issues of fact concerning their daughter. Not only was Congress NOT preventing the courts from deciding (as Thompson and apparently Tapper think was done), but it was affirmatively creating a new avenue for the courts to act or not act. As it was, the federal courts rejected the request for a temporary injunction (much less a more permanent order to keep the tube in place OR a decision about the underlying issues themselves on the merits) , and the tube was removed.
Thompson is right that the issue ought not be a political football. But while the emotion of his answer is perfectly understandable, the substance of it was just off point. Somebody must denounce the notion that Congress stepped into a family matter to decide the outcome in one way or another. What Congress did, in light of the extremely complicated and emotional and, yes, politically charged nature of the case, was to take one more step to ensure that justice was indeed being done according to the laws of the land.
A constitutional conservative would set the record straight, because only by correcting the premise in the first place can the underlying issue that upsets people so much, the life or death issue, be intelligently discussed without calumny being heaped on the heads of social conservatives whose efforts with regard to Schiavo have been repeatedly and unjustly mispresented and criticized.
This post is getting too long, and I'm late for a commitment already. But if somebody is interested enough to remind me, I will return to this tomorrow to give what SHOULD be the right, more simple, answer for a candidate to give when asked about the Schiavo case. Meanwhile, this is not meant to criticize Thompson's instincts or feelings. It is just to say that, between the first time when he didn't answer and this time when he did, somebody darn well ought to have briefed him on the facts so that he didn't perpetuate the misrepresentation that is so often used to beat conservatives up with.
With all due respect and sympathy for Thompson, then, I hope that at least one of the major candidates in the campaign, if not Thompson himself, takes another crack at this and does it right.
Law and Disorder
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 5:17PM
This Reason piece about Jackson, Mississippi Mayor Frank Melton gives connoisseurs of crazy at least as much fodder as the anti-drunks Sean Higgins profiled for Modern Drunkard.
Point Taken
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 4:57PM
You're absolutely right, John, that we shouldn't let our ideology close our eyes and ears to the facts on the ground. But there have been an awful lot of vaunted "turning points" in Iraq that turned into dust, no? Even in the case of the surge, where we have seen real and so far enduring reductions in violence, the rationale has shifted from creating the conditions for a national political settlement to focusing on local solutions -- in part because the former didn't work. Maybe that doesn't repudiate all the hawks' arguments forever, especially in light of the declining violence, but it certainly makes the skepticism understandable.
Romney's PowerPoint
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 2:54PM
Romney overlooks this sage analysis that his problem is not a lack of PowerPoint presentations. He is spending several days in South Carolina and at least today has his projector on with Reagan Zones, explaining economic development and international trade. Others think this is "silly" too -- the type of Reagan imitation that seems open to ridicule. Also do we think his poll numbers are low in South Carolina because he doesn't come across wonkish enough? Sometimes you really do need to get back to basics.
Your Guide To The Rest of The Race
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 1:42PM
Rudy: "George Will said I presided over the great example of blueberry pie production in America and turned NY City from a blueberry pie slum to the greatest big city for blueberry pie production. In Washington I'll introduce PieStat and do for America what I did for New York."
Rudy Opponents: " But some people got sick on pie and in 1990 he once said he didn't like pie. But the real point is he is pro-choice."
Romney: " I represent the blueberry pie wing of the Republican party and the blueberry pie council, gosh I love those people, may endorse me. I will double blueberry pie production."
Romney Opponents: " As Governor he didn't do squat for blueberry pie production and look at this YouTube footage from 1994 and 2002 promising to cut blueberry pie production."
Thompson: " My mama made the best pie ever. I ...errr... ahhh... [cough] well... pie and I go back a long ...err...ahh ... way."
Thompson Opponents: "The man never made a pie in his life."
McCain: " My friends I'm not going to lie to you. Some things are more important than pie. That may not be popular but I'll never lie to you about pie."
McCain Opponents: " McCain is a great American but he's for open kitchens. He'll let just anyone in to bake."
Now you're set for the rest of the race.
Point Missed
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 12:55PM
Judging by Dave Weigel's response to my post below, I wasn't clear enough. Dave points out that Fred Kagan and Joe Lieberman have made bad predictions about Iraq. Well, yeah -- just about everyone who's spoken or written about the Iraq has made some bad predictions. "To say in early 2007 that Iraq war hawks were 'always wrong,'" writes Dave, "was more or less as true as arguing that salmon go upstream to spawn." But that wasn't what he said. He used the present continuous tense -- "These people are always wrong" -- rather than the past perfect -- "These people have always been wrong." The latter assertion, made 10 months ago, would be defensible (though not quite salmon-go-upstream obvious). The former assertion has been disproven. I had hoped it was clear that my conclusion to that post was sarcastic; my whole point was that one ought to proceed with caution before closing one's ears.
Hillary's Birthday
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 12:42PM
Hillary Clinton's birthday is coming up, and Bill just sent out
the following message to supporters asking them to send a birthday
message to Hillary, and to view his video message to her. The email
from Bill has big red "Contribute" active link/logo at the bottom.
It's another example of how the Clinton campaign continues to play
up the celebrity factor, and take advantage of nostalgia
for Bill.
Dear Friend,
In 36 years, Hillary and I have shared a lot of birthdays, and each year I'm amazed at everything she has accomplished. This is a very special year: we're celebrating Hillary's 60th, and I hope you'll join me in sending her a birthday message, sharing your wishes for her and your hopes for the coming year.
I'll make sure to share your message with Hillary. And please encourage your friends and family to send their messages as well.
You can see my birthday message to Hillary and add your own here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com /birthdaymessage
I know how happy Hillary will be to hear from you on her birthday. Thank you for helping me to make her day special.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton
Re: Thompson on Immigration
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 12:23PM
It doesn't seem to be a smart tactic for the Giuliani campaign to hit Thompson for not being a consistent enough conservative on immigration when Giuliani's own immigration record does not endear him to conservatives, to put it mildly. That's the type of thing that has caused problems for the Romney campaign. A much better tactic would be to wait for Thompson to attack Rudy for governing a sanctuary city, and then hit Thompson on the executive experience factor--i.e., Fred "never had the responsibility for millions of people's lives on his shoulders."
Thompson on Immigration
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 10:31AM
Thompson Voted Against Establishing Office Within INS To Enforce Employer Sanctions Against Businesses That Employ Illegals. (S. 1664, CQ Vote #99: Rejected 26-74: R 2-51; D 24-23; I 0-0, 5/1/96, Thompson Voted Nay)
Thompson Voted Against Requiring Development Of National Employment Verification System. (S. 1664, CQ Vote #101: Motion agreed to 54-46: R 20-33; D 34-13; I 0-0, 5/1/96, Thompson Voted Nay)
Thompson Opposed Employment Verification Program Because He Did Not Believe Employer Sanctions Worked To Hiring Illegals. "However, there are some aspects of the legislation which I hope are removed in a Senate House conference. Creation of a pilot program to verify employment status is one. Employer sanctions have never fully prevented the hiring of illegal aliens. I am concerned about the accuracy of any databank created to determine whether a worker is in the country legal by." (Sen. Fred Thompson, "Proposed Law Would Help Stem Illegal Immigration," Press Release, 5/6/96)
Thompson Voted Against Increased Funding To Combat Illegal Immigration And Missed Vote On Increased Border Patrols
Thompson Voted Against Amendment That Would Provide $1 Billion To Combat Illegal Immigration. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #204: Rejected 31-68: R 1-53; D 30-15, 05/25/95, Thompson Voted Nay)
Thompson Missed Vote On Motion To Invoke Cloture On Amendment That Would Curb Illegal Immigration By Increased Border Patrols, Preventing Illegal Aliens From Finding Jobs And Restrict Benefits For Legal And Illegal Aliens. (S. 1664, CQ Vote #90: Motion Agreed To 91-0: R 46-0; D 45-0, 04/29/96, Thompson Voted )
Thompson Voted To Give Illegals More Benefits Than Legal Immigrants
Thompson Voted To Give Illegal Immigrants More Access Than Legal Immigrants To Emergency Medical Care, Prenatal And Postpartum Services And Immunization Assistance. (S. 1664, CQ Vote #106: Rejected 40-60: R 7-46; D 33-14; I 0-0, 5/2/96, Thompson Voted Nay; U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Illegal Immigration/Deeming And Legal-Illegal Aliens," 5/2/96)
Thompson Opposed Removing Illegal Immigrants Living In United States
In 2006, Thompson Said Driving 12 Million Illegals Underground Was "Not A Good Solution" And Kicking All Illegal Immigrants Out Was "Not Going To Happen." Thompson: "Tough problem. But, you know, because we allowed ourselves to wait until we woke up one day and found 12 million illegals here, there's no easy solution. And I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)"
Clipped and Saved (He Asked For It!)
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 9:42AM
Back in December, Dave Weigel urged his readers to keep this prediction of Jim Henley's in mind:
As a reminder, the winter months are when insurgent activity drops, so look for a spate of stories about how "the surge is working" in the early months of 2007. Then look for everything to fall apart again as summer turns toward fall.I think we can safely say that summer has turned into fall, and that this forecast has proven dead wrong. "Greyhawk" at Mudville Gazette notes the latest news:
Overall trends show a significant drop in violence over the last several months, according to previously unpublished military statistics obtained by NEWSWEEK. During a single week in mid-September, attacks in Iraq totaled about 900-down from about 1,700 a week in June. The number of attacks increased slightly in late September and early October during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. But according to the statistics, the just-ended Ramadan holiday was significantly less violent this year than in the previous two years.Dave lamented in that December post that hawkish commentators don't take enough heat for their bad predictions. But guess what? The doves have flubbed plenty of predictions, too. (A few minutes of Googling turns up a 2002 Nation editorial warning of "significant losses of American lives... in the projected intense ground fighting around Baghdad and other urban areas?" Yup, they were worried not about a post-invasion insurgency, but about Saddam's formidable army.) One might merely observe that wars are fluid and unpredictable. But if one were inclined to be really uncharitable, one might throw Dave's declaration from that post right back at him: "These people are always wrong and should not be taken seriously."
Rudy Gets Mass. Endorsement
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 8:39AM
Rudy is picking up the endorsement of former Mass. Treasurer Joe Malone this morning. The Boston Globe points out that several of Malone's former staffers are on Romney's team. This endorsement follows a number of other Mass. bigwigs who have signed on with Rudy including of course former Governor Paul Cellucci and Sen. Minority Leader Richard Tisei and three other GOP Senators. A Giuliani aide was only happy to point out that there is a "small universe of Republicans in Massachusetts who would normally suppport the hometown guy but in this case they have said 'we're Rudy people.'" The aide also emphasized that in 1998 Cellucci and Malone had a hard fought primary yet both now support Rudy, just as Bill Simon and Richard Riordan who oppposed one another in the California Governor's race both have now endorsed Rudy. Clearly the Rudy people are hoping that this makes an impression on NH voters as he heads there for two town halls later today. Rudy folks would be delighted if Malone would talk about the large Massachusetts budget shortfall which they would like to attribute to the higher than expected MittCare costs. (The Boston Herald last Friday noted that "with health care costs - and the state's new health reform law - continuing to claim a huge percentage of the budget, the room for discretionary spending cuts may not be enough to close the anticipated gap next year.") So don't you believe it when someone says the Rudy people aren't playing for keeps in the early states.
"Shoot Everybody Who Sells Alcohol"
Posted by on 10.23.07 @ 8:25AM
A must-read for connoisseurs of craziness: Over at Modern Drunkard occasional AmSpec contributor Sean Higgins profiles the Prohibitionists -- yes, we're talking about alcohol prohibition, and yes, these people are still around, putting candidates on the ballot in a handful of states. There aren't many of them, but it only takes two for there to be an internal schism -- and sure enough, they have one!
Monday, October 22, 2007
Media Matters...
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 6:30PM
...defends Sam Brownback against "Christian values" charge.
Must be a slow sort-of undercover Democratic operative...er, I mean news day.
Turnaround Mitt
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 4:56PM
Ryan Lizza's piece on Mitt Romney has been given favorable play here . (I made a not too dissimilar argument awhile back here concerning the relationship between his business experience turning around companies and his campaign.) Although we sometimes disparage those who have lived most of their life in the public sector and long for someone to bring a businesslike approach to government, Lizza points out that the two professions don't always equate. A fascinating read.
Re: Social Conservative Leaders
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 4:46PM
There is something grand about democracy and letting voters make up their own minds. Perhaps in an internet age and with grass roots organizing we have just passed the time when leaders can tell folks who they should vote for. Ronald Reagan certainly played that to the hilt with union members. Perhaps all the candidates who were in the hunt for a consensus endorsement can now cease straining for approval from leadership and go out and campaign the old fashioned way. Well that and buy millions of dollars of ad time.
UPDATE: Pehaps it has already had a liberating impact on Thompson.
Social Conservative Leaders Can't Reach Consensus
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 3:54PM
The influential social conservatives who comprise the Arlington Group met over the weekend to discuss the possibility of endorsing a presidential candidate and could not reach a consensus, according to a source familiar with the process.
Though leaders of the individual organizations may make their own endorsements, those selections "cannot be considered a blanket endorsement by the 'Religious Right,'" according to the source.
While many leaders want to endorse fan favorite Mike Huckabee, others are more hesitant. The source informed me that "the dilemma is over whether to choose the preferred candidate of their constituents or go with the pragmatic choice and risk offending our base."
According to the source, James Dobson of Focus on the Family likes Mitt Romney, Gary Bauer of American Values prefers Fred Thompson, and Don Wildmon of the American Family Association likes Huckabee. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is still on the fence, but nearing a decision.
Social conservative leaders understand that splitting up the vote may make a Rudy Giuliani nomination more likely. While there was a sense going into the weekend that the leaders would possibly coalesce around Romney for practical reasons, Huckabee's rock star reception at the Value Voters Summit made things more difficult.
Interestingly, the source described a "new pragmatic narrative" that may be forming: "None of the top-tier can beat Hillary anyway so why risk offending the base by snubbing Huckabee?"
Either way, social conservative leaders are in a bind.
"If we don't support Huckabee we tick off religious conservatives," the source lamented. "If we push Huckabee we tick off everyone else. It's a tough situation to be in."
Originalism Rules
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 2:33PM
Again, enough already on the presidential horse race! (Sorry, I just insist on being a curmudgeon on that topic.) Let's get back to, well... to flacking my own columns! :) In this case, I give a big hand to Steven Calabresi and the Federalist Society for their new book on Originalism. Do read it. (The book, I mean; actually, read both the book and my column.) To circle back to the presidential race, the issue of judges and of constitutional interpretation by rights ought to be the single most important domestic issue. (So far, only Fred Thompson has done a pretty good job in discussing it.) Judicial conservatives, unite!
Re: The New Yankees
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 1:35PM
Does it really matter? Baseball season should long be over by now. If the World Series goes seven games this year, the finale will be played on November 1! That's assuming there'll be no rainouts -- or snowouts. I'm most interested to know who in Denver will throw out the first snowball.
But so long as we're talking about who hates whom, I think it's safe to say that Red Sox fans have long been disdained as yuppie, trendie, Cambridge-based NPR listeners. Remember the stunt John Kerry pulled on the eve of the Democratic convention in 2004? At least Yankee haters know who the real culprits are: the players, not the contentious bums in the stands. The Red Sox players are hard to hate. Sure, there's Manny, but he's a clown in a world of his own. As for the rest, a few are Japanese imports on loan, one is named after a chocolaty breakfast serial, another after a lousy-tasting pizza. And the biggest star of all is a lowly DH, a gentle-giant who should never be allowed to run the bases. For my money, though, if not for Josh Beckett the Sox are dead meat this year. Imagine: a star pitcher living up to his stature, the way Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax used to. If not for him, the Slovaks of Cleveland would be a happy bunch today.
Re: Mythical Huckabee
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 1:03PM
James, Phil started this discussion by positing that the press is dwelling on Huckabee to a greater extent than warranted so my point was to address that in the context of the principal fascination of the media: the horserace. (He is a factor so the press attention is deserved, I argued.) But your point is different and equally interesting, which is the degree to which compromises are asked and offered. Every candidate requires them. Goodness knows small government conservatives voted for the compassionate conservative Bush and anti-comprehensive immigration reform GOP-ers did too. The choices in a primary are different of course than in a general election, but it is not just social conservatives that sometimes have to swallow hard.
Nevada - No news is News
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 12:56PM
GOP Nevada Chairman Sue Lowden tells me the Nevada GOP this Saturday voted NOT to move the caucus to January 12 although the State Chair has authority to do so at a later date. For now Nevada sits tight, perhaps settling the calendar just a tad.
The New Yankees
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 12:56PM
Among other observations, William Rhoden argues in this piece that the Boston Red Sox are at risk of replacing the New York Yankees as the baseball team the rest of America loves to hate. He's right -- I've watched this happen firsthand.
When I first moved to D.C. from Boston in 2004, it seemed that everyone was rooting for the Red Sox to beat the Yankees in that year's ALCS. It wasn't due to any love for or loyalty to the Red Sox, although some were eager to see Boston break the Curse of the Bambino. It was mostly because people hated the Yankees. The "reverse the Curse" sentiment prevailed in the World Series, but there was notably less enthusiasm for the Red Sox among D.C.'ers once New York was out of the picture.
Fast forward to 2007, and it seemed that almost everyone in the D.C. area who wasn't a Boston-area transplant was rooting for the Cleveland Indians. One cherubic fellow in a sports bar told me, "Of course I'm an Indians fan. I'm a Slovak." (I've lived in Cleveland as well, so the comment made sense to me.)
The perception was that the Red Sox are too rich, have won too many times, and have obnoxious fans who don't realize the rest of the country doesn't care about their provincial tastes. Sound familiar? When they won last night, I even heard people saying, "I hate the Red Sox."
Having said all that, I agree with Ross Douthat: What exactly are the Red Sox supposed to do? Sports teams are supposed to win. This team has made a lot of money from a loyal fan base. Sure, there are a lot of bandwagon types but there are also people who opened up their wallets at Fenway Park when the Sox were terrible. Is the ownership not supposed to put the money back into the team and try to keep building a winning, or even dominant, franchise?
I'll put it another way: Do you think Yankees fans cared what the rest of the country thought while their team was racking up wins? No. And neither will Red Sox fans.
Changing the Party
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 12:03PM
This too is a matter of perspective. A lot of pro-lifers fear Giuliani will end up pushing the party in a more pro-choice direction whether he intends to or not. They don't have anything like the business wing of the GOP or even the Club for Growth to work effectively against that shift -- they only have votes and volunteers they can threaten to withold.
Again, I don't disagree with you about Huckabee on the merits of his economic-policy deviations or his economic rhetoric (though both "Club for Greed" and John McCain's "agents of intolerance" were attacks on specific people and groups that were read as attacks on larger movements). But I think both economic and social conservatives should remember: It is easy to imagine "reasonable" compromises for other people when you don't have to make them yourself.
Re: Mythical Huckabee
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 11:47AM
The point isn't what Huckabee will actually do. The point is what different elements of the conservative/Republican coalition demand and expect to get. Though I suspect if Huckabee thought he was really about to win the nomination, he would try make nice with economic conservatives in spite of his current populist stance.
Re: Mythical Huckabee
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 11:41AM
Jim, you echo a point I heard speaking to people at the Value Voters Summit. One FRC insider snapped, "the economic conservatives won't accept Huckabee, and then they're trying to stick us with Giuliani?"
With that said, while Huckabee did sign the Grover Norquist no-tax pledge, his "Club for Greed" line coupled with his populist rhetoric makes him much closer to the Pete Wilson model of running as a pro-choicer, or McCain condemning "agents of intolerence" than it does Giuliani addressing Values Voters this Saturday. Huckabee is really trying to reinvent the economic message of the GOP in his image, and I don't think Giuliani is trying to turn the party into a pro-choice party, or argue that it needs to become pro-choice because if it doesn't people are going to turn the dials on their TVs when Republican candidates argue in favor of the pro-life position in debates. This, of course, isn't even getting into the record of tangible accomplishments that Giuliani can point to.
Interestingly, this is perhaps one way that a Huckabee surge could actually benefit Romney. If a war breaks out between economic conservatives and social conservatives over Giuliani and Huckabee, with both factions drawing a line in the sand, Romney's "three-legged stool" argument could gain traction and allow him to emerge as the compromise candidate. Same for Fred Thompson if he perks up a bit.
Re: Mythical Huckabee
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 11:12AM
I think "Club for Greed" probably indicates Huckabee isn't going down the make "friends with the doubters" road. I see no indication he's abandoning his cultural and economic populism. It worked for Pat Buchanan in NH and it might work for Huckabee in Iowa. CLARIFICATION: In 1992 he came closer than many imagined to George HW Bush and in 1996 he won NH.
Conservatives Should Cheer Up
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 11:05AM
It is a full time sport, encouraged by the MSM, to complain about the GOP field. Ronald Reagan comparisons abound and each one of them has undeniable flaws. But, I would argue that, hey, a bunch of them were very good last night. Hillary will be very tough but she is and will be the foil for the GOP nominee, as she was last night, and may be the medicine for what ills the money and enthusiasm woes of the party.
Re: Mythical Huckabee
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 11:04AM
I'll play devil's advocate even further: If Huckabee were to give a speech telling small-government conservatives he respects them, that they have nothing to fear from him, that he cut some taxes and opposed some big-government politicians down in Arkansas, that liberal newspaper editors didn't like him, and he will be good on judges, would that be okay?
I don't disagree with anything Phil is saying about the revisionism concerning Huckabee's record -- there are more blemishes there than a stray comment about immigration. But I do think it is interesting that some factions in the GOP are telling social conservatives to handle the issues that are important to them in a way these other flavors of conservative wouldn't treat the issues they care about.
Re: Mythical Huckabee
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 10:55AM
Mythical Huckabee
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 10:42AM
Mike Huckabee has undeniable political skills and a clear appeal to social conservatives, but the media have gone way overboard in trying to portray him as a potential consensus conservative candidate, if only he had the money and name recognition.
When Sean Hannity interviewed Huckabee after the debate last night, Hannity said the only bad thing he had every heard a conservative say about Huckabee was a comment he made on immigration. Meanwhile, David Brooks engaged in some more whitewashing in his ode to Huckabee in a recent NY Times column when he wrote that "each of the top-tier candidates makes certain parts of the party uncomfortable. Huckabee is the one candidate acceptable to all factions."
Huh? The Club for Growth, a prominent group of economic conservatives, finds Huckabee so unacceptable due to his fiscal record in Arkansas that they created an entire Website to attacking him called "Tax Hike Mike." He received an "F" from the Cato Institute in their annual fiscal report card of governors, ranking him sixth from last. Also not to the liking of small-government conservatives and libertarians, there's his anti-smoking and obesity crusades and the nanny-statism that goes along with it.
Then there is foreign policy. Several people I spoke to at the Value Voters Summit--who loved Huckabee--were concerned that he was too soft on national security. Huckabee is aware of this perception, which is why he spent the early part of his speech at the conference to speaking about Islomofascism, and probably why in the debate last night he called it "the most dangerous enemy we've ever faced." Conservative hawks will need to hear a lot more to become comfortable with him.
This doesn't even get into the ethics problems he had as governor of Arkansas.
My point is not to pick on Huckabee. And if somebody wants to argue that in a general election against the Democrat, Republicans need an economic populist who can appeal to the middle class, or that he'd be fine on foreign policy, okay. But the reality is that there are plenty of conservatives who are hostile or at least uncomfortable with Huckabee's candidacy, and to portray things any differently displays either ignorance of the subject matter or intellectual dishonesty in an effort to shakeup the campaign narrative by promoting a likable character.
Into the Great Wide Open
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 9:52AM
For what it's worth, Byron York says that after last weekend the race is wide open, with five top-tier candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee.
Am I the only one who actually liked McCain's FRC speech? It wasn't a barn-burner or a crowd-pleaser like last night's Woodstock joke, but I thought it was solid, somber, and in parts moving.
Rudy in the South
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 6:42AM
Re: Romney the Fan?
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 2:29AM
I don't know what Romney said in the debate since I was watching the game (though I did see some highlights on the 12 o'clock news), but I did receive a press release early this evening from the campaign proclaiming Romney's fandom.
In any event: I love that dirty water. Boston, you're my home.
Romney the fan?
Posted by on 10.22.07 @ 12:20AM
As I watched the more important event tonight, I'm wondering if Mitt Romney mentioned the Red Sox at all during the debate. Anyone? Just wondering if he acknowledged that the team from his home state was playing for the pennant and that maybe he'd rather be somewhere else tonight. (Of course, all the candidates would rather be somewhere else, but that's beside the point.) No doubt Chris Dodd would've mentioned it if it had been a Democratic debate. Such a mention wouldn't go over poorly with any New Hampshire Republicans who might've been catching some of the debate, and it would show that here's a regular guy (except for the hair) who would rather be watching his team in the playoffs.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Oddest Moment
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 11:05PM
McCain essentially called Romney a liar to his face. He said(operating from notes and not a transcript): "You've been trying to fool people about your record. I don't want you to try to fool people about mine." Romney didn't really respond or even register any emotion. That in a nutshell is his greatest weakness. Great politicians listen and react in a way that offers a sense of their own emotional wiring and character. Romney doesn't do that and it is a problem we've seen more than once in these debates and in his failure to connect in big speeches.
Luntz Panel
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 10:58PM
For what it's worth, Frank Luntz did his focus group thing and found the crowd liked red meat on Hillary Clinton, which helped Giuliani and hurt McCain. Giuliani was perceived as the best candidate against Clinton by the panel, while they weren't too keen when McCain said he looked forward to having a respectful debate with her. Also, Huckabee seemed to do well--with even Thompson supporters saying they were more impressed with Huck.
Re: Yes, but...
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 10:40PM
Bill Kristol addressed this earlier today:
Actually, since the audience for presidential primary debates is pretty specialized in the first place, it's not clear how many viewers will be lost to baseball. But to the degree some are, it makes the overall performance of each candidate through the hour-and-a-half of the debate less important, and producing a memorable soundbite or a winning exchange more crucial. A higher percentage than usual of potential voters will get their impression of this debate not from watching all or most of it, but from news accounts of it. And those accounts will feature only a couple of answers or exchanges. So the candidates will be spending even more time than usual today preparing their memorable ad libs and rehearsing their off-the-cuff witticisms.Perhaps this helps explain why the candidates were in especially good form -- they were exta-prepared to grasp for the soundbite.
Romney and Reagan
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 10:36PM
Asked by Alan Colmes to justify his newly-found appreciation for Ronald Reagan given his statements during the 1994 Senate race, Mitt Romney said that was a long time ago, and since then he built a business.
Huh?
From Romney's biography on his campaign Website:
Re: Yes, but
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 10:30PM
You might want to add disgruntled Yankees fans to the list of viewers.
Yes, but...
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 10:00PM
There's an ALCS Game 7 on. Did ANYONE besides a handful of bloggers and political junkies watch tonight's debate?
I wonder what the debate's ratings in Cleveland and Boston are.
Candidate Scorecard
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:46PM
Rudy: He's now consistently excelling in the debates, and was particularly strong on education.
Romney: Almost as steady as Rudy. He had a target on his back during the health care section, and ably defended himself.
McCain: Started slow, but improved as the night went on. A couple of great lines (being tied up during Woodstock, seeing "K-G-B" in Putin's eyes).
Thompson: Started strong, but slowed down as the night went on. Did well overall, though.
Huckabee: Solid performance. Going after the moderator for turning the candidates against each other was cheap (that's the moderator's job!), but probably effective.
Paul: He's improving -- maybe gaining confidence from the money? -- and seems slightly less out of place on the stage. He's starting to let his foreign policy serve as a background for his philosophy rather than the centerpiece of it, and many of his comments are starting to connect outside of his sycophantic base. I don't know how much electoral impact that will translate to, but worth noting nonetheless.
Tancredo and Hunter: Who?
Wrap
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:45PM
McCain will get much deserved kudos. He was mature, in command and funny. Rudy was also on his game --the best answers on school choice and Iran with his Hillary routine still the best you can find. Thompson was hugely improved but perhaps not quite on the tier of Rudy and McCain. Huckabee frankly didn't get enough time and this is yet another reason to lose the second tier folks. Romney? No "ask the lawyers" moment but not his best outing and the side by side comparison to his opponents hurts him. So Thompson lives to fight another day, McCain is back in the fight and no one really laid a glove on Rudy. Someone eventually will have to or the race won't change.
Debate Wrap
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:42PM
Honestly, all the candidates performed quite well tonight. Fred was much more energetic than usual: McCain showed a mixture of maturity, experience and good humor; Giuliani's strong personality was on display, and his answers on Iran and school choice were pitch perfect; I don't know if it was the disheveled hair, but Romney was much looser tonight, displayed knowledge of issues, and avoided major gaffes, unlike the last two debates.
Debate 5
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:35PM
Rudy's answer on Iran is very strong --gets a strong round of applause. Thompson asked about not doing his homework and only speaking for a few minutes yesterday --are you lazy? Gives a biographical answer explaining what he has done. "If a man can do all that and be lazy I recommend it to everyone." And ads his two kids to boot.
Foreign Policy
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:30PM
McCain gets his "K-G-B" joke in at Putin's expense. Rudy's measured answer with a tip to missile defense and expanding NATO shows he's on top of his material. Thompson's answer on Turkey is not his strongest and the ahhhs are back but hey, who's watching at this point. When you get to a tough foreign policy question this is where McCain and Rudy stand out. If those Luntz folks really do care about foreign policy they have two good choices. And where would we be without another Ron Paul foreign policy interventionist rant. The crowd is booing and everyone is counting down to getting back to the game.
Russian Relations
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:26PM
John McCain and Duncan Hunter gave specific details on Russia, but Giuliani pivoted to a more general answer on foreign policy-- expanding NATO and expanding our military.
Another Break
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:19PM
McCain is just a delight --funny(ok hysterical) and a real grown up. Too bad few are watching him but his Woodstock line is going to be the repeated clip. Thompson started strong but seems to have worn down(the reverse of the first debate) but overall is much, much better and should breath a sigh of relief. Rudy is well, Rudy. When he goes into his Hillary taunts and his "I like kids better" there is no space between him and the most conservative of the base. Romney? He seems not quite on the same level as the others but there have been no fumbles and no large errors.
Great Debate
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:18PM
Everyone is in top form, with the partial exception of McCain (he was a little subdued at the beginning, but seems to have woken up). Jim Geraghty wonders if the candidates are on steroids; Dave Weigel suggests that "it has more to do with Fox panelists who actually care what these candidates think."
Debate 4
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:11PM
Rudy asked if he's like Hillary? Gives one of his classic "You have got to be kidding" and does his "can't afford" her shtick, giving Florida a kiss(literally). McCain cracks up the crowd and gets a big round of applause on her Woodstock museum. (He missed the original event because he was "tied up.") McCain and Rudy both are very good tonight. Thompson asked why he said not to focus on Hillary --he answers by focusing on Hillary. But he is alert and focused and ends by explaining that GOP will win if stick to "first principles" and decries "a comfortable mediocrity." Thompson when asked about reducing entitlement benefits, hesitates and answers yes. Rudy asked will you jump on too the third rail too? He doesn't. Instead he touts private accounts and reducing health costs through market forces with one of his best responses.Will Romney jump? Romney says he "won't cut benefits for low income seniors" (you listening, you Florida seniors?). Romney reiterates his private sector experience again (smart) but gets into the weeds and loses whoever is listening to this rather than watching the game. McCain goes the Reagan-Tip O'Neil route of sitting down and working it all out.
Hitting Hillary
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:04PM
They all got their knocks in: Romney on the experience factor, Rudy by hitting her on honesty ("I became a Yankee fan growing up in New York, she became a Yankee fan growing up in Chicago. Do you believe her?") and knocking her on the statement "I have a million ideas, can't pay for all of them.) But McCain brought down the house by referencing Hillary wanting to give money for a Woodstock museum--"I was tied up at the time." Even his opponents applauded.
Giuliani on School Choice
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 8:49PM
He gave a strong answer by saying he cares about teachers, but cares about the kids more. The fiesty, reformist, Rudy came out when he talked about fighting beauracracy and called choice, as he has before, the "civil rights issue of our time." Also, a solid anecdote that he's told before about how over 100,000 parents applying for 2,000 scholarships in NYC made him appreciate the importance of choice.
Debate 3
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 8:49PM
Thompson asked about No Child Left Behind he says some of critics were right and some of us were wrong. Talks about teaching to the test and returns to a theme of limiting the federal government to assisting states and importance of fathers. Back to Rudy on schools and asked about his comments wanting to "blow up the schools." "I care about kids more" he says and talks in favor of school choice. What is wrong with No Child Left Behind-- we should empower parents. Repeated applause. This is the Rudy that got liberals mad at in NY-- taking on government bureacrats.
At the break: Thompson is the most improved and has been solid. McCain is on his game. His opponents have not gone after Rudy, at least not as agressively as one could have imagined, and he has parried by coming right back at his opponents. The shakiest so far: Romney who never quite taken the bull by the horns. (When McCain calls him a liar it seemed an opportunity to defend himself but the moment was lost.)And Huckabee-give him some more questions!
Debate 2
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 8:39PM
On marriage Romney gives a strong statement in favor of amendment. On an amendment Rudy says if other states start imposing marriage by fiat, rather than just one, he would favor an amendment too. (A bit of news?) He makes a joke about only presiding at marriages between men and women. Huckabee chides about letting the other four getting into in and that he'll be read to fight the Democrats. (He sounds a bit hoarse but unlike Romney looks like he had a haircut.) Thompson asks about his representation of a pro-choice group which he says was firm's client( well, yeah but...) but that he nevertheless had a perfect pro-life record and pro-choice folks think he is their worst nightmare. McCain chides those who would "pander" (no names) but speaks about reconcilliation with Falwell. (And the campaigns are bombarding us with all sorts of fact checks and info. We will just note that each disagrees with everyone else on everything.) On healthcare McCain is authorative and detailed, perhaps his best answer. We get through a half hour before Ron Paul gets to his first good rant. Romney asked about his individual mandate being like HillaryCare. He answers he is "proud" but says it was different in important ways(but how?). He really does not answer the question and talks about his current plan. Hunter gets a follow up-- but what about individual mandate -- and talks about 1000 mandates on insurance. (If it had been a top tier candidate he would have gotten whacked.) Romney talks about "a compromise" and taking a lot of mandates out. Ends stronger than he began with statement that he got something done.
Circular Firing Squad?
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 8:21PM
Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and McCain are really going for the throat against each other. Pessimistic take: Whoever wins the nomination, he's going to be bloodied. Optimistic take: Whoever wins the nomination, he's going to be battle-hardened!
Debate
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 8:21PM
OK, I'm small minded and petty but what is up with Mitt's hair? This is perhaps literally letting his hair down. Thompson is definitely peppy and throws an elbow at Romney but with good humor and another at Kennedy. Thompson goes after Rudy on social issues and Rudy responds on tort reform, Thompson back on sanctuary cities and Rudy on executive experience. They both looked sharp. McCain belittles the short time Thompson and Rudy served. McCain gets asked about the lawyers, "the last people" he'd ask and says to Romney, and says directly to him, that he has spent a year "fooling people about his record." He warns him not to fool people about his record. This is not beanbag folks. Romney says would act immediately to protect US and goes back to original question to explain role of Congress. He leaves McCain's attack on his credibility unreturned. He looks less feisty than his opponents who seem to have all had an extra cup of coffee.
McCain Scores on Romney
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 8:19PM
Hitting him on the Iran lawyers comment, his honesty vs. Romney trying to reinvent himself.
"My Romney, you've spent the last year trying to fool people about your record."
Snap Cosmetic Judgements
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 8:16PM
Romney has a lock of hair out of place above his forehead -- happenstace, or a conscious effort to undermine the "too slick" rap? [UPDATE: I had not seen Phil's post below when I wrote this. GMTA.]
Thompson looks younger to me than he has at other forums; not really sure what it is. Maybe he's just more awake; he's certainly showing some energy in the early rounds of cross-candidate engagement. McCain, on the other hands, seems a little subdued.
Romney's Hair
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 8:15PM
Did he intentionally mess it up to seem more authentic? Discuss.
Debate Pregame
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 8:02PM
Frank Luntz's focus group members talk in sound bites, think Ron Paul is insane and Hillary is a socialist. They say they're looking for someone to "step up" and stand up to the Democrats and are most interested in Iraq and forerign policy. While the entire country watches baseball and football, political nerds will see if anyone takes the gloves off here. Thompson could sure use a good showing and Huck will let us know whether he's got another great debate in him. Romney and at least one opponent will surely get into it. And because I suspect it's a bit personal, I'm thinking it might be McCain.
Lead Up to Debate
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 5:16PM
Forget the Presidential Candidates
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 4:36PM
The real star of the Values Voter Summit was our own Ben Stein. At least every other sentence of his speech Friday night was an applause line, whether by accident or intelligent design.
In that spirit, I am going to bypass the Republican presidential debate tonight and watch the Red Sox play the Cleveland Indians in Game 7 of the American League Championship Series. A Mitt Romney press release says, "Tonight's debate keeps Governor Romney in Florida, but his heart is at Fenway during Game Seven." I'll do him one better.
What Jindal's Victory Means
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 2:23PM
It is hard to put into words how joyful I am that Bobby Jindal is now the Governor-Elect of Louisiana. I wrote about him for AmSpec here. But my emotional investment in having a conservative reformer as governor of my home state is far greater than can be indicated by just that article. I grew up in a household where my parents were activists in support of Republican Dave Treen, who ran three times for Congress and lost, ran for governor and lost (while I was tardy 11 times to 2nd Grade homeroom because I was wandering the halls trying to get classmates to bring home Treen campaign materials to their parents -- what a little goofball I was!), finally was elected to Congress, then seven years later finally squeaked into the governorship (while I repeatedly rode my bike to his local headquarters to help out) -- only to be repeatedly and thoroughly flummixed by twice and twice future Gov. Edwin Edwards, who basically controlled the Legislature even while Treen was in the governor's mansion.
Cut forward to 1987 (it was 20 years ago today, Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play.... oops, right sentiments, wrong words), with me one year out of college. U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston was running for governor, and I was his Research Director/policy wonk. Surely, we thought, this would be the time -- with Edwards now, finally, unpopular -- that we would bring reform and conservativism to real, honest-to-goodness power in Louisiana. But our strategists misread the electorate, tried to play things too safe in the open primary, and let Democrat Buddy Roemer sweep in to office on our faux-right flank. Roemer was a reformer, of sorts, and in some ways conservative...but he was just, well, sort of weird. He rubbed too many people the wrong way much too quickly. A waiting Edwin Edwards made another comeback and left Roemer in the dust behind himself and Nazi David Duke. Right after that ghastly election, I left New Orleans to join Livingson on Capitol Hill....where, when I got there, the whole office was still talking about this genius intern who had served a stint in the office in late summer. Asian-Indian dude, name of Jindal. Everybody told me this kid was really going places.
Four years later, a semi-Republican named Mike Foster was elected governor. He was sorta conservative, but in many ways part of the old boy network. But, at the urging of Livingston (I was in the office during a couple of Bob's conversations with Foster on Jindal's behalf) and of U.S. Rep. Jim McCrery, Foster interviewed Jindal and then hired him to run the state health department.
And so on. For 36 years I've been waiting for somebody like Jindal to finally take office with the wind behind him and no corrupt shadow governor in his way. Twenty years ago I worked all year to make it happen, but we let it slip away. For 16 of those 20 years, Jindal has been the hope for our redemption. Here is the real deal, the genuine article, a man of ethics and brains and talent and managerial competence. And he comes to Louisiana at the state's absolute lowest moment, after it failed to recover well from the most devasting natural disaster in our nation's history and as the patience of the rest of the country for the state's plight seems to have worn out.
Louisiana NEEDED this. Louisiana has so much to offer, so much to celebrate, but it has such a bad political legacy to overcome. Jindal really does have the tools to make the state succeed in that effort.
Forgive the personal nature of this post, but this just means so much. America, watch this young man. If he succeeds in Louisiana, he may well have a higher calling still.
Gorbyland
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 12:14PM
Entertaining news from Russia, for once: everyone's favorite statesman who really ended the Cold War founds a new movement straight out of Yellow Submarine.
Huck-mentum?
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 9:53AM
Top Ten Time
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 7:28AM
Top Ten Things you won't hear at the Florida debate tonight:
1-5. "Ask the Lawyers."
6. "Schiavo? Doesn't ring a bell."
7. "Everglades drilling is just the start. I'm thinking a big
condo development."
8. "My idea for catastrophic insurance plan: don't live close to
the water."
9. "I actually have a lot in common with Hillary Clinton and
let me tell you what."
10. " How would I get Hezbollah out of Syria? Can Ron Paul go
first?"
Jindal Wins
Posted by on 10.21.07 @ 2:07AM
In a Republican pickup, Bobby Jindal won the Louisiana gubernatorial election in the first round. Many 2003 Blanco voters seem to have experienced buyer's remorse.
- Bowling Alone
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
