- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- 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 10, 2007
Latest Florida Poll
Posted by on 11.10.07 @ 11:23PM
The latest poll out of Florida: Rudy 36%, Romney 19%, McCain 12%, Huckabee 9% and Thompson 8%. If duplicated elsewhere these results would raise serious concerns for Thompson that his slippage is not just limited to national polls( look at that green line on the RCP chart) and for McCain that his national good news buzz is not really affecting his polling in key states (see here). For Romney this good news and may indicate he is supplanting Thompson as the second place candidate in the Sunshine state (average polling is here). For Rudy, this represents his highest percentage to date suggesting that Florida -- which in state GOP officials tout as the most representative of the country as a whole (yes, yes many states make that claim) -- may be following national trends showing Rudy edging up.
Grassley Buying What Huck is Selling
Posted by on 11.10.07 @ 10:58PM
Chuck Grassley, the most influential Republican in Iowa, likes Huckabee. From the Washington Post: "Yesterday, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa's leading Republican, said in an interview that he thinks Huckabee is 'the guy who could surprise everybody' in January. 'It's demeanor, background, personal beliefs, friendliness, stuff like that,' Grassley said. 'How he conducts himself, things of that nature. I'm talking about who fits in with the average Iowan, who are they going to feel comfortable with.' " There is not yet any formal endorsement since Grassley thinks Huckabee lacks the money to compete. However, when you talk to GOP party folks and activists in Iowa -- those not on Huckabee's team --- you hear similar comments about Huckabee's demeanor and ability to relate to caucus goers.
'24' Producer Supports Rudy, Blasts Hillary
Posted by on 11.10.07 @ 9:08PM
SANTA BARBARA, Calif.--Joel Surnow, the producer of the hit television series '24,' on Saturday told a group of conservative bloggers that he favors Rudy Giuliani for president and questioned whether people were "nuts" to think Hillary Clinton could be president.
"I'm probably going to get behind Rudy," Surnow said when asked about his preferences for the 2008 presidential election, following a speech to college conservatives at the the Young America's Foundation West Coast Leadership Conference. "I like him. I know him personally. I like his toughness."
While Surnow said Giuliani has "got some negatives," he said he thinks the former New York mayor has a better chance of beating Clinton than any other Republican. However, he said Mitt Romney was more likely to win the GOP nomination given his lead in the early states.
Surnow also questioned the idea of current Democratic frontrunner taking charge of the White House.
"Are we nuts thinking Hillary Clinton could be president of this country?" he asked. "Honest to god, just stand back and think about it. Forget about who she is. Her voting record is so crazy."
Surnow contributed $2,100 to Giuliani's presidential campaign last December, according to FEC filings.
The Romney Enigma
Posted by on 11.10.07 @ 7:35PM
A Classic Sullivan Post
Posted by on 11.10.07 @ 3:37PM
Andrew Sullivan returns to vintage form. Back in the 90s you could open The New Republic and read this sort of thing in his TRB column on a regular basis:
I covered the Clintons for eight years. The one thing I learned about them is that they lie. It's reflexive to them; after decades of the lying that tends to infect the households of addicts, they don't have a normal person's understanding of truth and falsehood. They have an average sociopath's understanding of truth and falsehood. They lie about big things; they lie about small things; and they lie about things that are so trivial you can't believe anyone would bother lying about them. But the Clintons do. They did for eight years. They put the entire country through a trauma because they have no sense of what's true and false any more. Living in a relationship where lying has been integrated into its very essence will do that. They can't help it. Lying is their entropic state of being - big lies, small lies, and everything in between.Say what you will about Sullivan, we can at least expect that, if Hillary wins, his attacks will be just as over-the-top as they've been in the Bush years. (If Obama were to win, I'd put money on Andrew following his mercurial Bush-era pattern exactly: descending into overwrought hagiography in the early years and then, at some point, turning on a dime.)You can't trust a word from them. If that's what you want in a war leader, go ahead and vote for her.
Mockery of Campaign Finance Reform
Posted by on 11.10.07 @ 1:48PM
Friday, November 9, 2007
Immigration Claims
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 9:19PM
Rudy v. McCain
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 7:04PM
"Why the hard put down?" some are asking. Well the "he's my friend" admiration society seems to have been running a bit one way lately with McCain going after Rudy over multiple days on the torture issue as just one example. I think two things are at issue(aside from some possible annoyance at being McCain's target). First, McCain is most viable in NH where Rudy is trying to move up. Raising the argument that McCain is holier than thou on campaign finance may put a crimp in his appeal to Independents and remind the base of one of McCain's least popular(at least with conservative) achievements-- McCain Feingold. Second, it should come as no surprise that Rudy doesn't just feign indifference when attacked. Although I'm sure he enjoys the concession that he is indeed the frontrunner he's not going to encourage others to take shots. We're in the last 60 days before votes are cast and friend or no friend, this is big time politics. (Unlike Hillary Republicans don't whine, they hit back.)
UPDATE: And to top it off McCain's mom did some Mormon bashing (h/t Marc Ambinder). Sometimes less is more. A lot less. And Matthews and McCain yucking it up doesn't look great, I gotta say.
Goldwater's Children
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 6:53PM
My former colleague Daniel McCarthy has a thoughtful piece on Barry Goldwater's legacy -- and the conflicts over who best represents it -- in the American Conservative.
Re: Congrats
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 5:43PM
Thanks, Jim. Congrats to the rest of you for keeping it a secret until the announcement; it was a nice surprise. Those who care (hi, Mom!) can see a blurry picture of the plaque I got here.
McCain Feingold Fallout
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 5:21PM
UPDATE: That was apparently not enough. Levinson passes on a long list of glowing comments about Rudy which McCain made over the last couple of years and adds: "Is this what desperation looks like? Bernie Kerik's issues have been known since 2004 and John McCain still had glowing things to say about Rudy Giuliani and his leadership. What, exactly, changed today? Best as I can tell, it's just John McCain's pure desperation in the face of a failing and flailing campaign trumping his so-called straight talk. It is truly a shame that John McCain has chosen to stoop this low."
UPDATE 2: Others note the irony. Will this finally get McCain off campaign finance "reform"?
Re: A Rough Week for Romney
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 5:08PM
James and John, yes Romney certainly has a clearer path than say Thompson at this point, but a couple of things to keep in mind: 1) If you accept that Huckabee could win Iowa (an "if" but a more realistic "if" based on what GOP party folks in Iowa are saying) then lots of candidates have a path to the nomination including McCain (whose likely poor showing there may get lost in the shuffle) and 2) Romney has no what they call in the business world "built in redundancy." If he loses in Iowa (or perhaps NH for that matter) he is likely done. By contrast, Rudy could lose both, coming in close in NH, make a run at SC and live to fight in Florida. That is just to emphasize that Romney's path to the nomination is really "he's got to win Iowa and probably NH." More than one camp has reminded me that polling in early states gets "real" when everyone is up with ads. We're getting close as McCain is up in Boston and Thompson is on the air in Iowa and soon will be in SC. When Rudy goes up ( the waiting game has to end soon with only about 60 days left) we'll see how real the poll numbers are.
UPDATE: An interesting take on why Iowa polling is so hard to do well.
Congrats to John Tabin
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 4:09PM
Congratulations are in order for John Tabin, who on Tuesday won the American Spectator's Young Journalist Award for 2007.
Re: A Rough Week for Romney
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 4:03PM
As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only two Republican candidates who have a credible path to the Republican nomination. Romney has some vulnerabilities, but he is in a better position than most of the field.
Somewhat relatedly, I have a column on the Guardian's Comment is Free site arguing that Mike Huckabee could hurt Romney & co. while helping Giuliani. (Pay no attention to the funny-looking picture next to the piece. That's probably the guy who stole my first initial and Roman numeral.)
Re: A Rough Week For Romney
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 3:43PM
You're right, Jennifer, that Romney has all his chips on Iowa. But Noam Scheiber looks at the polls in Iowa -- and in other early-primary states -- and argues that Romney's made a pretty good bet. In a follow-up, Scheiber notes that we political junkies may be under-estimating the splash that Romney's early victories will make.
Back to Toobin's Smears
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 3:26PM
Finally, back to a fuller examination of the nasty Jeffrey Toobin New Yorker review of Clarence Thomas's book, continuing my initial post, here. Other highly objectionable lines from Toobin's review, taken one by one, are:
1) Thomas' "anger at racism became an equally intense resentment of efforts to help African-Americans." That is pure, unadulterated BS, as has been noted by the many people recently who have written of Thomas' own efforts specificallyt o help black Americans. Toobin makes it sound like it is the GOAL of helping blacks that elicits anger from Thomas, when, quite obviously -- so obviously that to ignore this fact is to be deliberately dishonest -- what elicits anger from Thomas is a specific METHOD of TRYING to help blacks that Thomas thinks actually hurts them. The distinction between what Toobin wrote and Thomas's real view is vast, so vast as to represent not just a mistake by Toobin but an ethical transgression.
2) Not clearcut errors of fact, but opinions that I take great exception to: a) Thomas' portrait of Anita Hill is, says Toobin, "implausible." (Oh? Then why did SO many people testify before the Senate that it was highly plausible indeed?) b) "extensive corroborating evidence" of Hill's claims? Huh? The only major supporting witness during the hearings, Judge Hoerchner I think her name was, specifically testified that Hill complained to her about harassment while she, Hoerchner, was still in Washington; but Hill did not begin working for Thomas until AFTER Hoerchner moved away from Washington.
3) For sheer nastiness, nothing can top Toobin's last paragraph: The tenor of Thomas's memoir, as well as his judicial record, suggests that he will continue to display his brand of "courage"-that is, to serve the interests of a conservative élite, and hearten Vice-President Cheney and his ideological kin with his exhortation "Be not afraid." As Thomas has often said, it is a credit to the country that a man from Pin Point can be given the opportunity to serve on the highest court in the land. "As a child, I could not dare dream that I would ever see the Supreme Court, not to mention be nominated to it," he said on the day he was selected. There is less to celebrate in the way that Thomas has used the opportunity to speak power to truth. ♦
Very clever, Mr. Toobin. What truth, exactly, is Thomas supposedly subjugating under the yoke of "power"??? And to disparage Thomas' "courage" is just despicable. To say that Thomas is out to "serve the interests of a conservative elite," etc., is to again portray Thomas as some lackey rather than as his own man who genuinely and consistently adheres to a reading of the Constitution that, whether or not Toobin agrees with it, is transparently respectable (not to mention rigorous) intellectually and internally consistent. Indeed, I would dare say that to once again portray Thomas as a lackey, and as "serving" anybody's interest other than the interest of his honest reading of the Constitution he is sworn to uphold, is....well, at least borderline racist of Mr. Toobin.
A Rough Week for Romney
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 1:45PM
Rolling Stone Loves Ron Paul...
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 1:13PM
...or at least its chief political reporter Matt Taibbi seems to in this interview with Marty Beckerman over at Reason. Here's a taste:
reason: Right now there's this weird overlap where Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has an increasing fan base among left-wingers. Is this a turning point in American politics?
Taibbi: People are steadily growing disenchanted with red state versus blue state-this really aggressive storyline where if you're conservative you have to hate liberals, and if you're liberal then you have to hate conservatives. For the first time on the campaign trail that I've seen, people are saying, "I haven't spoken to my liberal brother in years but we're actually talking now because we're both disappointed in our respective parties, and we're both getting behind Ron Paul." There's more on-the-ground energy for Ron Paul than there is for the rest of the candidates combined.
Ron Paul reuniting families. The Paul people should put those brothers, assuming they're not apocryphal, in a campaign commericial, pronto.
What Every Little Girl Dreams Of...
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 1:05PM
I guess romance isn't dead after all?
A Not Tortured Reponse
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 1:00PM
I was a bit nervous to see what James Poulos would have to say about my defense of Saw today since I know he's on the other side of the issue and I, frankly, don't think I'm smart enough to argue with him beyond a certain low-level intellectual ceiling above my head, but he was very gracious and kind--too kind, actually--in his response.
Man Bites Dog, David Brooks Conservative
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 10:36AM
David Brooks, in his slot as the New York Times' token conservative columnist, actually performs a service to conservatives in his current column: He defends Ronald Reagan from the slur that he kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign with coded racism.
Heroic Huckabee
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 10:24AM
Michael Gerson essentially says that Mike Huckabee is his kind of conservative. "Heroic conservatism" is thus represented in the 2008 race for the White House.
Kerik
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 7:50AM
Poll Data
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 7:31AM
Mukasey Confirmed
Posted by on 11.9.07 @ 6:30AM
Is confirmed 53-40 with only seven Democrats voting yes(and many were not the usual Red state moderates). An just in case you were wondering the pace of confirmations for judicial appointments has grounded to a halt. Should Hillary become president I'm sure the pace will pick up and we'll see much clamoring that fillibuster rules are inappropriate for judicial nominees. Elections have consequences after all.
UPDATE: Rudy puts out a statement congratulating his friend and colleague, whom he would certainly prefer voters see as more representative of his choice in associates than Kerik. Powerline remarks that the confirmation totals say far more about the state of the Democratic party than about Mukasey.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Virginia Aftermath
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 8:51PM
Rumble in North Carolina's Third District
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 8:48PM
Earlier this evening, I stopped by this fundraiser for Joe McLaughlin, the Onslow County commissioner who is challenging North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones in the Republican primary. Jones, an alumnus of the class of '94, has turned sharply against the Iraq war, causing McLaughlin to turn sharply against him. More recently, Jones's votes to override President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Protection Act and advance articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney have given McLaughlin an opportunity to expand beyond a single-issue campaign.
But North Carolina's Third District is the home of Camp Lejeune and heavily military, so the war and foreign policy will loom large. A confident McLaughlin says he believes the district is "ready for a change" and is optimistic that national-security voters will help put him over the top in the primary. "I've hammered in signs for Walter Jones," McLaughlin told me. "But he's gone too far." Specifically, he chastised Jones for voting with "the far left" of the Democratic Party rather than the military families of the conservative district. McLaughlin argued that outside "MoveOn.org-style" antiwar groups had come out in favor of Jones, making "the base very angry."
This, along with the race between antiwar Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest and his primary challenger Andy Harris, will be one of the most closely watched GOP contests in the country.
Northeast News
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 6:02PM
Where Have You Gone, Henry Clay Frick?
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 5:08PM
I didn't care too much one way or another about the Writers Guild strike, but now it's shut down production on my beloved Office (Steve Carrell won't cross the picket line).
Bring in the Pinkertons!
This and that
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 1:36PM
Larry Kudlow is impressed with the Pat Robertson endorsement. Other reviews are mixed.
I understand why Huckabee makes snarky comments about Thompson who is ahead of him in the polls but why do admirers of Thompson keep sending out tidbits of nasty news about Huckabee? Perhaps this is all about Iowa where Thompson is now up with ads. (Others have noticed too.) UPDATE: And more today in Iowa where Huckabee uses Thompson's Meet the Press performance against him with social conservatives.
"Authenticity" and "credibility" are the buzz words coming from many Thompson, Rudy and McCain supporters. Are these code words for "don't vote for that Romney guy" or is this language a means of explaining that although these three don't match up perfectly with the conservative base they have the benefit of being "real"? It would seem a bit of both the sword and the shield. To some degree the slippery Hillary storyline (given oxygen by the debate and opportunistic Edwards' ads) provides some punch to this line. The guy who goes up against Hillary is going to have to make the argument to skeptical Independents that she is too slick by half and a typical evasive politician. Being the "authentic" fellow sets up this general election contrast very nicely.
Eat Your Heart Out, Free Republic
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 1:10PM
Jeremy Lott reminds us of Robert Ingersoll's legendary attack on the Democratic Party. A taste:
"Every man that tried to destroy this nation was a Democrat. Every enemy this great republic has had for twenty years has been a Democrat... Every man that denied to the Union prisoners even the worm-eaten crust of famine, and when some poor, emaciated Union patriot, driven to insanity by famine, saw in an insane dream the face of his mother, and she beckoned him and he followed, hoping to press her lips once again against his fevered face, and when he stepped one step beyond the dead line the wretch that put the bullet through his loving throbbing heart was and is a Democrat."
Well, duh. And poor Bob Dole got in trouble for his line about "Democrat wars."
Pork in the Water
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 12:48PM
It seems like only yesterday we were complaining that President Bush hadn't issued his first veto. Now, judging from the Senate vote on the water bill (where there is plenty of pork floating in the water), we are going to see the first veto override of the Bush presidency.
The spigots are now open.
Where To Go
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 12:39PM
Another national poll(AP): Rudy 29% (up 2 pts), Thompson 19%(down 4 pts), McCain 13%, Romney 12%( up 1 pt), Huckabee 10%. In early state polling Zogby has Romney up by 14% in Iowa and Rasmussen has him up 15% in NH. But more interesting perhaps is news that Huckabee and his staff intend to spend virtually all their time between now and Jan. 3 in Iowa. That is Huckabee's big chance and it makes perfect sense for him to camp out there and make a run at Romney, stressing his social conservative credentials and theme of "authenticity and consistency" -- oh gosh, who could that be directed at? -- for the next 50 plus days. If he wins or comes real close the race is transformed. So what does Romney do? He must defend NH and continue to hammer away at SC so he can't spend all his time in Iowa. But I'm guessing there will be a lot of Romney paid ads and several days each week spent in the state.
Freedom of Religion in Iraq. Good News!!!
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 12:19PM
The ever-insightful and inspirational Michael Yon reports this good news about the re-opening of St. John's church in Baghdad. If anybody strongly refuses to believe that God and human decency can triumph even in originally hostile places -- and that American military personnel can successfully secure the peace ("win") in Iraq -- their belief can only be explained by willful, deliberate negativity, not by the evidence on the ground there. Now, of course, this is not to say that the outcome is certain, or that hope will be borne out. But it is to say that there is a difference between a healthy skepticism (reasonable, although the ratio of reasonable skepticism to hope is, happily, diminishing) and willful negativity (or, what's worse, actually rooting in one's heart for the American mission to fail).
Anyway, look at this photo of Muslims and Christians together putting the cross back up, and allow yourself to be inspired.
Ron Paul, Reagan and Gold
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 12:02PM
Dave Weigel isn't having any of this fruitcake.
Hillary the Cheapskate
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 11:43AM
When I followed Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in Iowa last month, in speech after speech she referred to a waitress she had met at an Iowa diner who had to work two to three jobs. It was the perfect way to put a face on struggling Americans who are "invisible" to President Bush. It turns out that not only did Clinton tell the waitress's story without prior approval, but the candidate outright stiffed her:
"I wished I would have been asked first," the waitress, Anita Esterday, said of Clinton's decision to insert her in a speech. "I wish she would have asked if she could talk about me later. I didn't like it when someone called me up and said Hillary Clinton is talking about you. It's like, what'd I do now? What's she saying?"
When I returned to the Maid-Rite a few weeks later, Esterday said the senator had caught her off guard. But once they got talking, she was honest with Clinton about her need to work two to three jobs.
"I've been doing it all my life. Why should it change now that I'm old," Esterday said.
Esterday does not think Clinton got it. "I don't think she understood at all what I was saying," Esterday said. "I mean, nobody got left a tip that day."
Clinton may have decided not to tip. She was also never given a bill - her meal was on the house. Still, Esterday said Clinton might have left her something: "Maybe they don't carry money. I don't know."
Resident Racist?
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 11:42AM
The always interetsing Robert VerBruggen has a good rundown on the somewhat complicated controversy over the new edition of the Resident Evil video game.
They Keep Doing It
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 11:38AM
Sigh. At least there was some genuine confusion and fear surrounding the Randi Rhodes incident.
One Truth, Two Truths...Maybe Three?
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 10:06AM
Last night I got down to the Lower East Side for one of Todd Seavy's monthly debates, this time centered on the question, "Did the Government Know in Advance About 9/11?" Karol Sheinin of Alarming News argued the "No" position. I was actually going to email her to see if I could get a copy of her opening statement, but she save me the trouble by posting it here. Suffice to say, Karol speaks for herself better than I could summarize her, but I will confirm she is a smart, well-spoken young woman whose best attributes were definitely on display during the debate.
Sander Hicks presented the "Yes" position, which wasn't based on any theories I'd heard previously from 9/11 Truthers. Hicks pegs Pakistani intelligence as a major participant, and said his lack of adherence to some 9/11 Truth dogma has led many in that movement to label him, despite his belief that the government let the attacks happen, as an agent. (Sheinin parodied this as a kind of conspiracy-theories-are-all-crazy-except-for-mine attitude.)Anyway, honestly, having not read Hicks' book--you buy it by the case, I guess--and being wholly, strangely unfamiliar with the people he name-checked as sources, it is difficult to give a "grade" on content, but I will say I was touched by his passion, his obvious heartfelt belief in his theory, whatever its ultimate merits, and his general command of the details of that theory. Hicks also founded Soft Skull Press, an interesting idiosyncratic left publishing house that put out Paul Berman's Power and the Idealists, which I reviewed favorably in AmSpec last year.
Both Hicks and Sheinin knew they were walking into an environment in which half the people in the room would think they were obstinate, crazy and uninterested in the truth. They should be commended for the bravery to do so. (The audience didn't always carry itself with equal grace, but that's another story, I suppose.) Karol's "No" position narrowly won the vote. I don't know: You could say the two sides were talking past one another last night, but, really, considering the gulf between the two positions and the implications of accepting one or the other, what else could we reasonably expect?
Giuliani/Kerik Associates?
Posted by on 11.8.07 @ 8:51AM
Lost in the early media coverage today about the expected indictment of former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik on tax charges is the fact that Kerik served as a partner and right hand man to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani when they both went into business together.
Nowadays, judging by press coverage of the Giuliani campaign, you'd think that Kerik was nothing more than a good political appointee for Giuliani and not much more. In fact, Kerik is perhaps not even the biggest ethical issue swirling about Giuliani, given the close hold his campaign and his business partners have put on Giuliani and Associates.
Now, Kerik can't get his calls returned from the Giuliani camp unless it's to block potential help. Kerik allowed friends to set up a legal defense fund and after an initial attempt by some to contact major Giuliani donors for assistance, says one Kerik friend, Kerik was told to stop out of concern for potential political fallout.
Kerik is still working, however. He was spotted in Washington two weeks ago, being chauffered around with security in a large SUV.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Illinois in '08
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 8:48PM
Monday was the filing deadline for major party candidates in the Land of Lincoln (the deadline in most states isn't for months). Jay Cost has a quick analysis; it looks like the 11th congressional district race is the one to keep an eye on.
Re: Another Smear
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 8:30PM
Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr blogged a lot a couple months ago about Toobin's book The Nine; all of their posts on the topic (in chronological order from top to bottom) are here. Volokh focuses in a couple of those posts on Toobin's unfair and often inaccurate treatment of Thomas. (To his credit, Toobin did write to Volokh saying that he intends to correct factual errors.)
Re: More Polling
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 8:22PM
The trends seen in the ABC/Washington Post, Marist and Gallup polls continue with the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: Rudy at 33%(up 3 pts), McCain in second at 16%, Thompson dropping (8 pts) to 15% , Romney at 11% and Huckbee up 4 pts to 8%. What we have seen in all these polls is: 1) Rudy edging up slightly; 2) Thompson's bounce has faded ; 3) he's been replaced in second by McCain and 3) despite a lot of activity and paid ads Romney has not moved significantly in the last 6 months and now has Huckabee moving up behind him. We will see whether there is similar movement soon in early primary states where Romney continues to do much better and McCain much worse than their national poll numbers. In Florida Rudy has a comfortable lead but he has yet to break through in NH, perhaps his best shot at a pre-January 29(Florida) win.
UPDATE: Bob Novak thinks Thompson did himself in with the Meet the Press performance but Paul Weyrich might have been on the mark when he observed " I've got to tell you, I do not think Thompson really wants to be elected that badly."
Another Smear from the MSM
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 5:58PM
This is becoming a daily exercise: Yet again, a supposedly mainstream media guy -- the "expert" (read: supposedly "neutral") legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin did a book review for the New Yorker about Clarence Thomas's pre-Supremes autobiography, and it quickly gets to the nub of things in this nasty passage: Indeed, throughout his judicial career Thomas has, in the name of anti-élitism, shown a distinct solicitude for certain kinds of élites-say, for employers over employees, for government over individuals, for corporations over regulators, and for executioners over the condemned. Thomas's tender concern for the problems of the powerful reveals itself, in the end, as a form of self-pity.
This is a smear, pure and simple. Not only that, but, as is typical, it misses the whole point of conservative jurisprudence. Toobin focuses on Thomas' judicial work as if Thomas is a legislator choosing whom to favor, rather than as a judge who acts according to the law (process) rather than considering whom is or is not "helped" by his decisions (results). Frankly, the outright refusal to take conservative jurisprudence seriously enough so as to accurately and fairly represent what we say we are trying to do... is an act that is getting awfully old.
I'll have more to say on this topic tomorrow, and will also cross-post at Confirm Them tomorrow.
If you don't have anything nice to say...
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 5:21PM
Without any endorsement news today Romney pooh-poohed the Brownback and Robertson endorsements and took a shot at Rudy in South Carolina declaring: "I don't think the Republican Party will choose a pro-choice, pro-gay civil union candidate to lead our party." That was a pretty gutsy comment coming from someone who held pro-gay rights and pro-choice views as late as 2005. It was also an inviting a target for the Rudy folks who responded through spokeswoman Maria Comella: "It would seem someone forgot to show Mitt Romney today's USA/Gallup survey. It's clear that Republicans across the board are supporting the experienced candidate who actually sticks with his positions and has used Conservative principles to actually get results."
Suing Regnery Publishing
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 3:48PM
I was surprised that the New York Times, in this morning's edition, devoted as much space as it did to an insignificant lawsuit filed by a handful of disgruntled authors against Regnery Publishing, the conservative publisher founded by my father sixty years ago, and which I headed for eighteen years before becoming publisher of The American Spectator. From its earliest days, Regnery Publishing (which was previously known as the Henry Regnery Company) played a crucial role in helping hundreds of conservative voices break through the liberal censorship of the publishing industry and the big media. In earlier times, virtually every leading conservative thinker and writer was published by Regnery, and many of today's most prominent conservatives gained prominence as our authors, and are now helping the conservative movement fight its major policy battles of the day.
Although I no longer run the business, I remain on the board of Regnery Publishing and keep well versed on what it is doing. The firm continues to launch the careers of many budding conservative authors, just as it always did. That was just as true when we published God and Man at Yale by Bill Buckley and Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind, as it is today with authors like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Dinesh D'Souza, and Mark Steyn. When I was head of the company, we published no fewer than 22 New York Times bestsellers -- a tradition that continues: over the last couple of months, Regnery has added two new bestsellers to its long list of successes in Ingraham's Power to the People and D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity.
Just as it is doubtful that many of the conservative movement's founders would have been published had it not been for Regnery, it is also probable that several, if not all, of the five authors suing the company would not have been published had it not been for us, and it is certain that they wouldn't have been New York Times bestsellers -- Regnery put four of the five on the list.
The merits of the lawsuit are hardly worth discussing. To anyone in the book publishing industry they're laughable. I'm a lawyer and know that the contracts they signed are clear and transparent, and are similar to the contracts used throughout the industry. I also know that Regnery puts marketing muscle and expertise behind its books like nobody else in the business -- something that each of the five authors involved benefited from enormously. These disgruntled authors are, perversely, complaining about that muscle. But it's one of the reasons why Regnery has the success it does in putting conservative books where the New York Times doesn't want them -- on its bestseller list.
More Brownback on McCain
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 3:13PM
Matt Lewis has an interview with Brownback up.
Some highlights:
Brownback described McCain as: "The full package ... A pro-Life candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton in the fall..."
He added: "I believe the next president needs to have foreign policy experience ... He's been a fiscal conservative since before it was cool."
Brownback also urged conservatives to "take another look at John," and to, "look at the record."
Re: The Brownback Campaign All Over Again
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 2:34PM
Pat Robertson may be overshadowing Sam Brownback, but I think there's another reason that Brownback's McCain endorsement isn't making a splash, namely that McCain is such a longshot. Brownback would have made a bigger splash if he'd endorsed almost anyone else.
The Brownback Campaign All Over Again
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 2:04PM
Sam Brownback has been upstaged by Pat Robertson. This has pretty much been the story of his life this year. Brownback is a serious, legislatively active social conservative but he lacks charisma and effective messaging. As a result, the Kansan always has trouble getting noticed.
Re: Pat Robertson Endorsement
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 1:39PM
In the absence of a consensus among social conservative leaders, which appears where we'll be, I would question the impact of any one person's endorsement. If Paul Weyrich lines up for Romney and Robertson for Rudy and Right to Life folks for Thompson is it all a wash? And after all, when real voters get to see the candidates live(granted, most don't) as they did at the FRC's Value Forum, sometimes they just choose who they like, in that case Huckabee. Now given the obstacles he faces with certain social conservative voters (although the polls indicate he still is winning self-described conservatives and frequent church goers) Rudy is likely thrilled to have Robertson's support but perhaps all this endorsement frenzy has little or no impact with ordinary voters.
UPDATE: Some similar thoughts here. Others think this is just the beginning of social conservatives lining up with Rudy.
Re: Pat Robertson's Endorsement
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 1:21PM
While I find Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani mildly interesting, I also find it insignificant.
Pat Toomey
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 12:59PM
I had a chance to chat with Pat Toomey, President of Club for Growth, today. I'll have more later in the week on his take on the election returns yesterday.(Outside the Commonwealth of Virginia there is reason for a measure of GOP optimism.)
On the issue of "loopholes" Pat offered a useful way of evaluating whether this is just code for "tax increases." He notes that "people can use the tax code to dole out pork" with such narrowly tailored exemptions and credits that only a select number or even one entity benefits. He calls this "terrible" tax policy, explaining that the goal should always be to have the broadest tax base at the lowest rate. So if a politician says he is "closing loopholes" Pat contends they should "simultaneously be lowering marginal rates." Otherwise they are just digging for more revenue.
On AMT, he says Rangel's "mother of all tax hikes" is going nowhere but cautions that this is a "multi-year" proposition for Rangel who is holding out hope a Democratic president would sign on to just such a measure in 2009. As for AMT, he urges the GOP to come up with alternatives --either a complete AMT repeal or Rep. Paul Ryan's plan which offers an alternative flat tax. In any event he contends that AMT reform should not be held hostage to the "paygo" rules.
Finally, as for the presidential race Pat says he is leaning against endorsing a candidate saying that Thompson, Rudy and Romney are advocating a "pro growth agenda" although he acknowledges that "their pasts are different," pointing to the Club's White Papers.
Is Pat Roberston A Sell-Out?
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 11:54AM
This will hardly be the first time religious conservatives have asked that question. Nevertheless, I don't want to minimize the importance of Pat Roberston's endorsement, because it is a strong boost to Giuliani.
It won't move as many votes as it would have ten years ago, but evangelicals (and Pentecostals) watch the "700 Club" and the Christian Broadcasting Network in large numbers. Robertson has a significant following, and with the death of Jerry Falwell remains the most visible founding father of the religious right who is still politically active. And it pretty much closes the door on the emergence of any "consensus" social conservative alternative to Giuliani in the primaries.
But Robertson, the son of a senator, has always been more of a political operator than James Dobson. It was Robertson, after all, who hired Ralph Reed as executive director at the Christian Coalition. The religious right has for years been split between idealists and those who favor a frontrunner strategy in the GOP nomination race to ensure "a place at the table." Robertson saw this when Falwell and other prominent Christian conservatives endorsed George H.W. Bush over him during the 1988 primaries; he has been firmly in the place at the table camp since then.
Robertson has been hinting that he would be willing to endorse Giuliani for over a year. He aided Giuliani's roll-out to social conservatives at his Regent University. The dean of Regent's Robertson School of Government endorsed Giuliani months ago. This has both helped the former mayor among social conservatives and caused social conservatives to wonder what is up with Robertson. The reaction now will probably be similar.
Oddly, Roberston in his endorsement appears to echo the view social issues take a subordinate role to economics and foreign policy. All that is required is that a candidate not be overtly hostile to social conservatives, in the Pete Wilson mold. This is only savvy if you don't especially care about social issues, but it doesn't make much sense if those are an important motivator of your political involvement. In fact, it is part of the reason that social conservatives can't point to policy accomplishments of the same scale as those achieved by economic and foreign-policy conservatives even though they arguably represent a bigger slice of Republican voters.
Brownback on McCain
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 11:41AM
Here are Sam Brownback's comments endorsing John McCain, which makes it pretty clear that abortion was the deciding factor:
"Today I am proud to endorse my friend and a true American hero, John McCain, for President of the United States. While I respect all of the Republicans running for president this year, John McCain is the only candidate who can rally the Reagan coalition of conservatives, Independents, and conservative Democrats needed to defeat Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat in the general election next year. John McCain has spent a lifetime standing up for human rights around the world, including a consistent 24-year pro-life record of protecting the rights of the unborn. John McCain alone has the courage, leadership and character to lead our party to victory in 2008 while keeping faith with our most cherished values -- life, faith and family."
Re: Food For Thought
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 11:00AM
It seems that Robertson did something savvy: he didn't oversell on the social issues. Most Republican voters in the primary aren't going to vote FOR Rudy because of his stance on social issues; they are going to vote for him for other reasons like competence, leadership, terrorism and economics. Robertson's argument seemed to track this, arguing that Rudy is the best one to go after the Islamic terrorists and that at least Robertson can live with him on social issues because of Rudy's pledge on judges. Some won't buy it, some will but if Rudy is nominated social conservatives can certainly claim that he did it with some of their support and not in spite of them.
Food for Thought on Robertson Endorsement
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 10:47AM
Does this make Christian conservatives more comfortable with Rudy, or does it make them view Robertson as a sell-out who is more interested in power than staying true to his values? Or some of both?
Romney in the Crossfire
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 10:44AM
Rudy-Robertson Press Conference
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 10:04AM
Standing next to Rudy Giuliani, Pat Robertson just said at a press conference at the National Press Club that he's endorsing Giuliani because terrorism was the overriding issue of the time and that he trusted Giuliani would appoint strict constructionist judges, which is ultimately the most important concern of social conservatives. He also cited Giuliani's proven leadership, both on September 11 and in turning around New York City as mayor. Rudy backer Ted Olson also delivered brief remarks at this morning's event. Giuliani said of Robertson that "his advice is invaluable." More to come.
UPDATE:
Here are some quotes from Robertson:
"To me, the overriding issue for the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists."
"I think [Giuliani]Â has articulated a philosophy that he really is for the life of the unborn," Robertson said, referring to Giuliani's pledge to increase adoptions and decrease abortions as he did in
"I don't think evangelicals have coalesced around one candidate," he said, in response to a question regarding Paul Weyrich's endorsement of Romney and Sam Brownback's endorsement of McCain.
"Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in
Re: More Polling
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 9:27AM
Following on the heels of the Marist poll a new Gallup/USA poll also has McCain in second. Rudy 34%( up 2 pts.), McCain 18%( up 4 pts), Thompson 17%(down 1 pt.), Romney 14%(up 4) and Huckabee at 6%. On favorables/unfavorable Rudy is 55%-32%, McCain is 47%-34%, Thompson is 29-28%(28% never heard of him), and Romney 28-31%(24% never heard of him). I suspect these "never heard of him" folks are the "never vote" folks. Based on this, Marist and Washington Post/ABC polls several things are clear: Rudy is on a national level in a commanding position and McCain seems have climbed back into second. Soon enough we'll see if he can make a run at Rudy, get out of Iowa unscathed and make his stand in NH.
Re: Pat Robertson to Endorse Rudy
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 9:02AM
The Washington Post reports. This is a huge pickup for Giuliani, giving him a major Christian conservative endorsement to tout, and is an indication that perhaps Robertson, who wants a seat at the table, sees Giuliani as the most likely nominee. It could provide cover for other pro-lifers to endorse Giuliani. And as an added bonus, it takes some of the Mitt-Romney-is-the-choice-of-social-conservatives narrative that came after the Paul Weyrich endorsement of Romney. I'm heading over to the press conference, so more to come.
Re: Brownback Endorses McCain
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 9:02AM
Well, it's not Pat Robertson but Sam Brownback endorses McCain today. On one level it is great news for McCain-confirming his "McCain is back" theme. However, it certainly confirms that he is going all out in Iowa where Brownback is of the most help. The risk here is tremendous: a fourth or fifth place finish may permanently end his scramble to get out of the financial hole he dug and may kill momentum going into NH where he really could win.
But Will They Listen?
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 8:51AM
Congrats AmSpec
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 8:29AM
The Washington Times has a nice write-up of the Spectator's 40th anniversary party last night, and what
high praise author (and keynote speaker) Tom Wolfe had for the
magazine's reporting during the Clinton administration:
"I submit that the American Spectator did a more thorough job with Bill Clinton than Woodward and Bernstein did with Nixon," Mr. Wolfe said, referring to The Washington Post reporters who uncovered the story behind the Watergate break-in that led to President Nixon's resignation.
As a result of the Spectator's reporting, Mr. Wolfe said, "Clinton is known for one thing - a porn movie starring a fat girl," an apparent reference to former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Indeed, there was an actual impeachment following the Spectator's stories.
Brownback to Back McCain
Posted by on 11.7.07 @ 7:57AM
Sam Brownback will endorse his fellow Senator John McCain, the AP reports., ending speculation over whether the staunchly pro-life Kansan would endorse Rudy Giuliani, who he met with a few weeks ago. Brownback is a nice get for McCain. It will not only help McCain emphasize his strong pro-life record, but add further to the McCain comeback narrative.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
More Polling
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 11:18PM
A new Marist poll: Rudy 30%, McCain 17%, Romney 13%, Thompson 12% and Huckabee 5 %. More fodder for the "he's back" McCain financial sell. Some suspect McCain will pull up stakes in Iowa and make a push for NH. That would have seemed smart a month or two back but can he get away with it now? And more importantly, if his money situation does not improve can he really compete in the early states and on Feb. 5?
Carney Proves MSM's Cluelessness
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 5:53PM
Regarding the Thompson ad, Jay Carney of TIME shows why the MSM are just so out of touch with so many in middle America, in part because they are so out of touch with language and values and the political theory of the Founders and, worse, of the roots of those basic tenets of American political theory. I don't mean to pick on Carney -- I don't think he is being deliberately tendentious, but his comments are illustrative of a larger problem in the MSM -- but here's what he wrote:
The key line (in the longer version): "My friends, we must remember that our rights come from God and not from government."
Within the context of the ad, that line is untethered -- a vague assertion floating out there to be interpreted by the viewer and listener. At one level, the statement is unassailable: the Declaration states that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But its denigration of government's role in the matter of rights is obviously deliberate. Does Thompson, who put his legal degree to use for decades as a prosecutor, lawmaker and lobbyist, really believe that the role of government -- or man, for that matter -- in establishing, enforcing and protecting those rights is secondary and insignificant? I doubt it. More likely is that the line is a propitiatory offering -- deliberately vague but carefully targeted -- meant to reassure religious conservative voters about Thompson, ...
Sigh... Oh where, oh where, to begin?
The fact is that this line from Thompson is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN an absolutely central tenet of the American experiment. The idea is NOT that government has no role in protecting freedoms -- of course it does, just as Carney says, but that it utterly beside the point, a blind alley entirely. What Thompson said had nothing to do with government's protective role, but rather was that government neither CREATES nor GRANTS the rights we hold dear, because those rights both precede and supersede government. The rights already existed (we of faith believe they existed because they were bequeathed to us by a loving God), and continue to exist whether or not government effectively protects them. The rights are their own self-justification because they are inherent in what we as Americans believe is the intended nature of Creation; that is why they are RIGHTS rather than PRIVILEGES. Those rights exist even under despotism that tramples them. The despotism may not recognize those rights, and it may trample those rights and kill those who try to hold onto those rights, but the rights themselves exist regardless. That is precisely why the Declaration of Independence posits that the "truths" about those rights are "self evident": because they EXIST (we believe due to God's grace), apart from any government's ability to pretend otherwise.
Put another way, man created government, not vice versa -- and God created man with the reasoning and moral ability to discern those rights and then institute government to secure those rights against predation.
That was the point Thompson was making -- but it is a point utterly lost on too many in the MSM, too many in academia, and too many in public office today.
Thompson was right. And it was not at all a "vague assertion," but a highly specific and crucially important assertion at that.
Women Who Don't Whine
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 5:26PM
Key women advisors to the Thompson, McCain, Rudy and Romney campaigns met for a panel discussion moderated by Kate O'Beirne at the National Press Club. There was a stark absence of whining, complaining or fretting about the life of a female campaign advisor and a consensus that Washington pollsters and pundits have missed the boat in labeling certain issues as "women's issues" and trying to pigeonhole women voters. Each voiced the main themes and appeal of their candidate and in some cases tried to highlight the weaknesses of their opponents.
From Karen Hanretty, Thompson's Deputy Communications Director, came the most memorable line of the event: We need not worry that "Fred will rush to war because Fred does not rush to anything." She stressed Thompson's themes of limited government and toughness on illegal immigration and explained his appeal as "thoughtful and methodical, not fire and brimstone."
From Jill Hazelbaker, Communications Director for John McCain:
she described her candidate as "motivated to lead" and who has
"broad and deep experience." She repeatedly made the pitch that
McCain can keep the traditional Republican base united while
reaching out to Democrats and Independents. Taking exception to
Hanretty's suggestion that Iraq was fading from the headlines and
"Iran is the new Iraq" she stressed McCain's determination to keep
Iraq front and center in the war on terrorism so that terrorists do
not "follow us home."
From Katie Levinson, Rudy's Communications Director, the message
was:" authentic, someone you can trust, a deep vision and
leadership." The message of coming to Washington "to get it done"
and the main themes of the war on terrorism and the economy were
familiar to those following Rudy's campaign.
From Barbara Comstock, advisor to Romney, there was the famed
"three legged stool." Asked about the role of personality she,
unlike her counterparts, reverted to the policy message, saying
"good policy is good politics." She did tout his experience in
business and the Olympics, a message he has recently stressed in
ads.
On Hillary Clinton, all argued that the "woe is me" routine from
the last debate was not going to fly. Comstock contended her staff
"did her a disservice" playing the gender card and Levinson
contended that unlike Hillary's complaint when Rick Lazio
approached her podium in her first senate run "I don't think people
will give her a pass this time." Hazelbaker and Hanretty agreed
that the campaign had overplayed the gender card.
On healthcare both Levinson and Hanretty took a shot at "mandates"-- a swipe at the type of measure Romney enacted in Massachusetts care. Hantetty cited the California experience of employer mandates and when pressed cirticized Massachusetts which, come November 15, will enact a tax fine for those who do not meet the individual mandate requirement.
On abortion, Hanretty stressed Thompson's pro-life voting record while Comstock said Romney had "been up front" about his abortion record and now had a multi-pronged platform on social issues. They both pledge not to sign efforts to codify Roe v. Wade(the Freedom of Choice Act) by statute. Levinson stressed Rudy's strict constructionist credentials, his support for parental notification, record of increasing adoptions and his commitment not to tamper with the Hyde Amendment or the GOP platform, but reiterated that he "ultimately believes in a woman's right to choose." Hazelbaker reiterated McCain's support for a pro-life constitutional amendment and the view that the GOP remains a "pro-life" party.
So in a nutshell we saw a microcosm of the race: Romney is running on the three legged stool while his opponents make the argument he is not a credible messenger. Rudy runs on leadership while his opponents focus on his positions on social issues. Thompson runs on an aura of comfort and McCain on foreign policy expertise. Now, if the candidates were only as polished, likeable and effective as these advisors the GOP would have 2008 in the bag.
Good columns
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 4:46PM
Several good columns of note today, unrelated except for their quality: In this one, Jim Pinkerton notes that the trap Hillary has laid for herself on the licenses for illegals is reminscent of another famous case that bit a Democrat.
In this one in the NY Times, the excellent Gregory Mankiw explains why the relatively high American mortality rate has little to do with our health care system and lots to do with other factors.
In this one from the excellent James Glassman/AEI "The American," we learn that entrepreneurs are improving education.
As I see others, I will post them.
Thompson's New Ads
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 4:16PM
Fred Thompson is rolling out two new campaign ads that will be airing in Iowa and nationwide. Both feature him sitting at the counter to a small town diner, and emphasize his consistent conservatism. I think both ads do an effective job of communicating his message, and could remind people why they liked him in the first place. He just needs to back it up with a more effective overall campaign.
The first one is the longer, one minute spot that features him meeting Ronald Reagan as a Young Republican and highlights his 100% pro-life voting record. "we must remember that our rights come from God, and not from government.:
The next ad, which is shorter, emphasizes "common sense conservative principles":
Danforth Sticks by Clarence Thomas
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 2:48PM
Courtesy of the Clarence Thomas Appreciation Page, here are some nice comments by former Sen. Danforth about his protege, the great Justice. Note especially the notes at the bottom about a conversation with one of the liberal justices, praising Thomas. Good stuff.
McCain Advisor Blasts Rudy on Torture
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 2:08PM
Liz Mair wrote recently on this site about how McCain seemed to be helping Giuliani by going after Romney, but this week the torture issue has caused a rift between the two campaigns, with the McCain campaign releasing the following statement from Sergeant Major Paul Chevalier, USMC (Ret.), the chair of McCain's New Hampshire Veterans Advisory Committee :
"Last week, Rudy Giuliani implied that he had experienced the torture of sleep deprivation while running for president. His hyperbole is an insult to all American soldiers who have had to endure real torture and mistreatment while in enemy hands. This practice was common during the Vietnam War. One of John McCain's closest friends, LtCol. Orson Swindle, USMC (Ret.), was subjected to this treatment while he was held as a P.O.W. in North Vietnam and can personally assure Mayor Giuliani that the experience was far more severe than the loss of sleep he experiences as a candidate. I call on Mayor Giuliani to apologize to LtCol. Swindle and all of our courageous veterans who have had to persevere through this heinous experience as well as other torturous acts while serving their country and recognize how he belittled that service and sacrifice through his comments."
The email also links to this Richard Cohen column fron today's Washington Post, in which Cohen takes aim at Giuliani's position on torture.
Re: Paul's Haul
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 1:31PM
There are two ways Paul could affect the race if his fundraising success is matched by a stronger than expected showing at the ballot box. First, any top-tier candidate who finishes behind Paul in New Hampshire or Iowa will face increased pressure to depart from the race, even if Paul didn't actually take votes from them.
Second, a respectable showing by Paul will create a narrative that a critical mass of Republicans have turned against the war, even if much of his support doesn't come from traditional Republicans. Dave Weigel makes a different but related point about GOP war politics in a Hit and Run post about the Paul haul.
Paul has attracted a following among people who haven't had a candidate to root for in a long time, and in some cases ever in their lives. I think his candidacy is to a certain extent about providing these voters and his Old Right conservatism a home in the GOP. Will he succeed? Well, first we'll have to see if Paul can turn his following out to vote.
Casting a Shadow
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 1:05PM
Over at Reason's Hit & Run they're discussing William Tucker's article on terrestrial energy from today's AmSpec.
Fred Doubting Fred
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 12:08PM
The Telegraph reports:
Even Fred Thompson doesn't think he will become president. Chatting off-air to a television reporter, a stunningly candid off-the-cuff quip from the Hollywood actor cemented the impression that his heart is not in the 2008 race.
Trying to encourage his studio to hurry up so an interview could start, Carl Cameron of Fox News said into his microphone: "The next president of the United States has a schedule to keep." Standing beside him, a deadpan Mr Thompson interjected: "And so do I."
Maybe Hillary Should Have Checked the Polls
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 11:47AM
Jim Geraghty notes this Rasmussen poll that finds 77 percent of Americans oppose giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, a position Clinton was boxed into taking.
Paul's Haul Doesn't Change the Big Picture
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 10:14AM
As Jim noted below, Ron Paul ended up raising a staggering amount of money online yesterday, a sum that would would be impressive for any candidate, even Hillary Clinton. As of this writing, he is up to about $7.3 million for the quarter. He may outraise Thompson, Giuliani and/or Romney (less personal donations) this quarter. Give the man his due--he clearly has a base of enthusiastic followers.
With that said, I don't really see what impact he'll have on this race. There are a few basic ways that a candidate can affect the outcome of nomination battle: either by winning the nomination, pulling support from one of the other candidates, or by dropping out and endorsing somebody else. As enthusiastic as Paul supporters are, there's no evidence from scientific polls that he has any shot of capturing the nomination. Whether or not his supporters like it, or think it should be this way, the reality is that Paul's opposition to the Iraq War, indifference to an Iranian nuclear weapon, and his general philosophy on foreign policy, put him at odds with an overwhelming majority of Republicans on the dominant issues of the day. Sure, Paul can use his money to take out television ads and he may have a strong showing in New Hampsire among libertarians and anti-war independents, but he won't win, nor will he do as well in closed primaries. And unlike Huckabee (who can affect the race by pulling social conservative votes from Romney, Thompson, and possibly McCain), Paul is not likely to pull many votes from any top-tier Republicans, since none of them endorse his anti-war positions. Ron Paul supporters tend to be made up of disillusioned libertarians and independents, many of whom are completely turned off by the Republican Party, and would not be voting for any of the top Republicans anyway. I would even guess that a lot of his supporters would not be voting at all if Paul were not in the race. And it's not as if he's going to drop out of the race and endorse any Republican. So, the Paul candidacy is another interesting angle in the most dynamic Republican nomination battle in decades, but let's keep everything in perspective.
Ron Paul Beats Romney
Posted by on 11.6.07 @ 9:38AM
At least in single-day fundraising. Yesterday, Ron Paul broke Mitt Romney's record as the Republican who raised the most in a single day by hauling in more than $4.2 million from over 37,000 donors. The Paul campaign has now raised north of $7.1 million for the fourth quarter. Only Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have raised more in one day.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Poll Fun
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 8:02PM
Another Edwards Ad
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 6:13PM
We might differ on whether the "Politics of Parsing" ad was effective or not, but really, who's going to be convinced to vote against Hillary because of this? Edwards does have an explanation as to why it is ok to take money from interest groups, say trial lawyers for example, but not the lobbyists for trial lawyers. Not a good explanation, but an explanation. As flawed as Hillary is, it's hard to believe one of her Democratic opponents can upset her.
Re: Thompson Responds to Huckabee
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 5:31PM
Yes, Thompson's attack on Huckabee's immigration and economic record was well framed, but perhaps was the first recognition by a top tier candidate that Huckabee is worth going after (and not merely deserving of a brush back pitch on his abortion comments). Huckabee's movement both nationally and in Iowa poses a problem for Thompson. Should Thompson finish out of the money and Huckabee second in Iowa, Thompson's first tier status might be called into question. So while it's not always the best tactic to be fighting the fellow behind you in the national polls Thompson may be wise to go after Huckabee who until now has largely been immune from opponents' attacks. (Club for Growth is another matter of course.)
Re:Not Under the Bus, But Off the Plane
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 4:58PM
Thompson Communications Director Todd Harris says "no" in answer to my question whether there is any plan to reimburse Philip Martin for the full cost of the private jet travel Thompson received.
Prostate Cancer Treatment in the UK
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 4:12PM
In an earlier post, I noted some liberal mythmaking regarding Giuliani's argument for the superiority of prostate cancer treatment in the U.S. over the U.K.'s socialized system. It turns out there's more.
According to the Observer (the Guardian's sister paper) the type of prostate cancer treatment Giuliani received in 2000 wasn't even approved by Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence until 2005. But approval was the easy part, it seems.
Last June, the Times reported that in Britain, men were being denied brachytherapy treatment because the National Health Service refused to pay for it. The article also noted that only 10 hospitals in all of England offered the treatment.
I also came across this speech delivered by John Neate, chief executive of the Prostate Cancer Charity, to the National Prostate Cancer conference in London last November, in which he noted that "men with prostate cancer were also having to take on 'titanic battles' with their Primary Care Trusts to have tried and tested treatments like brachytherapy..."
Neate continued:
"Whether the battle is for Taxotere or for brachytherapy or for any other form of tried and tested treatment, it cannot be acceptable that men and their families who are already having to deal with the tough news of a prostate cancer diagnosis, have to wrestle with NHS bureaucracy at the same time."
Socialized medicine at work.
Not Under the Bus, But Off the Plane
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 4:12PM
Thompson advisor and airline provider Philip Martin "resigns" from the campaign. Considering his past criminal record and plenty of smoke regarding more recent tax issues this seems a wise course.
Moneybags Paul
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 3:45PM
After falling short of his October goal of $4 million, Ron Paul seems to have raised $2.2 million in an online fundraising drive so far today. If the numbers hold up, Paul is on target to beat his third quarter totals.
UPDATE: As the commenters point out, Paul has now exceeded his third quarter fundraising totals. At this writing, he is up to just shy of $2.7 million for the day and nearly $5.8 million for the quarter so far.
Colbert Is Out
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 3:14PM
The 2008 presidential field just lost a little truthiness.
The Edwards Ad
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 2:46PM
No, not the effective negative ad aimed at Hillary Clinton, but another one that Dave Weigel calls, "one of the most sleazy, manipulative little political commercials of recent years." If Clinton is playing the gender card, Edwards is clearly playing the cancer card:
"And Elizabeth and I decided in the quiet of a hospital room." Subtle. "After 12 hours of tests and after getting very bad news." Even subtler. His wife has cancer. "We're not going to quietly go away. Instead we're going to go out there and fight for what it is we believe."
You know, Mitt Romney's wife has multiple sclerosis. Obviously that's not going to shorten her life the way Elizabeth Edwards' cancer will shorten hers. But it's the kind of thing that could stir up sympathy and handkerchief-clutching out there in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the Romneys only ever talk about it when asked. There's no TV ad pimping her illness. If Romney has no emotions, than Edwards has only the basest ones. There's not enough Lysol on the eastern seaboard to scrub his slime away.
I would also add that the two Edwards campaign appearances I attended this fall both began with a variation of him saying, "I know a lot of you want to know how Elizabeth is doing. Elizabeth is doing great."
Re: Thompson Responds to Huckabee
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 1:39PM
Video here.
I thought this was the strongest part:
Gov. Huckabee talks about this, I suppose, because it's the only conservative position he's got. People talk about a sanctuary cities -- he apparently wanted a sanctuary state in Arkansas. He's very weak on immigration policy. He was one of the highest taxing governors that we had in this country and rivaling Bill Clinton in terms of the CATO ratings and getting a B when Clinton got a B and getting an F for part of his administration. So I can understand why he might want to talk solely about this issue.
Paul Weyrich Endorses Romney
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 1:00PM
A major pickup. David Brody has the news.
Who Is Spreading Cancer Myths?
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 12:24PM
Ezra Klein thinks he's being clever by arguing that, "if not for 'socialized medicine,' Giuliani would likely be dead." The first peg of E. Klein's argument rests on the idea that at the time Giuliani was mayor he was a city employee and thus covered under New York State's health insurance. This is a largely irrelevant argument, because any state-run health insurance plan within a hybrid healthcare system such as ours does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within a system that also has elements of a free market.
To get around this problem, E. Klein writes sarcastically:
Nor is it clear that the Europeans are so bad at this stuff. Giuliani's cancer was treated by way of a therapy called Bradychardia, which involves implanting small, rice-sized radioactive capsules into the prostate gland. The technique was developed [PDF] by a researcher from Copenhagen, Denmark. Denmark, you'll recall, is both in Europe and has a universal healthcare system. It's a wonder Giuliani didn't stalk out of his hospital on principle.
Actually, Bradychardia, properly spelled Bradycardia, has nothing to do with prostate cancer treatment. According to the Mayo Clinic, "Bradycardia describes a heart rate that drops below 50 beats per minute, compared to a normal heartbeat rate of about 72." Had E. Klein looked more carefully at the PDF he linked to, he would have seen that the prostate treatment he was referring to is called Brachytherapy.
I did some quick research on the topic, which I caution is by no means conclusive, because unlike the other Klein, I won't attempt to present myself as a health care expert. Though I did find that a Danish researcher named Hans Holm was important in the development of this type of treatment, it doesn't appear as if he was the sort of lone developer that E. Klein presented him as, but one person in a string of physicians that developed the technique, with U.S.-based doctors playing an important role.
This from the California Pacific Medical Center:
In the early 1970's, Willet Whitmore, M.D. and Basil Hilaris, M.D. from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, were the first physicians to perform prostate seed implants. An abdominal incision was used to implant the seeds directly into the exposed gland.
In 1983, Hans Holm, M.D., University of Copenhagen, Denmark, was the first physician to perform the "closed" or "non-surgical" implant method, which utilized transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). In
1985, Haakon Ragde, M.D., John Blasko, M.D. and Peter Grimm, D.O. further modified Holm's approach in Seattle, Washington. They began treatment in November 1985.
If he is going to attack Giuliani for spreading a "cancer myth," E. Klein should do a better job of avoiding his own mythmaking.
Thompson Responds
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 11:16AM
CAMERON: So I guess the question for folks who look at these issues as a critical one for a social conservative. If these are your personal beliefs, how can you support public policies that won't ban them?
THOMPSON: Well look at what I did for eight years in the United States Senate. I mean we had votes on federal funding for abortion, we had votes on partial birth abortion, we had votes on the Mexico City policy, we had votes on cloning, we had votes to prohibit people taking young girls across state lines to avoid parental consent laws. That's what I did. Those are the issues that face the federal government. I would adopt the same policies as president that I did when I was in the United States Senate which is 100% pro-life. I can't reach to every person and change their hearts and minds in America, but I can certainly make sure where, for example, federal tax dollars go."
Pakistani Problems
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 9:46AM
Ever since 9/11, Gen. Musharraf's rule over Pakistan has put the U.S. in a bind, presenting us with the tradeoff between having a strong ruler at the helm of a volatile nuclear state with a sizable population of Islamists and supporting a military dictator. This news (via the Washington Post) will make it increasingly difficult for the U.S. to justify its support for Musharraf, especially given the Bush administration's interest in democracy promotion:
Insufficiently Balanced Satire
Posted by on 11.5.07 @ 9:34AM
Television critic Tom Shales gave a positive grade to "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams's hosting job on "Saturday Night Live" over the weekend, but bemoaned the show's failure to make fun of President Bush:
I guess it's not right in the eyes of the liberal media to let one single show pass without "SNL" satirizing the lame-duck president. There's only so much time for them to get their licks in!
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Huckabee Comments
Posted by on 11.4.07 @ 10:25PM
From Huckabee on Thompson's appearance today:
"Senator Thompson's comments on 'Meet the Press' were disappointing and disheartening for those who were expecting him to be a solid voice for conservatives. The marriage and life amendments are critical issues for those of us who have been on the front lines of these cultural battles. Sen. Thompson's philosophy seems to be more 'cut and run' when it comes to these issues, rather than stand and lead.
"I've always supported the passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. As President, I will fight for passage of a human life amendment. My position on the sanctity of life has always been clear and consistent. No candidate has a stronger record on the sanctity of life than I do. As Governor of Arkansas, I successfully led efforts to promote a human life amendment and marriage amendment in my state. For me, it isn't just talk, it's a conservative record of leadership and conviction."
This seems to echo the CBN take from earlier in the day. We'll see if Romney follows suit and if prominent social conservatives read the Thompson remarks similarly.
Washington Post Poll
Posted by on 11.4.07 @ 9:42PM
McCain Polling
Posted by on 11.4.07 @ 8:03PM
McCain is moving up in some polls -up 7 in the Washington Post Poll and his overall trend line looking like he may cross Thompson to climb back into second place in the RCP averages (and handy chart.) State poll averages are a little dicier- he's fifth in Iowa, third in NH, and fourth in SC, Michigan and Florida. Nevertheless, if Huckabee has an opening in Iowa, McCain's may be in New Hampshire where he has a window of opportunity to upset expectations as he did in 2000 with the help of Undeclareds( the NH term for Independents).
Panic in Pakistan
Posted by on 11.4.07 @ 7:17PM
AllahPundit has a good round-up on the State of Emergency that Musharraf has declared.
Re: Thompson on Meet the Press
Posted by on 11.4.07 @ 3:47PM
More Thompson and Abortion
Posted by on 11.4.07 @ 2:57PM
David Brody wonders: "Is this too much federalism to the point of alienating social conservatives?"
Re: Thompson on Meet the Press
Posted by on 11.4.07 @ 2:50PM
Judging from my inbox, those unfriendly to Thompson are trying to make sure that his abortion answers are the take-away from the interview.
The pro-life movement has (wisely, in my view) stopped demanding that candidates support the human life amendment. They allowed George W. Bush to agree with them on broad principles while remaining vague on certain policy specifics. But it doesn't seem prudent for Thompson to (inaccurately) talk about jailing young women, especially since Giuliani seems to have stopped.
Re: Thompson on Meet the Press
Posted by on 11.4.07 @ 12:09PM
Jennifer, I largely disagree with you on Thompson's performance. I thought he came across quite well, and offered a stark contrast to the big, bithering, blob that he's been portrayed as. On challenging international issues: Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan he displayed a sober understanding of the complexity of the situations. When challenged by Russert on some controversial statements he made (Iraq having had WMD, the insurgency being a "bunch of kids,") Thompson defended himself quite well. He didn't mean Saddam had WMD immediately before the invasion, but that Saddam had had them at one time and posessed the technological knowledge and ability to restart the program. He said not that the insurgency is just "a bunch of kids" but that Al Qaeda would portray a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to recruits as a bunch of kids beating the mighty U.S. On Iran, I don't think he sounded Hillary-ish at all. He seemed perfectly willing and ready to use military force as a last resort if we have good intellegence. But he said that there are a lot of things we could be doing that we're not currently doing--such as supporting opposition groups within Iran given the economic turmoil.
As for his answers on abortion, it should be interesting to see how they play out. His failure to support a human life amendment could hurt him among social conservatives, and again brings up this tricky situation since he also said life begins at conception. This will raise the question: if he believes life begins at conception and thus abortion is the taking of a human life, why shouldn't the federal government be involved? And yes, his comment that "you can't have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that which potentially would take young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail to do that," was Rudy-like. However, to compare his present position to Rudy by singling out that statement simply isn't being fair or accurate. Thompson said explicitly that Roe v. Wade should be overturned; Giuliani has refused to make that declaration, only saying that he'd appoint strict constructionists who could go either way with it. Not to mention Thompson's perfect pro-life voting record, against Giuliani's long record of supporting choice.
So, in summary, I thought Thompson's performance showed that his intellectual capacity and command of the issues is much deeper that he's been given credit for, but his answers on abortion will probably raise more questions, and perhaps lose him support among social conservatives who are torn between him, Romney and Huckabee.
Meet the Press
Posted by on 11.4.07 @ 11:33AM
Those looking for a smash performance will likely be disappointed but neither was there a wipe out. He still has a whole lot of ahhhs and errrrs but he had a nice conversational tone and does seem thoughtful. I do suspect that the after the fact reviews will focus on: 1) his statement that it would be his "intent" to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons sounding a bit Hillary-ish; 2) he sounded less keen on allowing students to carry concealed weapons than in the past and 3) his abortion answers.
On the latter, operating from a rough transcript:
"I'm not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions. I'm not suddenly going to know when life begins and where that place ought to be exactly. it comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception. I don't know if my own mind if that is the case, so I don't feel law ought to impose that standard on other people."
Later on: "I would take those same positions. no federal funding for abortions, no nothing that would in any way encourage abortion. when I saw -- again, all consistent with what I've said. people ask me hypothetically, okay, you know, it goes back to the states. somebody comes up with a bill and they say we're going to outlaw this or the other. and my response is I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and bettors and perhaps their family position. and that's what you're talking about. potential criminal law. I said those things are going to be in the hearts and minds of people. I'm probably a pretty good example of that. although my head and my legislative record's always been the same, when I saw that sonogram of my little now 4-year-old, it's changed my heart. it's changed the way I look at things. I was looking at my child when I saw that. and I knew, and I felt that, and that's the way I feel today. and I think life begins at conception. I always -- it was abstract to me before. I was a father earlier when I was very young. I was busy. I went about my way. one of the maybe few advantages you have of getting a little bit older."
And then this:
"RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in state if chosen by states for people who think otherwise.
THOMPSON: I do not think that you can have a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially -- you can't have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that which potentially would take young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail to do that. I just don't think that that's the right thing to do. it cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I've got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I'm not totally comfortable with, but that's the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind."
I'm hard pressed to see how this differs substantially from what Rudy has been saying recently.
