- 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, November 3, 2007
Can Russert Give Him A Jump Start?
Posted by on 11.3.07 @ 2:01PM
Olbermann's Big 'Apology'
Posted by on 11.3.07 @ 11:08AM
After days of hot pursuit by your humble correspondent, Keith Olbermann did, in fact, apologize for erroneously reporting that Rudy Giuliani said if Democrats were elected, they'd invite Osama into the White House. But then he gave Giuliani all three positions in his "Worst Person in the World" feature anyway. More evidence to support my column from yesterday.
In his correction itself, Olbermann blamed the error on the AP story--even though he had broadcast the video of Giuliani's remarks on his show. Rebroadcasting the tape yesterday, Olbermann introduced it by saying it showed "why there was widespread confusion." Actually, the tape shows that Giuliani said Assad, not Osama. Olbermann also said, "There are obviously mitigating circumstances regarding this mistake," because the AP took 47 hours to correct it. He left out the fact that I documented the error in full detail to his spokeswoman around noon on Thursday and spoke to her office three times during the day about the correction, and yet Olbermann still waited until late on a Friday night to set the record straight.
Anyway, here is the video of Olbermann's "apology," via the much more tech-savvy than me Hotair.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Re: Mukasey
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 11:40PM
Earlier in the day I speculated that perhaps Sen. Schumer to justify his vote for Judge Mukasey was looking for a fig leaf in the form of a promise that Mukasey would enforce a law banning waterboarding if Congress managed to pass it and the President signed it. Indeed this suggests that is precisely the dance that took place in a meeting between Schumer and Mukasey today. Schumer is quoted as saying: "the judge made clear to me that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority ... [and] he flatly told me that the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution." Even the NY Times dryly notes that Schumer "did not address the possibility that Mr. Bush would veto any such legislation." This of course was not the issue on which Democrats opposed Mukasey -- it was his refusal to declare waterboarding, a practice believed not to be in use currently, illegal in the absence of any specific statute outlawing this practice. But a contrived issue deserves a contrived ending which is what we got.
Re: Best Ad
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 11:18PM
That's how the narrative was always going to go, preordained not because of an ad, but because journalists get bored, and even if they weren't bored, this is the only way the media knows how to cover our ever lengthier campaign seasons. Actually, the "Is Hillary inevitable?" drumbeat began months ago on cable news shows right, left and center, which is why one misstep is now being parlayed into, "She was horrible." Yet you yourself point out how superior to Obama she was, her nearest competitor, and all Edwards attacks seemed desperate. We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. She wasn't horrible by any stretch of the imagination and especially not in this crowd. This ad is not that well done and will have little, if any, impact in the upcoming Democratic primaries, which isn't to say she's a shoe-in, but if she loses it won't be because of this last debate. (I can see Republicans revisiting the illegal immigrant license footage in the general, though.) And everything you say would have been said, regardless, at some point with whatever prompting was available at the time.
Re: Best Ad So Far
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 10:36PM
Well the proof will certainly come if Hillary's poll numbers start to move but a day in which the Left, Right and Center media and both parties are talking about her contortions and the ad is played over and over again is not a good one for Madame Hillary. If the narrative moves from "wow she's inevitable" to "gosh, she was horrible and maybe this isn't sewn up" then the ad is having an impact. However, it may well be that none of her challengers can actually topple her.
As for my use of the term "hapless," I was perhaps unclear. I meant to refer to Obama's unfocused and meandering debate performance and his failure to draw clear distinctions. Either he does not have it in him to sharply and directly take her on or he is in need of some serious coaching. Watching the tape again or re-reading the transcript is instructive. It would certainly help his cause to use some simple, declarative statements. His mush that followed her dodge on release of the Clinton papers is a prime example. It's all very fuzzy, very word and ultimately not very effective. Hence, the current state of the race.
Re: Best Ad So Far
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 10:02PM
Sorry, Jennifer, but a bunch of political journalists who would like nothing better--professionally, not politically--than to see the coronation stopped is hardly proof that the "stop the coronation" sentiment is building momentum. What proof outside of political blogs do we have for this supposed buzz? I spent virtually all of my formative years working in the trenches of primary campaigns in New Hampshire, then covering campaigns for the AP and many of the local newspapers there, and I can tell you if you're going to tell a bunch of fibs in an ad, it's going to have to be slicker than that to make a real impact with people in early primary states whose ad-watching sophistication is substantially more attuned than the population at large. Hillary is virtually frozen in mid-sentence. You absolutely know something is being held back from you watching that. Color me unimpressed. And when Edwards starts polling in Obama territory or can pull a crowd like I saw Obama pull in NYC, maybe we can start talking about comparative haplessness.
Re: Where They Go
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 8:54PM
South Carolina will be crowded with politicians on Wednesday. Rudy has announced he'll be there on the same day as Romney and Thompson. Thursday Rudy heads to Iowa and Nevada.
Re: Best Ad So Far
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 6:33PM
Judging from the reaction on the right, left, and in the MSM, Edwards' ad has done what no other ad has done -- build some momentum behind the "stop the corornation" sentiment. Ads are judged by the impact, the effectiveness and the buzz they create and by that standard no ad has come close this poltical season with the possible exception of the Apple Big Brother video. Is it a documentary? Will it convince conservatives that Edwards is a great guy? Certainly not. But it is working and it's far better than anything the hapless Obama has said or done to disrupt the Hillary march to victory.
Daily Kos...
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 6:08PM
...hates television.
Predictably in the comments someone mentions how much they prefer superior British programming over this foolishness beamed to us in BushWorld. Which is another way of saying, "Hey, I don't want to come right out with it, but you know I'm superior, right?"
Hillary's Plan B
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 6:06PM
In today's Washington Examiner, Tim Carney finds one area where Hillary Clinton is a friend of the pharmaceutical industry.
Re: The Best Ad So Far
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 6:00PM
Eh, maybe its effective in a sort of let's-see-if-we-can-fool-the-rubes way, but best? I don't think so. I'll save that qualifier for something that actually has some integrity to it.
The edits are stilted because--aside from the bit on illegal immigrant driver's licenses--they are misleading at best, patently dishonest at worst, as anyone who watched the debate would be aware. Not that Hillary is an entirely sympathetic character in regard to misinformation and demonization, but if she wants to respond to this ad, she should just buy ad time right alongside it. Run her full answer, without editing, on the Iraq question, for example. Basically he chided her for saying we were going to continue fighting al Qaeda in Iraq with a residual force even after a general redeployment of most of our troops. Inside the walls of Fortress Code Pink that might be a crazy idea. And sure, it's still an answer many of us here won't like. I have a feeling, though, it probably sounds like the adult anti-war position to most middle-class Democrats voters.
Edwards should have stuck to the licenses, a more potent Hillary misstep. Then again, he's never been good at engaging reality. He's turning Hillary into another Other America, a fictious character in the personal passion play he is so enthralled with acting out. The blustering exaggerations are as predictable as his hair, if not as perfect. (In fairness, his haircuts probably cost more than this commercial.)
Mukasey
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 5:59PM
Diane Feinstein, who already earned kudos recently for her support of Judge Southwick, has announced support for Judge Mukasey. She joins Sen. Schumer. Neither will win any points with their base. When it goes to handing out those awards for political courage which invariably go to Republicans who join Democrats on tax increases and other such things, it would be nice to include Feinstein who has restored some hope that not every nominee should be submarined by the most extreme elements in their base. A low bar to climb over but apparently few can manage to do it.
In Defense of Waterboarding
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 4:49PM
The always-excellent Deroy Murdock today has this provocative column at Human Events (among other places) called "Three Cheers for Waterboarding." And the ever-thoughtful Pete Wehner adds this at NRO, wrestling with the same question and eventually coming down in much the same place.
As both of them indicate, it is awfully easy to engage in moral preening against so-called torture when you are playing to the cameras, but a lot harder to do when hundreds of thousands of lives may depend on it.
Both columns are well worth reading.
Olbermann to Correct/Apologize for Rudy Quote
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 4:47PM
Keith Olbermann will air a correction to his report in which he incorrectedly quoted Rudy Giuliani as saying that Democrats would invite Osama bin Laden to the White House, according to an MSNBC spokeswoman.
"There will be a correction on tonight's show, and Keith will apologize," said spokeswoman Alana Russo.
The controversy started on Monday when the AP ran a story quoting Guiliani as saying if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were elected "we'll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we'll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House." Keith Olbermann fumed on his Tuesday show, "A year before the election and Rudy Giuliani is already publicly contending the Democrats are willing to invite Osama bin Laden to the White House to negotiate. Sure they are, buster." Along with guest Arianna Huffington, he accused Giuliani of being a liar.
In fact, Giuliani said Assad, not Osama. As in, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Following a report on this blog, the AP corrected its story. Though video of Giuliani's actual remarks aired on his show, Olbermann had avoided correcting the error up until now.
Re: The Best Ad So Far
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 3:13PM
I agree, that Edwards ad is hard-hitting -- but it would be even more effective if Edwards weren't guilty of exactly the sort of obfuscation on Iraq that he's calling Hillary on.
Where They Go
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 3:05PM
Rudy on Prostate Cancer Stats
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 1:37PM
In the short press conference this morning, Giuliani was asked about the controversy surrounding a recent radio ad in which he said his chances of surviving prostate cancer were twice what they were in the U.S. than if he were in England. The claim has had the New York Times and liberal blogs such as Talking Points Memo in a tizzy. The numbers Giuliani cited were 82 percent to 44 percent, which came from a City Journal article. One of the criticisms was that Giuliani used highly out of date numbers from 7 years ago.
This morning Giuliani said the numbers were accurate and he's sticking with them, because he had prostate cancer in 2000, so that would be an accurate reflection of his own survival chances when he had prostate cancer. Today, he said, the numbers were closer to 98-99 percent in the U.S. and 74 percent in England, but that still doesn't change his overall point about the superiority of free market health care. And, in typical Giuliani fashion, he ended the exchange by going on the offensive against the reporter who asked the question. "You find me a person with prostate cancer who wants to to leave the United States to go to England for treatment," he challenged. "I'd like to meet that person."
The Best Ad So Far
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 1:26PM
Forget all the Republican ads. There is nothing better than this.
More Kit/Coleman on Rudy
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 1:15PM
I just got back from the press conference in which Sen. Bond announced his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. Bond explained that he chose Giuliani because of his performance as mayor of New York City in which he fought spending, cut taxes, and turned around a city that had been a "crime-laden symbol of urban decay." Bond said Giuliani's performance on 9/11 "showed the kind of leadership Rudy Giuliani could provide." Also, he said Giuliani is the one who best understands the terrorist threat. "America is hungry for a President who will say what he means, and do what he says," Bond said.
Asked about Giuliani's views on abortion, Bond emphasized Giuliani's support for parental notification, the ban on partial birth abortion, and the appointment of strict constructionist judges.
Sen. Norm Coleman, who endorsed Giuliani yesterday, was also on hand. Coleman emphasized their shared background as mayors as being a motivating factor in his decision. In a bit of an odd statement, Coleman said though he is a Senator, "I still have mayor written on my underwear." His point, though, was he knows that as mayor you have to be focused on results, because if there's a problem--as minor as snow not being cleared on the streets--you'll know about it. He said of Giuliani's acomplishments as mayor that, "the revitilization of New York City was a miracle." He also emphasized Giuliani's strength on the terrorism issue. "I will sleep very calmly at night knowing that Rudy Giuliani is in the White House," he said.
Really Such Bad Times?
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 12:18PM
Sen. Bond
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 12:02PM
He does two things for Rudy. He's a help in Missouri which is a tough Feb. 5 state and he is certainly a solid conservative on everything from social issues to the economy to the war. I'm always leery of attributing too much to individual endorsements unless they are extraordinary but as part of a theme -- mainstream conservatives get on the Rudy bus, for example -- they have some utility. And to the extent they encourage other more prominent figures to get on board it helps.
UPDATE: And some think there is something else at play- swing state Republicans looking strategically at who at the top of the ticket can help in Congressional and Senate races. Missouri and Minnesota would seem to fit that bill.
Kit On Board
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 11:40AM
Just checked my e-mail to which 25 minutes ago our Philip Klein blackberried from the field that Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. Bond must have been swayed by the London Telegraph's naming Rudy America's most influential, number one conservative in its listing of a Top 100.
New Romney Ad
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 11:37AM
Charismatic Mythmaking
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 11:20AM
Jeremy Lott has posted a very interesting interview with Matt Welch about his new book, McCain: Myth of a Maverick.
PhRMA Saves Lives
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 10:16AM
Two days ago I ended a 15 month professional affiliation (indirect) with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) -- which is why, during those 15 months, I did not write as a journalist on health care issues (except one passing reference once in a column on something else), because of course that would have been a conflict of interest. But now that my professional affiliation is finished, I feel compelled to say this: Of all the anti-corporate scapegoating that the political left engages in, perhaps the most pernicious is the left's continuing attempt to paint pharmaceutical companies as bad guys. The fact is that, every single year, PhRMA companies vastly improve tens of millions of American lives and flat-out save millions more. Our free market system, and the competitions therein, work well in the pharmaceutical industries to provide the resources for life-saving research while keeping downward pressure on prices that no government program could ever accomplish. And the people I worked with at PhRMA care deeply, in a very personal way, about keeping their industry strong not just because it provides them a paycheck but because of the good that the industry does. PhRMA's senior vice president of communications, Ken Johnson, is clearly motivated largely by a sense of idealism about the industry's life-saving mission -- in part because his longtime boss, PhRMA president and CEO and former U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin, had his own life saved from cancer by the medical advances that only a free-market pharmaceutical industry could possibly have developed. PhRMA and conservatives may not always agree, but 90% of the time they will be on the same side, and for all the best reasons. It is an industry worth defending.
Mukasey At Risk
Posted by on 11.2.07 @ 8:36AM
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Is One Australian REALLY Never Enough?
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 10:24PM
For those interested in a wee reprieve from politics, the Nashua Telegraph was kind enough to run my interview with one-tenth of The Ten Tenors today wherein we discuss the Bee Gees, being Australian and competition from the Thunder from Down Under.
Mukasey
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 7:50PM
This doesn't sound too promising. To his credit, McCain steps up to the plate, defends Mukasey's refusal to knuckle under to Democrats' demands to render a definitive legal opinion on waterboarding and in the process reveals that this is all about nothing since McCain contends waterboarding is not in use currently. Sen. Specter also seemed to indicate that he has no issue with Mukasey's response on waterboarding. Meanwhile, no word from the usually loquacious Sen. Schumer, who of course, welcomed Mukasey's nomination. Will the Senate Dems actually vote him down in committee and deny a floor vote? It seems unbelievable but possible. And where by the way are the rest of the GOP contenders? Aside from McCain and Rudy, who has vigorously defended his colleague, the rest have been conspicuous by their silence on what is shaping up as another instance of remarkable Democratic obstructionism over an entirely contrived issue.
Colbert Out
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 6:47PM
SC Democrats have decided that, unlike Dennis Kucinich, Stephen Colbert is not a "serious" candidate and therefore won't be on the ballot there. I think there's a frivolous and amusing lawsuit in there somewhere.
Corallo Strikes Back, Defends Blackwater
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 6:24PM
It appears the NY Times did another horrendously slanted, dishonest piece (not a surprise!), but this time my friend Mark Corallo fought back. Compare Corallo's account of the interview with the NYT mentions of Corallo. Corallo's word is gold; if he says that is what happened, then that is what happened. It's a shame that reporters can't have the equivalent of disbarrment, or that they can't be sued for malpractice (a standard of proof lower than that for libel), because methinks the Times would already have been put out of business if that were the case, and if stories as bad as this one keep being the norm.
Oh....and one more thing: Corallo is right that these Blackwater guys deserve praise, not condemnation!
Occam's Spambot
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 3:32PM
Brian Doherty highlights some paranoid lunatic darkly speculating that the Ron Paul spam mentioned here yesterday are the work of The Man trying to keep Saint Ron down:
This attack method can do far more harm than good for the Ron Paul campaign so I will make a guess that this is the work of those in the NSA using cyber war tactics out of loyalty or possibly under orders to use this stealth attack method to derail the Ron Paul campaign by using the campaign's online strength against them...Uh huh. I'm sure "the establishment" is terrified of Ron Paul and his intimidating single-digit showing in every scientific poll. On the other hand, there is a slight possibility that there are some Paul supporters out there who don't have the greatest judgment about how to promote their candidate. Crazy theory, I know.This is nefarious and demonstrates the kind of tactics that the establishment could use to serve their interest in stopping the advance of Ron Paul and the Revolution for freedom that he is leading as well as his Presidential bid.
Re: Coleman Backs Rudy
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 3:24PM
His votes have been mixed on Iraq and the surge and he has consistently opposed a deadline for withdrawal. He has expressed support for Petraeus and his more recent statements indicate he strongly opposes " pulling the plug."
Re: Norm Coleman Backs Rudy
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 3:13PM
It must be pointed out that Coleman hasn't always been the favorite of conservatives, and is viewed as a moderate Republican. This year, he opposed the troop surge in Iraq and voted for SCHIP. His most recent ACU rating is 68. No doubt it's nice to have the endorsement, but I'm not sure it wins Giuliani much with conservatives. Rudy is also set to accept the endorsement of another U.S. Senator tomorrow morning.
Norm Coleman Backs Rudy
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 1:53PM
Politico has the scoop. On one level it is not surprising, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman is a New Yorker, an attorney and previously a very successful mayor. However, he's also in a hotly contested race (why annoy some Republicans who back other presidential contenders?) and he has an impeccable pro-life record. With Gov. Rick Perry, Tommy Thompson and now Coleman, Rudy may be making some headway in getting pro-life well known Republicans on board. It's not Sam Brownback, but it's a start. And Minnesota is of course a February 5 state so it is a nice get -- the endorsement of perhaps the second most important Republican in the state( Gov. Pawlenty is a McCain supporter).
Re: Piling on Hillary
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 1:29PM
The funniest part of this report from The Hill is the grousing from Hillary advisors that others got UFO questions. Well, if Dennis Kucinich had a shot a the presidency( in this universe) her aides might have a point. Perhaps Madame Hillary is not used to tough questioning but contrary to her team's whining Tim Russert was doing his job -- trying to pin her down and challenge the double talk. Her after the fact whimpering seems altogether unbecoming of a Wellesley grad.
Piling On Hillary
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 10:38AM
After her disasterous debate performance on Tuesday in which she stonewalled on the failure to release documents from when she was first lady and took anywhere from two to four different positions on drivers' lisences for illegal immigrants, the Clinton campaign is whining about "the politics of pile on and today the Washington Post has her advisors saying the idea of an all-male field of opponents criticizing her will help her with the female vote. This is absurd. She is the runaway frontrunner, so she will obviously get the brunt of the tough questions. The fact that she bungled them is not anybody's fault but her own. And it would actually be sexist if her opponents avoided criticizing her just because she is a woman. Playing for sympathy benefitted her in her first New York Senate race when Rick Lazio invaded her personal space in a debate by trying to get her to sign a pledge to not take "soft money." Her tactic may work among the Democratic electorate in the primary, but if she pulls this type of thing in a general election, she's toast. The general American electorate does not want to elect a commander in chief during wartime out of sympathy.
Re: Right Behind Grover...
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 10:31AM
But there must have been a glitch in the list. Somehow one entry from the "Embittered, Raving Anti-Iraq War and Bush Hating" list got mixed in with the Most Influencial Conservative List. Hence, Number 33.
Right Behind Grover, Just Ahead of Dobson
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 9:26AM
The London Telegraph has been trickling out their lists of 100 most influential American conservatives and liberals this week (Drudge has been keeping up), and Mr. Tyrrell made the top 25 (on the Right)!
I wonder where the coaches poll would rank him.
Familiarity Breeds...
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 9:22AM
Iowa Take
Posted by on 11.1.07 @ 8:34AM
I checked in with Steffen Schmidt, Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University and long time guru on the Iowa Caucus. His take on the GOP race is interesting.
Is Thompson making an impact? "Fred has risen in the polls but there is little talk or buzz about him."
Is Huckabee for real there? " He is very well liked and I believe and always thought from months ago that he was a sleeper. He is a former governor and a minister and a likeable man so why should he not connect? He has now risen to # 2 in Iowa."
Is Romney maintaining his lead and enthusiasm? "In Iowa Romney is softening as other candidates slowly build % but he still has a 14% spread with 28% ... but that's very weak for a front runner."
Professor Schmidt also noted the substantial decline in McCain's fortunes to single digits. Again, in light of this, it makes perfect sense for Romney to spend three days in a state which at first blush some might conclude is in the bag.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
AP Corrects Rudy-Osama Quote
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 11:38PM
Following a report on this blog, the
AP has issued a correction to its story that
incorrectly stated that Giuliani said Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton want to invite Osama bin Laden to the White
House:
Giuliani said: "This is the world we live in. It's not this happy, romantic-like world where we'll negotiate with this one, or we'll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we'll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we'll invite (Syrian President Bashar) Assad to the White House."
Andrew Sullivan has also issued a correction. None yet, as far
as I can tell, from TPM or Keith Olbermann.
Re: Polls
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 10:37PM
So what does it all mean? In some sense not much has changed in the last 5-6 months. If you look at the handy RCP national poll chart, comparing May/June and the present, what strikes you is that aside from substituting Thompson for McCain in second place the race has remained fairly steady in the national polls. Yes, Huckabee is gaining of late but the basic structure of the race is the same, albeit with a different runner up. To some extent the same is true in the RCP early state poll averages. Romney leads in Iowa and NH but nowhere else. Rudy is a nose ahead in SC(another poll may be out shortly according to Politico) and has significant leads in other states. So the essential question remains the same: Will Romney's lead in early states hold and give him enough of a bounce to vault him ahead of Rudy in everything that follows? So the more things have changed, the more debates we have had, and after the appearance of Huckabee and Thompson and the tens of millions raised and spent we are back to where we have been all along. And therefore beneath that broader questions are smaller queries: 1) Will Huck get his organizational act together and dent Romney in Iowa ? 2) Has Rudy, still to run TV ads in NH, found in the Granite State an electorate more in tune with his appeal than Romney's and the chance to knock out his most viable foe? 3) If Hillary sweeps in Iowa and NH do Independents pour into Michigan and Florida, affecting the race in these two early states? All this explains why Romney is in Iowa for three days and Rudy spends the better part of the week in NH.
Polls
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 8:04PM
Christian Republicans, Christian Democrats
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 6:55PM
There has been a good bit of talk about Michael Gerson's book in the blogosphere today. I'm reviewing it in our next issue, so I won't scoop myself there. But together with David Kirkpatrick's "evangelical crackup" story in the New York Times and my own incessant yammering about Rudy and the religious right, Gerson-style politics raise an important question: If social issues become a less important part of the Republican Party's brand at the same time evangelicals and other religious conservatives are moving left on economics, will these voters trend Democratic? Or will they stay in the GOP and try to pull it in a more "compassionate" direction?
While I've generally been skeptical of those who blame the religious right for big-government conservatism, recent trends do make this more of a concern. But I still wouldn't get too carried away for three reasons. First, there isn't much evidence that Wallis-like or even Gerson-like politics are catching on except among young evangelicals, who may move right on economics as they age, and the evangelical elite. Second, traditionalist Catholics already are to the left of the GOP on economics, conservative on social issues, and much more opposed to the Iraq war and other Bush foreign-policy initiatives than evangelicals -- yet still a solid number of them vote Republican. Third, it isn't a foregone conclusion that the GOP will abandon social issues.
Re: Paulbots
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 5:33PM
A few more teachable moments like that, Jim, and there won't be any libertarians left!
(Given the amount of time and internet traffic it takes up, I think spam qualifies as the sort of aggression that even a night-watchman state is authorized to curb. Anti-spam extremist Jeremy Lott remains a libertarian in good standing.)
Re: Paulbots
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 5:16PM
But what a great libertarian teachable moment, John. Legalize spam and let the market decide how much people like it!
Paulbots
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 5:11PM
Now here's a great way to promote your candidate: illegal spam! That should work like a charm -- everyone knows how much people like getting spam.
If You Take a Walk, I'll Tax Your Feet
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 4:17PM
The Iowa Department of Revenue is now taxing pumpkins, on the grounds that they're Halloween decorations and not food. Obviously they're often both -- I can't be the only one who has roasted and eaten the pumpkin seeds dug out of jack-o-lanterns -- but when it comes to dumping more money into the public trough, any excuse will do.
Re: Rocky Who?
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 4:14PM
Definitely a male/female thing. Garance Franke-Ruta's very silly suggestion that people who weren't alive in the 70s haven't seen Rocky would never, ever be made by a man.
Thompson's Schedule
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 2:48PM
And for those of you who think Thompson isn't working hard enough, his campaign puts out an email to inform us he is having a breakfast in Nevada on Thursday and doing Meet the Press on Sunday. That's it. Sounds like the first two hours of a Romney day.
McCain Won't Oppose Mukasey
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 2:43PM
McCain in a letter written with Sen. Warner and Sen Graham makes clear they will not oppose the nomination of Judge Mukasey. They write: "We welcome your acknowledgement in yesterday's letter that the interrogation technique known as waterboarding is 'over the line' and 'repugnant,' and we appreciate your recognition that Congress possesses the authority to ban interrogation techniques.These are important statements, and we expect that they will inform your views as Attorney General. We also expect that, in that role, you will not permit the use of such a practice by any agency of the United States Government.You have declined to comment specifically on the legality of waterboarding, deeming it a hypothetical scenario about which it would be imprudent to opine. Should you be confirmed, however, you will soon be required to make determinations regarding the legality of interrogation techniques that are anything but hypothetical."
After reciting their view that waterboarding is indeed illegal the letter concludes: "We share your revulsion at the use of waterboarding and welcome your commitment to review existing legal memoranda covering interrogations and their consistency with current law. It is vital that you do so, as anyone who engages in this practice, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts.himself at risk of criminal prosecution, including under the War Crimes Act, and opens himself to civil liability as well. We must wage and win the war on terror, but doing so is fully compatible with fidelity to our laws and deepest values. Once you are confirmed and fully briefed on the relevant programs and legal analyses, we urge you to publicly make clear that waterboarding can never be employed."
This seems to have neatly preserved McCain's position on
interrogation techniques while avoiding a political landmine. No
word yet on Sen. Specter but with McCain and his co-authors on
board the Republicans should all follow suit. Whether the Democrats
mount a full scale opposition is yet to be seen.
"Gangrenous Rot"
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 2:40PM
For the absolute must-read editorial of the day, see the Washington Examiner's wonderful piece on the "the gangrenous rot sown in the American judicial system by corrupt class action lawyers like courtroom firebrand William Lerach." The Examiner is right: If the Dems in Congress really mean to get rid of corruption rather than just trying to score cheap political points with all their overblown "investigations" (witch hunts), they should investigate the big-money trial lawyer racket. But read the editorial for yourself. Good stuff.
AP Mangles Rudy Quote
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 2:17PM
An AP story on Monday quoted Rudy Giuliani as saying:
"This is the world we live in. It's not this happy, romantic-like world where we'll negotiate with this one, or we'll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we'll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we'll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House," Giuliani said.
"Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball," he added.
The quote caused a stir among anti-Rudy bloggers, with TPM running with it and Andrew Sullivan writing, "This is literally insane. If he is starting with this kind of unhinged claim, where will he end up?" Keith Olbermann fumed, "A year before the election and Rudy Giuliani is already publicly contending the Democrats are willing to invite Osama bin Laden to the White House to negotiate. Sure they are, buster."
The only problem is, the quote wasn't accurate.
While watching this video of the Olbermann segment portraying Giuliani as "Bush on steroids," I noticed that Giuliani (around the 1 minute mark) did not say Osama, but Assad. As in, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, one of the many leaders of hostile regimes that leading Democrats have said they would negotiate with without preconditions. This is consistent with a point Giuliani made at the Republican Jewish Coalition earlier this month:
This is the great fallacy in this now very strong Democratic desire to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate and negotiate. You've got to know with whom to negotiate and with whom you should not negotiate. When Barack Obama, a couple of months ago, said that he would invite Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro and Chavez - did I miss somebody - to Washington in the first year that he's in office to meet with them, without preconditions, when he was condemned by Hillary Clinton, who now has joined his position...
Video here.
Now, it's perfectly accurate for Giuliani to hit Obama for wanting to invite Ahmadinejad and Assad to Washington, as Obama said he was willing to do here. Clinton later joined him, at least on Iran, here. If you want to argue that Giuliani went overboard by joking that the Democrats "are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball," that's one thing. But clearly what sensationalized this entire story is the idea that Giuliani was saying that Democrats want to invite Osama bin Laden to the White House. That's a claim that Giuliani clearly did not make, and the AP, as well as bloggers who picked up the story, and Olbermann, should correct the error.
UPDATE: Sullivan and the AP have issued corrections.
McConnell on Mukasey
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 1:18PM
Thompson on Illegal Immigration
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 12:58PM
Thompson had been quiet on the Hillary immigration snafu but then his campaign manager Bill Lacy sent out this blast directed at Romney:
"Once again today, Mitt Romney is proving he will do anything and say anything for political gain. The fact is, Mitt Romney called the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill 'reasonable' while the vast majority of conservative Republicans called it 'unacceptable.' No matter how many millions he spends trying to cover up his previous positions, Romney's record is to the left of the GOP base on immigration, just as it is on matters of life, gay rights and fiscal responsibility."
This is the tricky part of a three or four or five person race. Thompson, whose poll numbers have been suffering and sees Romney in the lead in early states( perhaps including SC), needs to not only go after Rudy but knock off his main competitor for votes from the conservative base.
But Romney, of course, cannot let the attack go unresponded to, although he'd like to make this purely a two man fight with Rudy. Kevin Madden, Romney spokesman, replies: "Fred Thompson is as wrong as he is late to this campaign and the debate over tougher immigration enforcement. Governor Romney has been at the forefront on this issue, advocating tougher standards of enforcement of existing immigration laws while also initiating the call the cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities that ignore our immigration laws. Governor Romney also took action in his state by working out an agreement with the federal government to authorize state police to enforce federal immigration laws. Governor Romney strongly opposed the McCain-Kennedy legislation and was a vocal critic of the blanket amnesty it provided to lawbreakers with the Z-visa provision."
And so it goes.
Re: Hillary Fails Her Driver's Test
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 11:20AM
Team Rudy puts out this from the Glenn Beck radio show:
GLENN BECK: "Did you watch with your mouth opening thinking, 'I don't even know what that answer about driver's licenses even means from Hillary Clinton?'"
MAYOR GIULIANI: "You know, she was being attacked all night for taking different positions in front of different audiences and then by the end of the night, she took different positions in front of the same audience. It was pretty amazing. I mean, in politics I've never quite seen that before. I know there are some politicians like Hillary. They say different things to different people. They use different accents in different parts of the country. I'm used to that about her now. I had never seen it happen all in one place, in one minute. And Glenn, this is not a tough issue."
BECK: "Ok. Tell me the answer to this issue."
MAYOR GIULIANI: "The answer is no. Or if you believe the opposite the answer is yes. Obama gave the answer yes. Ok. I disagree with that. I think it's a big mistake. I respect the man for having a position. My answer to it is no. Of course you don't give out driver's licenses to illegals. Among other things, it'll make it even more difficult to deal with all the fraud, all the forgery that's going on."
BECK: "I've talked to several county clerks and they say they won't issue them in New York. So we'll have the locals going against the state, which I don't even know if it agrees or disagrees with the Fed. I mean--"
MAYOR GIULIANI: "Well, I'm going to be campaigning for Republican candidates today in New York and then I'm headed off to New Hampshire, and this is a big issue here and it has really hurt Governor Spitzer because of what you're saying. People see this as inherently irresponsible, but again, it's not-this is not one of those difficult issues of war and peace and diplomacy that she usually often hides behind to have two or three different positions. This one you either know the answer to this, it's yes or no, and then we can debate it."
Romney puts out this on illegal aliens. And where is the Thompson gang? Didn't they just put out a whole immigration plan?
Rudy is raising a larger issue, of course, which is Hillary's trustworthiness. Perhaps he could give some tips to her Democratic opponents who, aside from the last five minutes of the debate, seem not to grasp or exploit a more fundamental problem with Hillary. She simply is not as effective as her husband in playing to all sides and telling everyone what they want to hear.
Clinton on Drivers' Licenses for Illegals
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 11:05AM
On a second viewing, this exchange is absolutely devastating:
In case you had better things to do with your time last night, here's a quick recap. Tim Russert asked Clinton why she told a New Hampshire newspaper that Gov. Spitzer's plan to give drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants made sense. After Clinton defended the plan, Chris Dodd said he opposed it.
Clinton then interjected, "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Gov. Spitzer is trying to do it,"
Dodd was dumbfounded. "Wait a minute, you said, yes, you thought it made sense to do it," he responded.
"No, I didn't Chris," she said in denial.
After an exchange, Russert asked Clinton once again whether she supported the Spitzer plan. "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha," an exaspered Clinton snapped. "It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do?"
So to sum up: Clinton said the plan made sense and defended it; then said she didn't support the plan, but understands Spitzer's rationale; then she denied ever saying the plan made sense; then she accused Russert of playing "gotcha" and once again said the plan made sense. All in a span of three minutes. Wow.
Re: Rocky Who?
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 10:55AM
Truth be told, though, I wonder if even Obama understood what he was trying to say last night. The magic of the fight Rocky found himself in was that it was an exhibition fight he was supposed to lose which he turned, against all odds, into a real fight. It wasn't a overhyped fight. It was a hyped novelty exercise. (Maybe Obama was thinking of Rocky II, which actually had a hyped fight, or maybe he understands himself and his campaign more than he typically gets credit for.) Rocky was about a no-shot long-shot going up against a seasoned pro--and, ultimately, winning a moral, not actual, victory. Perhaps that's why Obama decided to cast himself, against type, as Creed. But, then, who would want to be the blustery, oblivious Creed who does not become a sympathetic or even likable figure until Rocky III? Maybe Obama is keeping his 2016 run in mind.
Obama vs. Putin in Putingrad? Now that's a fight I'd like to see.
Huck's Bucks
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 9:16AM
After several quarters of lacklsuter fundraising, Mike Huckabee is off to a much better start this quarter. His campaign set a goal of raising more money online in October than the $1.03 million he raised all of last quarter, and with 15 hours remaining, he seems likely to meet that goal. While this is no doubt good news for his campaign, especially as he gains hold of second place in some Iowa polls, it does not demonstrate a groundswell of grassroots support. By comparison, Ron Paul has already raised more than double than Huckabee online this month (as of this writing, Paul was at over $2.5 million).
If only Huckabee had Paul's money, or Paul had Huckabee's poll numbers, one of them might be a top-tier candidate.
Found: Good info on LOST
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 9:16AM
The National Center for Public Policy Research has a new, excellent site up about the horrible Law of the Sea Treaty, here. Well worth a read. Opponents of this (awful) treaty should get lots of good stuff here.
Rocky Who?
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 8:12AM
Last night I mentioned Obama's joke in which he compared himself to Rocky, with Clinton as Apollo Creed. I thought it was a lame attempt to appeal to the Philadephia audience where the debate was being held. However, the gang over at Tapped seemed to be a bit more perplexed, scratching their heads over the "complicated" "convoluted" "sports story" told by Obama. As somebody who has been known to use Rocky metaphors, I found this shocking. I wonder if it's a male/female thing, a regional thing, or a generational thing, but--and I mean this with no offense intended--it's just pretty startling to me that there are people out there that don't have at least passing knowledge of the life and times of the Italian Stallion.
Hillary Fails Her Drivers Test
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 7:57AM
From Team Rudy: "Chalk up providing illegal aliens with drivers'
licenses as another one of the things Hillary Clinton didn't mean
to say. She's right the government can't afford her tax hikes, but
the American people can't afford half baked ideas that undermine
their safety and security."
Re: Hillary Loses
Posted by on 10.31.07 @ 12:11AM
She's not going to lose to any of these guys but she did both on style and substance suggest a number of avenues which one of the GOP rivals can exploit against her. She certainly has a lot of ideas for bossing around elements of the economy and eventually will be asked what HER tax plans will look like. She seems aware there are bad guys in the world but other than "diplomacy" seems not very clear about how to handle them. On style, it took Chris Dodd to remind us that when cornered, her voice rises, the twists and turns become more obvious and the "shifty politician" label flashes on the screen. Well, that last part maybe only on Fox. A really good GOP opponent should make a go of this.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Hillary Loses
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 11:54PM
After a series of near flawless performances, Clinton showed her vulnerabilities tonight. Not only did she come across as angry, shrill, secretive (on the National Archives question), and incumbent-like in a change election cycle, but was completely afraid to stake out a clear position on anything. First on the AMT, then on drivers' lisences for illegal immigrants. She said Gov. Spitzer's plan "makes sense," but wouldn't officially endorse it--even though she is a Senator from the state. The problem for her rivals, however, is that while Hillary may have lost, none of them stood out as a clear winner. And as John pointed out, Edwards and Obama split the anti-Hillary vote.
Hill'y Season
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 11:29PM
Take-away from the debate: It's still Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (well, six dwarfs, if you don't count Gravel, which MSNBC apparently doesn't). No one on that stage looked like a threat to the Clinton juggernaut. There's an outside chance of an Iowa upset if Obama consolidates the anti-Hillary vote, but that's going to be extremely difficult unless Edwards drops out or otherwise implodes (highly unlikely).
Silly Season
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 11:08PM
UFO's, what Obama will be for Halloween, medical marijuana and the conclusion that perhaps we have had enough debates.
Rudy's Communications Director sends out a press release:
"As the pundits work to figure out who won the debate tonight,
it's pretty clear Rudy Giuliani was the real winner. It is
increasingly apparent Rudy is the one the Democrats are most
worried about running against in the general election. Senator
Biden's comments were of particular interest. The good Senator is
quite correct that there are many differences between Rudy and him.
For starters, Rudy rarely reads prepared speeches and when he does
he isn't prone to ripping off the text from others. And, Senator
Biden certainly falls in to the bucket of those on the stage
tonight who have never had executive experience and have never run
anything. Wait, I take that back, Senator Biden has never run
anything but his mouth. Such a desperate attack from Senator Biden
is to be expected considering I - Katie Levinson - have a better
chance of becoming President than he does."
Barack Romney
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 11:07PM
Obama says he's thinking of wearing a Romney mask on Halloween. "It has two sides."
Russert Asks Kucinich About UFOs!
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 11:03PM
He took my advice!
Kucinich confirms that he saw a UFO. Russert asks Obama about extraterrestrial life, for some reason, and Obama changes the subject.
Airline Travel and Drivers Licenses
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:59PM
Airlines:Something folks might be interested in and Obama gives a lightning round of mush, blaming deregulation and saying something that sounds like more regulation which will of course ensure that Jet Blue gets me to Ft. Lauderdale on time. (no?)
Dodd sounds sane on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants. Hillary is trapped and waffles-- is she in favor or not? Dodd did more here than Obama did the whole evening. Russert corners her and she says, I think, Spitzer's plan is ok with her. A mess.
Edwards and Troops
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:57PM
You may recall that in a previous debate, Edwards (like Clinton and Obama) wouldn't promise that there would be no troops in Iraq at the end of a first term of his presidency. Now, notes Marc Ambinder, he's saying something different.
One More Segment
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:48PM
The space time continuum has been fiddled with so it seems like this has been going on for two weeks but it's only 1 3/4 hours at this point. So far Rudy is winning, Hillary is in second(but we saw a few rattled moments and a less modulated voice) and Obama showed why he is trailing badly. Otherwise if you listened really hard you heard: lots of taxes, not too nasty with Iran, we're not telling you what we're up to on social security and federalization of education is just getting underway.
A National School Board?
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:41PM
Why exactly should presidential candidates be asked whether we should extend the school-day or school-year?
UPDATE: The candidates, Biden excepted, wisely ignore the question and talk about education policy in general.
Clinton on AMT
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:35PM
Says we need to change the AMT so it doesn't affect low-income Americans, but she neglects to mention that the AMT was hiked under her husband's administration. She then completely dodges the question of whether she supports Charlie Rangel's specific tax plan, and rails on Bush's tax cuts for the rich. She says "Bill and I" have benefited because they're finally rich. Too bad Bill used the same line in his 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention.
Taxes
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:33PM
Hillary pleads ignorance on details of Rangel's plan and won't flat out come out in favor of a mondo tax increase. Charlie is courageous. NO- I didn't say I was in favor of a 4% surcharge she says firmly. Don't make me tell you what I'm going to do, she makes clear.
"Wealthiest of Americans"
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:31PM
Hillary says she never thought she and Bill would be in that category. You make your own cattle futures joke.
Energy Polizzzzzz
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:27PM
Dave Weigel nails it: "On the price of oil, it's the world's slowest lightning round!"
Obama
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:15PM
He is given an opening on social security and for the upteenth time does not take it. He seems incapable of directly saying "Hillary is not being truthful about this or other issues and will say anything to get elected." If he doesn't do it now, he never will and I think it is clear he never will.
Now Romney gets a turn when Obama is asked about Romney confusing his name with "Osama." The question assumes that Romney was aiming at a religious slur. (Whhhahh?) Obama gets in a flip flop jab and goes on to a wordy, meandering answer about responding strongly and forcefully.
Romney Gets His Due
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:15PM
Obama is asked about Romney's Obama-Osama gaffe. "I don't pay attention to what Mitt Romney says." It may change.
Rudy Hate Fest
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:09PM
It's official. Giuliani has become the leading hate figure for
the left among GOP candidates. Biden just dedicated almost an
entire answer to ripping Rudy, calling him the most inexperienced
candidate to run since GW Bush.
"I'm looking forward to running against Rudy Giuliani," he said.
Also joked that a Giuliani sentence is "a noun, a verb, and
9/11."
Biden
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:06PM
Won't say he has more experience than Hillary. He goes after Rudy, saying he's not qualified. Do the Rudy people infiltrate the Democratic debate and cast a spell on the Democratic candidates and moderator, forcing them through some secret mind game to utter his name every 15 minutes and ignore the other GOP contenders?
"It Was the Biden Crime Bill"
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:05PM
That cleaned up New York, not Giuliani. Riiiiiight.
Richardson Plays Peacemaker
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:00PM
He says he has lots of differences with Hillary, but the tenor of the attacks on her bother him, and he wants to save ammo for the Republicans. Yes, he's angling for a spot in the second Clinton administration.
UPDATE: Jennifer suggests below that he's angling for VP. Keep in mind that even if he doesn't get the veep slot, Richardson will still be in the running for some other position in the Clinton administration (perhaps Secretary of State), so he has that much more incentive to pull punches.
Richardson
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 10:00PM
Rides to Hillary's rescue, apparently aware that the VP job is pretty cushy, saying "we need to stay positive."
Dodd seems not to be interested in a VP slot and whacks both Hillary and Edwards on taking special interest money and makes a pitch for an electable Democrat.
Fun with Dems
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:58PM
Liveblogging, in deathless prose, here (segment one) and here (segment two). Meanwhile: Bill Richardson shilling for Hill.
Hillary vs. SCOTUS
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:57PM
She says we were doing great in the '90s, until "the Supreme Court handed the presidency" to Bush, and "we've been living with the consequences ever since." Ever since? You mean the Supreme Court Jedi mind-tricked the Democrats into nominating a loser like John Kerry in 2004? That awful Supreme Court!
I'm Going to Take
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:56PM
$10B from a lot of these industries, she says. Well at least she's not hiding the ball.
Now Obama gets the Rudy experience question.
Obama Lands a Punch
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:54PM
Finally. After Russert asked Clinton about why she won't allow the National Archives to release her records from her time as first lady, Obama followed up by saying that after years of secrecy in the Bush administration, we don't need more of it. As for why Republicans are always talking about her: "It's a fight they're comfortable having. It's the fight they've been having since the 1990s." This is Obama the change candidate emerging.
If You're Missing Mike Gravel...
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:53PM
He's webcasting the answers he'd give if he hadn't been excluded from the debate.
Rudy's Coup
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:50PM
Comes up in the Democratic debate for hitting Hillary on experience. Her answer saying she has experience on "both sides of Pennslyvania Ave," then pivoting to attacking the Bush administration, was fine in the context of a Democratic primary, but won't cut it in the general election.
What Experience
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:49PM
Ok, the Rudy camp is smiling broadly after quoting his question about her experience. She slides by with the "Republican obsession with me" and the "wrong experience" but she never really responds. Was she not fully prepared? Should have quoted the NY Times-- she is a great meeting leader.
Obama's Meeting
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:42PM
Obama wants to "convene a meeting of Muslim leaders" upon assuming the presidency. It's amazing about how he can allow political correctness, and this sort of Ivy League grad student mentality, to dominate his thinking on foreign policy.
Hillary
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:40PM
If you are half listening, trying to sew a Halloween costume and don't read blogs 24/7 you'd think Hillary seems real level headed, tougher than all these wimpy guys and might not do so much damage to American foreign policy.
Chris Dodd's Credentials
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:36PM
He just bragged -- though not in these terms, of course -- about his Central American Commie-coddling back in the '80s.
Kucinich vs. Richardson
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:30PM
Bill "the human resume" Richardson, in reference to Iran, said he's the only one who has actually negotiated with another country. Dennis Kucinich screams, "That's not true!" I guess Kucinich must have had to do heavy foreign diplomacy as mayor of Cleveland.
Noted Petroleum Economist Joe Biden...
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:26PM
..says the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment made oil prices go up. Rumors of war may have some oil traders spooked, I suppose, but I have a feeling the weakness of the dollar has a lot more to do with rising oil prices than anything that the US Senate does.
Clinton on Iran
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:25PM
Clinton wants a "full-court press" on the sanctions front, but she won't talk about under what conditions she would consider military force. Edwards says the Kyl-Lieberman looks like it was "written by neocons" because it gave Bush-Cheney exactly what they wanted.
Hillary
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:24PM
She benefits as Rudy does from being the target of the opposing party on the trail and in their debates. Edwards was a bit more focused but frankly neither he nor Obama is very effective in the context of a Democratic primary. Her unwillingness to declare a bright line for Iran's nuclear development is nevertheless fodder for the general election.
Obama Says He's Rocky and Clinton is Apollo Creed
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:19PM
For all of the talk about how Obama was going to go for the jugular in this debate, given the oppourtunity, he barely tapped Clinton on the shoulder. He prefaced by calling his battle with Hillary "the most over-hyped battle since Apolo Creed and Rocky." Obama said he was Rocky (after all, the debate is in Philly). But the real question: is he Rocky in the first film, going the distance with the heavy favorite, or the Rocky of the second film, rising to his feet to victory after both fighters knocked themselves down? Obama then criticize her for flip-flopping on NAFTA, Iran, and torture. In actuality, he may be more like Michael Spinks.
Clinton, in her response, flashed her credentials as a Republican hate figure saying, "I don't think the Republicans got the message" that she had so much in common with them, pointing to how much she was brought up at the GOP debate. She's been fighting Bush-Cheney for years.
Democratic Debate, Opening Rounds
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 9:17PM
Obama really has no instinct for the jugular -- he can't attack Hillary without a lot of throat clearing. Edwards hits a little harder than Obama, but she's running circles around both of them.
Re: Mukasey Battle Heats Up
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 8:28PM
According to this, Sen. Graham was pleased by Mukasey's response, some of the Judiciary Committee Democrats not running for president were not (although no explicit threats to oppose the nomination) and Sen. Specter was mum. Still no word from Sen. McCain whether the concerns he raised over the weekend have been put to rest. At a press conference earlier today Sens. McConnell and Kyl expressed exasperation that Mukasey's confirmation vote is still not on the agenda. McConnell: "Not only has the nomination been delayed; he's not even yet on the agenda. And I think it's important to remember that this was a nomination suggested by Senator Schumer, a response to an overwhelming Democratic desire to have a new attorney general and a new start. I don't know what else the president could have done to reach out to the Democratic majority, with regard to the Justice Department nomination, than to nominate a person suggested by one of the leaders of the Democratic party, who is, by all accounts, extraordinarily well qualified."
Thompson
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 7:32PM
Although he did not have any open to the press or public events today he did nab the endorsement of California State Senator Tom McClintock (a well known conservative who has lost races for Governor and Lt. Governor). More noteworthy, perhaps, will be his appearance this upcoming Sunday on Meet the Press. If he shines and handles the grilling he may quiet critics; if not it will add to his polling and staff (yes, he lost another top player-this time his finance chair) woes.
Max McGee: an Appreciation
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 4:08PM
I meant all last week to post a nice, thoughtful mini-essay on the passing of former NFL great Max McGee. I never had time, and am slammed now. Just let it be said that he was one of a kind, a great clutch player, a reputation for being a kind and giving person, and qite a character as well. As Tulane football is in my blood for many reasons, and as the Green Bay Packers have always been my second favorite NFL team after the N.O. Saints, Max McGee of Tulane and Packer fame was a double-hero for me in retrospect, even though he retired just before I was old enough to pay attention to individual football players. He died at age 75, falling from a roof while cleaning leaves. What a shame. But, in his spirit, I've been meaning to tip back an adult beverage in his honor. Do read the link I provided. May Max McGee rest in peace, except for those times when HE wants to raise a little he** for old times sake!
Giuliani Central Hub?
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 3:23PM
I see via Jim Geraghty that a Fred Thompson enthusiast at HeadingRight.com has slapped that label on TAS. Oddly enough, the only cited example of "Rudy backers" in these parts is a link to a Prowler column. A few months ago we were getting a different complaint from readers (scroll down to "Unconcerned Conservatives"): "The Prowler needs to endorse Fred Thompson. It's a fairly consistent drum-beat from that column propping up Thompson and tearing down Romney."
Re: Mukasey Battle Heats Up
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 3:13PM
Democratic presidential hopefuls in the Senate (including Hillary), as we suspected they would, have followed the lead of Sen. Dodd and are opposing Judge Mukasey for Attorney General. No word yet on whether they would go so far as to fillibuster or whether any GOP Senators (calling Sen. Graham's office..) will join them. Team Rudy blasts the Democrats with this: "You know the Democratic presidential nominees have hit a new low when Chuck Schumer isn't even on their side. Judge Mukasey is an honorable, well-qualified nominee for Attorney General who doesn't deserve to have his nomination politicized and used for personal gain by the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama." I'm just hoping Schumer hasn't changed his mind...
Paul Hits The Airwaves
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 3:11PM
Via Marc Ambinder, I see two new TV ads that Ron Paul is running in New Hampshire. The first features "person on the street" interviews, and the second has Paul speaking to the camera in front of an image of the Constitution. Both seem more aimed at anti-war NH independents than Republicans. "I'm the only one in either party who has pledged to bring our troops home from Iraq immediately, and cut government spending," he says.
Huck Has Company
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 2:45PM
Club for Growth, when not busy deflating the Huckabee bubble, still has time to take on McCain. They sent out a press release with this: " 'It was bad enough that John McCain voted against the landmark tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, denying taxpayers the right to keep their hard-earned money,' Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. 'Fortunately, the tax cuts passed despite McCain's alliance with Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton in leading the effort to derail them. To add insult to injury, McCain succeeded in passing his anti-free speech campaign finance law-an audacious violation of the First Amendment he continues to defend to this day. Now, after McCain voted against significant tax relief and voted to muzzle citizens' ability to participate in the political process, it would only compound the offense if he asks taxpayers to bail out his faltering presidential campaign.'"
Well in the most optimistic light possible from McCain's perspective, perhaps this is an indication that he is experiencing a boomlet and those who oppose him are concerned. However, for those who may be concerned that McCain's potential acceptance of matching funds would doom the GOP in November, CFG adds in the ideological reasons for opposing this move as well.
Never Trust British Analysis of American Politics
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 2:09PM
As the Daily Telegraph rolls out its lists of the most influential American conservatives and liberals, keep in mind that British bookies think Ron Paul has better odds of winning the presidency than John McCain, Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, or Bill Richardson. (The latter link comes via Andrew Sullivan, who seems to ascribe a bizarre level of authority to it.)
Iowa
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 1:40PM
Well, yet another polling outfit shows the race in Iowa quite a bit closer than yesterday's poll. Today's ARG has Romney at 27%, Huckabee 19%, Rudy 16%, McCain 14%, and Thompson 8%. (The same poll shows Thompson polling poorly in SC and NH as well.) Well, which to believe? One clue is that Romney is spending three days in Iowa this week, perhaps a sign he does not see this state as secure quite yet. David Yepsen picks up on the Huckabee momentum. While I may not share his enthusiasm for Huckabee's candidacy I do think he is shaking up the race there and could do so in South Carolina as well. As for Thompson, this suggests that neither NH nor Iowa are on the "really trying" list but would fourth or fifth place finishes in these states knock him out of the first tier and give rise to the "he's only a regional candidate" meme?
Giuliani and Campaign Finance Reform
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 12:48PM
In a post that mostly has to do with John McCain, Ramesh Ponnuru wrote of Giuliani, "as far as I can tell, he still supports campaign-finance reform..." But earlier this month at the Club for Growth conference, Giuliani said McCain-Feingold was a mistake. Here was my account:
Giuliani also had similar things to say about McCain-Feingold in August. Perhaps Ponnuru is unaware of these statements, but if he is aware of them, I'd be curious to know why he finds them unsatisfactory.
UPDATE: Ponnuru is happier.
Leave Rates Alone
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 12:19PM
In a little while, the Federal Reserve governors will announce their latest decision on interest rates. A while back I kicked up a firestorm here by saying the Fed should have cut interest rates; the next day, a big bank scare in Europe caused a huge credit scare, and the Fed was forced to take all sorts of emergency interim steps to keep credit from drying up... and then it lowered its key rates by a half-point each. So, now, morning reports in the Wash Post say that most Fed watchers both hope and expect that the Fed will cut the rates by another quarter point. So, based on my earlier note, do I now believe the Fed should indeed cut the rates again?
NO.
Here is the problem: The price of gold is way up there near record levels. The price of oil is at record levels. The value of the dollar is falling. Psychologically, another move to lower the Fed's interest rates right now would send a signal that the fight against inflation has been abandoned. That is a dangerous signal to send. We are, for now, out of the crisis situation I accurately described/foresaw last time. It's time to let the extraordinary medicine of recent months work its way through the system.
What the Fed SHOULD do is this: Keep its rates where they are, but accompany it with a statement that says, basically, that it has already shown an ability to turn on a dime when needed to inject more liquidity into the economy, and that it will keep watching closely in case it needs to do so again... but that it does NOT expect to need to do so, because many underlying measures of economic health remain strong. Its bias going forward (it should say) is to cut rates if needed to avoid a recession, but it is not convinced that such further medicine is needed -- and that while overall price inflation remains in check (and there is thus nothing to panic about on that end anyway), it still takes seriously its duty to protect against inflation, so that gives it another reason to stand pat right now.
In other words, it should decline to take any concrete actions, while sending reassuring signals about the state of the economy.
That way, everybody wins. And that way, prudence will be victorious.
Bush Bashing Files, Global Warming Edition
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 12:14PM
Former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, who is vying for Sen. John Sununu's seat in what is expected to be one of the more competitive races next year, had this to say at a luncheon Sunday, as reported by Foster's Daily Democrat:
And if this is indicative of Shaheen's verbal acuity, perhaps Sununu's seat isn't in danger afterall.
The Club for Growth on Ron Paul
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 12:09PM
The Club for Growth has released its white paper on Ron Paul. Perhaps surprisingly, their assesment of the most libertarian Republican presidential candidate is mixed.
The Club praises Paul's record on taxes as "excellent" and points to his reliable opposition to big-ticket spending items. But the group also says the Texas congressman is "living in a fantasy world" when he supports free trade in theory but opposes trade deals, and they accuse him of making the "perfect the enemy of the good" on spending and tort reform as well.
It's a fair criticism -- Paul has voted against worthy government-cutting bills that didn't go far enough in his view, an approach he doesn't take with taxes (he has never voted against a tax cut on the grounds that the IRS would remain in place). But in the earmarks section, the Club neglects to mention that Paul usually votes against the final appropriations bill containing the earmarks. Criticizing the spending record of a congressman who votes against most appropriations bills, No Child Left Behind, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit because of some earmarks really does seem to be making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Eight Days A Week
Posted by on 10.30.07 @ 8:42AM
Remember the Democrats' campaign promise to make Congress stick to a five-day work week? Well, that seems to be coming to an end. David Freddoso reports.
Money quote from Tom DeLay: "The reason we didn't work five-day weeks was that there was no work to do."
Monday, October 29, 2007
Halloween Horror Headline
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 9:56PM
I'm almost surprised not to see this headline every year: "Minorities Less Likely to Trick or Treat."
Thompson in NH
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 6:39PM
Thompson did appear in NH today. The initial reports sound like the local press corps was a bit huffy about his long absence. Never good to have a Union Leader story with this: "Thompson, 65, a former Republican U.S. senator from Tennessee, has been criticized for not being in New Hampshire often enough, squandering early excitement about his campaign." Nevertheless he did return fire to Romney (who earlier in the day had referred to him as a "Freddie-come-lately on the immigration issue") by pointing out that Romney had previously been more enthusiastic about comprehensive immigration reform saying: " If you want to talk about a Johnny-come-lately, I believe the governor is going to have to address that little point." The Thompson camp has yet to put out any photos or the "look at all the good coverage we got" emails yet but perhaps we'll hear more later. Just as some have echoed our doubts as to whether it is wise for McCain to remain in the race in Iowa (and suffer a blow before the more critical NH race), it may have been a wiser course for Thompson to have avoided NH and a potential distant finish (better not lose to Ron Paul) than to damage his prospects in South Carolina. But at some point if you are going to be in the top tier, I suppose, you have to play everywhere.
Mukasey Battle Heats Up
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 2:53PM
Danny Diaz, formerly of the McCain camp and now with the RNC, sends out an email blast taunting Sen. Dodd for opposing Mukasey and suggesting Hillary Clinton may not be far behind. He writes in part: "Considering Dodd has come out against Mukasey and will certainly be praised by the liberal left, how long until Hillary Clinton follows suit? If she comes out against Mukasey based on interrogation, her own vacillation on the issue is certainly on the table. " Let's hope Diaz' former boss isn't going to join Dodd.
UPDATE: Diaz calls to clarify and emphasize that his jibe at Hillary was intended to point out that the issue is particularly difficult for Clinton who has vacillated on this issue. Certainly the RNC was not meaning to take a shot at or raise a comparison to McCain. That said, if the Democrats do intend to go after Mukasey, and Dodd suggests they will, McCain does not want to be on the opposite side of the fight from the GOP in the Senate and the conservative base.
Macho Matters
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 2:32PM
On one hand this analysis of the "macho" quotient in the GOP race seems silly. On the other hand McCain's POW film campaign ads, the "Ask the lawyers" tussle and polls like this (question #21) which ask who do you want in an "extremely serious" crisis( my assumption is that most people consider this a military/terrorist crisis as opposed to the bond market heading south) suggest that this factor -- who is the toughest guy in a fight -- may play a significant factor for a lot of voters. Part of it is the post-9-11 world in which a hypothetical crisis doesn't seem so hypothetical. Perhaps part is the Republicans' sense that the Democrats have the upper hand and now is not the time for the faint of heart.
Re: Olson for Senate?
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 12:26PM
As much as it would excite conservatives Quin, if you had a stellar legal career like Olson, would you really want to abandon it for a longshot Senate bid? I just don't see this happening.
Re: Judd Gregg to Endorse Romney
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 11:25AM
He certainly is the biggest fish there but friends of multiple Romney opponents this morning are quick to remind us that Gregg backed Bush who lost to McCain in a landslide in 2000. More importantly, Romney is doing multiple events in NH today, clearly not wanting to cede ground to Rudy and to Thompson who are both there. (Romney isn't taking Iowa for granted either and heads there for two days this week.) But the damning with faint praise award (while I step on your foot and stick my finger in your eye) goes to Rudy today for his radio interview in NH today where he "praises" Romney for dumping that individual health insurance mandate plan from Massachusetts. The key line: " They mandated health insurance in Massachusetts. Now in fairness to Mitt Romney, he now says that he would not do that. In other words, he wouldn't do what he did in Massachsuetts for the rest of the country, which shows it was a mistake to mandate health insurance." NH is turning out to be one heck of an interesting battleground.
UPDATE: Although Sen. Gregg is pro-life he is not totally in
line with Romney's current positions, especially on immigration
which has been the source of recent jousting with Thompson and
Rudy. He for example voted in favor of McCain's immigration
proposals and had this to say about opponents of comprehensive
immigration reform: " There are,
unfortunately, people who wish to bury their heads in the sand by
ignoring the threat our present dysfunctional system represents to
our country, and who are using a jingoistic and demagogic approach
of position to immigrants as a way to raise their own political
visibility. These politicians are not constructive players to the
process of working towards solving one of America's most pressing
and critical problems. Congressman Tancredo has chosen to align
himself with this approach. I strongly reject this new 'know
nothing' wing of the political spectrum and hope the people of New
Hampshire will as well."
Olson for Senate?
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 11:24AM
NRO's The Campaign Spot reports rumblings in the heavens that conservative legal star Ted Olson might run for U.S. Senate from Virginia. Now THAT would be a race worth watching!
Judd Gregg to Endorse Romney
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 11:08AM
Marc Ambinder has the details. A good pickup for Romney that is a boost to his campaign in New Hampshire. With Sen. Sununu pledged to remain neutral through the primaries, Sen. Gregg is the highest profile Republican in the state to endorse a candidate.
So Let Me Get This Straight
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 10:39AM
Tom Tancredo is going to stay in the presidential race, where he has gained no traction, but leave the House, where has actually had some success in advancing his signature issue and building an effective immigration-control caucus.
Puzzling.
Re: Iowa Poll
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 10:27AM
I just looked at the full poll results, and the real interesting story is on the Democratic side, where Obama has gained 7 points since the last poll to pull into a statistical tie with Clinton (he trails 28.9 percent to 26.6 percent), while Edwards dropped by 6 points. When I was in Iowa, the sense I got was that a lot of people still liked Edwards, but were also sensing that he didn't have what it takes to win. If his voters begin to rally around Obama as the anti-Hillary candidate, and Obama is able to pull off a victory in Iowa, it's the one thing that has the potential to shake up things on the Democratic side at this point. Clinton would still be favored to win the nomination even if she were to lose Iowa, but it would turn the race into a real battle rather than a repeat of Tyson vs. Spinks. In other findings, about 58 percent of Democrats are very or somewhat likely to change their minds, while about 69 percent of Republicans could shift their support.
Democratic Debate Tomorrow
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 10:15AM
Brummett on Huck
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 9:39AM
My former tennis rival (he beat me every time but one, if I remember correctly) John Brummett, an avowed liberal but a darn good observer, warns about Huckabee here. Scary.
Iowa
Posted by on 10.29.07 @ 9:00AM
Romney still holds a big lead according to the latest Iowa poll with Rudy next but Huck moving up fast to a near dead heat for second. Thompson is in fourth and McCain trails in single digits. Others have commented that the methodology on this one is a little odd but it suggests there is something to the observation that Iowa is where Huckabee may shake up the race. And despite taking on some Brownback aides is Iowa really where McCain wants to make a stand?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
What is Behind the Huck Buzz?
Posted by on 10.28.07 @ 6:49PM
Huckabee's appeal is lost on many fiscal conservatives and his record as Arkansas Governor seems an improbable roadmap for the GOP seeking to get back its reputation for budgetary frugality. However, Huckabee is rising in national polls and in Iowa so something more than media hype may be afoot. I asked Joe Carter, an evangelical blogger at evangelicaloutpost.com and the Director of web communications for the FRC, to explain Huckabee's appeal. Carter has endorsed Huckabee but that endorsement and his comments, he emphasizes, reflect his own views and not those of the FRC. Carter is convinced that Huckabee is on the upswing, especially in Iowa where his numbers have continued to rise, suggesting to Carter that he'll pass McCain, Rudy and Thompson -- and maybe close the gap with Romney. He contends: "Romney's money can buy him name recognition, but I think that he's hit the ceiling. On the other hand, Huckabee's buzz is continuing to grow, especially among people who attend church frequently. Huckabee may not have money but he has charisma. In Iowa, I'd take charm over cash." According to Carter, the movement to Huckabee among religious conservatives in Iowa is gaining steam: "The mobilization efforts of the churches and parachurch groups have really just begun." Carter explains the in person impression Huckabee makes which caucus voters, who spend more time with candidates than most voters, may experience : " That is why the stump speech is so important. And on that crucial metric, Huckabee dominates every candidate in the race (including Obama). He's a gifted orator who can speak knowledgeably without relying on a teleprompter. He's quick-witted, earnest, and likable. The only other politician I've seen that can connect with an audience in the same way is Bill Clinton." Both Romney and Thompson have courted religious conservatives nationally and in Iowa but Carter has not been impressed. He says: "In contrast, Romney comes off as scripted and business-like. He gives the sense of being a well-paid CEO speaking to shareholders rather than a struggling candidate seeking the approval of voters. He also appears to have a peculiar ideological flexibility." As for Thompson he says he had been an "ardent supporter" but no longer, explaining : " His speaking style is painful to watch. (He should have spent the months before he got into the race hanging out at Toastmasters.) He's also ill-prepared and too concerned about doing it 'his way.'" He continues: " Maybe he's just an actor who's playing the part of a lazy candidate." Will evangelical leaders begin to endorse Huckabee? Carter believes that many will do in the next month or so since their constituents are gravitating toward Huckabee but notes that "these leaders are often attached to non-profits that .. cannot officially endorse candidates."
Now Carter is clearly a Huckabee fan and both Thompson and Romney have their share of support in Iowa and nationally among evangelicals. However, he does suggest that Huckabee may continue to make inroads with voters who read Carter and other evangelical media and that Huckabee's progress may make it increasingly difficult for Romney and Thompson to secure further support from social conservative leaders. So as improbable as Huckabee's candidacy may be to many, he may make a difference in Iowa and elsewhere. And some seem to agree.
Re: Can McCain Comeback?
Posted by on 10.28.07 @ 12:36PM
McCain and the NH Dilemma
Posted by on 10.28.07 @ 9:30AM
On his money problems , Politico qutoes McCain: " 'We haven't ruled it out,' he said of taking public dollars. 'There has been an up-tick in fundraising, but is there enough of an up-tick?' he asked. Reviewing his overall position, McCain said, 'We're by no means in great shape [but] we have seen some progress.''' On the question as to whether to compete in Iowa where he now comes in fifth in single digits in most polls or put all his chips on NH, there seems to be little logic to his persistent efforts to woo Iowa caucus goers. Even if he were to come in third or fourth it is hard to see how that would benefit him in NH which is his most realistic chance for a breakthrough.
And as for NH, Andrew Cline explains the political climate : "On the national and local level, the GOP has alienated many native Granite Staters. These voters are generally fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to liberal. They started leaving the party as early as 1964, when Barry Goldwater topped the Republican presidential ticket. But when George W. Bush and the Republican Congress made Bill Clinton's spending look responsible, they started leaving in droves. Some are registering Democrat. But most are registering as 'unaffiliated' voters." Sounds like a problematic environment for Romney and his new found social conservative agenda. And an opportunity for both McCain and Rudy.
UPDATE: And the new Ron Paul ad-- appealing to the anti-war, anti-slick
professional politician, anti- big government independent
voters.
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
