- 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 17, 2007
TNR and Implausible War Stories
Posted by on 11.17.07 @ 6:58PM
Over at The New Republic, Christopher Orr is on a roll with two highly entertaining takedowns of terrible-sounding anti-war movies within a week -- Lions for Lambs last Saturday, Redacted yesterday. Both reviews make great reading, but I can't resist noting this line, from the latter review:
Thanks to Redacted's clumsy, transparent politicking, the crime it portrays never feels remotely real, despite being closely based on an actual atrocity committed by American troops in Mahmudiyah in 2006.Hmm, so even though misconduct by American troops does happen, this portrayal of misconduct doesn't ring true. Sound familiar?
The Romney Questions
Posted by on 11.17.07 @ 4:30PM
Those Anti-Mormon Calls
Posted by on 11.17.07 @ 3:59PM
Spectator contributor Liz Mair is all over the story.
Polls and Places
Posted by on 11.17.07 @ 7:08AM
A national poll -- Gallup -- looks a bit different than the rest (Rudy 28%, Thompson 19%, McCain 13%, Romney 12% and Huckabee 10%) with Rudy down 6 pts, Thompson up 2 pts, McCain down 5 pts, Romney down 2 pts and Huckabee up 4 pts. In general we have been seeing upward trends for Rudy, McCain and Huckabee and declines for Thompson. Is this an outlier or the first indication of something afoot? In Florida, Mason-Dixon tells the same story as other polls recently: Rudy 36%( up 12 pts), Romney 15% (up 2 pts), Thompson 12% (down 15 pts), McCain 10% ( up 1 pt), Hucakbee 8%(up 2 pts). Rudy is in Florida on Sunday and then on to Texas and Illinois(a February 5 state) next week. Romney is in Nevada today( a poll here has him 8 pts behind Rudy) and then on to Wyoming and Idaho followed by Tuesday and Wednesday in Iowa. Thompson does ABC's This Week on Sunday and with also be in Iowa on Tuesday and Wednesday next week.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Catching Up
Posted by on 11.16.07 @ 8:17PM
Spent the day at the Federalist Society and will have more on Rudy's speech on Monday. As for the Chief Justice, his entertaining and humorous discourse on the trials and tribulations of James' Madison's Supreme Court nominations was impressive to say the least.
On the political front this appears to have been one of the stranger days of the campaign. Romney started with multiple statements by his press shop and garnered deserved sympathy for the anti- Mormon push polling. Then he bizarrely used it as an excuse to attack John McCain, attributing this somehow to McCain Feingold campagin finance reform. McCain's spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker whacked him back and lowered the boom by providing an account of Romney's own position on campaign finance reform. Next the calls were traced to an outfit in Utah with a number of Romney donors. By the end of the day all the campaigns had denounced the calls and everyone was scratching their heads. While there are competing conspiracy theories I think it is just plain weird. Others are on the hunt for the culprit.
Cowardly Senator Holds Glendon
Posted by on 11.16.07 @ 5:27PM
If what the Prowler reports is true (and he's almost infallible), then what we have here is a senator whose ego is about a thousand times the size of his manhood. Let us count the ways that this hold -- if it is, indeed, intended to kill the nomination, rather than just an attempt to study it for a short time further -- is an example of the absolute worst of what makes the Senate a despicable institution. Yes, I said despicable: a concave of popinjays who frequently confuse their own narrow interests for the national interest... IF, that is, they consider the national interest at all.
Anyway, The Prowler says an anonymous senator is putting a hold on the nomination of the estimable Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School to be ambassador to the Vatican. Understand this: Glendon is a longtime pro-life stalwart of great reputation and great intellect. But the anonymous senator objects that Ms. Glendon has taken a public role as an advisor to Mitt Romney for president. Oh -- the HORROR!! Yikes! Mitt Romney says over and over again that he is firmly pro-life. But because he has not always been pro life, it is apparently somehow seen as a disgrace for Glendon to support him. And of course we just CAN'T have somebody who supports a onetime pro-choicer represent us at the Vatican, now can we? Never mind, again, that this proposed ambassador is herself of utterly impeccable pro-life credentials, or that the man she supports for president now says he is pro life and actually governed in Massachusetts in a pro-life fashion.
No... the real thing at issue here is that some unknown senator, perhaps an already failed pro-life presidential candidate who resents Glendon's support for Romney over him (gee -- that would narrow the field somewhat wouldn't it?), has his nose out of joint for some private reason.
Here's why this hold is wrong. 1) Because Professor Glendon is eminently qualified for the post. If a presidential nominee is qualified for a position and has no ethical problems and there is no reason to believe she would do harm to the nation, then the Senate should confirm her. Period. And at the least, the Senate should get a chance for a floor vote on the nominee. 2) Because a senator of the president's own party should ESPECIALLY never oppose a presidential nominee unless the nominee is unqualified or unethical, or risks harming the national interest. 3) Because permanent "holds," even more than permanent filibusters of judges, are an affront to a republican form of government. A filibuster lets a substantial minority block something. A hold lets a single senator block something. On its face, that is an outrage. The original purpose of a "hold" was just what its name implies: a TEMPORARY move to hold something over in order for a senator to further study an issue or a nominee. But the legitimate purpose was indeed further study. The responsibility of the senator -- yes, senators ARE supposed to be responsible -- would then be to actually complete the study of whatever concerned them, and then, having found the knowledge sought, to release the matter for the Senate to vote on. To use what is supposed to be a courtesy, for purposes of slightly more time, as a maneuver for one person to kill a nomination outright is the province not of a republic, but of an authoritarian state -- or perhaps of a private social club that allows blackballing. 4) Even worse than a hold is an anonymous hold. If a senator is killing a nomination by himself, thereby putting his lone judgment above that of the president and of all 99 of his other colleagues, then the least he should do is to do it in public and state his reasons for doing so. To maintain an anonymous hold is to show cowardice unbefitting a eunuch, much less a high elected official whose duty is to serve the country.
I could go on, but the point is clear: Whomever is putting the hold on Glendon is an egotistical, unrepublican, unRepublican, authoritarian, self-absorbed, petty coward. And if he had the guts to go public, I would say it to his face -- except that if he were public, I then would no longer be able to call him a coward, but the other judgments would still stand.
So again, the question becomes: How DARE this Republican senator block his own party's president from appointing an eminent, pro-life woman to the Vatican? This is the sort of thing that smear-minded Democrats like Pat Leahy do, or the sort of thing Lindsey Graham does to Republican judicial nominees. In other words, it is the sort of thing that is the lowest of the low. And the perpetrator's soul deserves to be afforded some extra time in uncomfortable purgatory because of it.
Re: More Baseball News
Posted by on 11.16.07 @ 1:14PM
Phil, I was forced willy-nilly to watch the Red Sox victory parade (mouth pried open in the dentist's chair). The most frequent placard held aloft by fans: "Don't sign A-Rod!" The locals all hope the Sox can re-sign Mike Lowell, a prince of a fellow and a wonderful third baseman. But I guess there's late word the Yankees have been talking to him, too. Sigh.
Newt Advisor Joins Rudy Campaign
Posted by on 11.16.07 @ 10:50AM
On the day Giuliani is set to speak to the Federalist Society, his campaign has released a list of new additions to his judicial advisory team. One name that jumped out at me was Randy Evans, a longtime friend and advisor to Newt Gingrich. Just to convey a sense of how close Gingrich and Evans are, earlier this year, when Newt was considering running for president, he tapped Evans to head up his candidacy assessment. Gingrich himself has indicated he would stay out of the race during the primary and focus on American Solutions. But he has often praised Giuliani's leadership as mayor, said that the war on terrorism is the paramount issue of our times, and he co-authored a Wall Street Journal piece with Giuliani earlier this year on Iraq. I would caution against reading too much into Evans joining Giuliani's campaign, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind.
More names here.
McCain on Anti-Mormon Push Polling
Posted by on 11.16.07 @ 10:25AM
The McCain campaign, clearly wanting to distance itself from anti-Romney push polling story, has announced that its leadership team in New Hampshire "intends to file a complaint with the New Hampshire Attorney General's office seeking a full investigation to determine who was behind the push poll."
McCain himself had this to say:
UPDATE: Giuliani communications director Katie Levinson passed along this statement: "There is no room for this sort of thing in politics. Our campaign does not support or engage in these types of tactics and it is our hope other campaigns will adhere to the same policy."
In Other Baseball News...
Posted by on 11.16.07 @ 10:10AM
In a major disappointment to this Yankee fan, an overpaid slugger who underperforms in the playoffs and distracts attention from the team with his mega ego, agrees to terms-- $275 million over 10 years, the Daily News reports.
This and That
Posted by on 11.16.07 @ 9:04AM
Iowa GOP is peeved the December debate had to be cancelled because of Romney. Will this hurt him? Perhaps not since he "respected them" by participating in the Ames straw poll but it may say he's trying to go into the four corner offense and avoid a turnover at the end of the game.
Kudos to Chuck Todd for calling out Media Matters.(h/t RNC)
Rudy is ahead in Michigan but will there be a real primary? Unclear. And Rudy leads in the South? Appears so.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Closing Thoughts
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:52PM
In this debate, nobody seemed particularly strong. Hillary Clinton continued to look vulnerable in a general (positioning herself to the left of Obama on healthcare, completing her flip flop on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, keeping up this I-am-not-playing-the-gender -card farce while playing the gender card, and being shrill, programmed and unlikable). However, she has a substantial lead over other Democrats, and Edwards or Obama need to do something major to be able to overtake her, and neither were able to do that tonight. By initially hedging on the drivers licenses question after pounding Clinton for weeks on not staking out a clear position, both Obama and Edwards will allow Hillary to get off the hook. The bottom line is that no matter how low the approval ratings are of Bush or generic Republicans, all of the Democrats look quite beatable.
Wrap
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:14PM
If Hillary's last name were Jones, Chris Dodd might have a shot. He and Biden are actually interesting and thoughtful. Obama aside from the social security jab didn't lay a glove on her. So, Hillary wins by not losing.
The Never Ending Debate
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:11PM
I've maxed out at over two hours. This is absurd.
Obama's Forked Logic
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:11PM
Partisanship stops at the water's edge, he says -- and then uses the examples of Lugar and Hagel, two critics of the Bush Iraq policy, to buttress his argument. So accepting the Democratic anti-Bush view is proof of bipartisanship? Even Bill Clinton never tried something that slick...
Nothing Like
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:10PM
Hillary lecturing us on how she's going to unite us. And there will be a law if you don't go along. Mark my word. And isn't this debate in overtime? Did Wolf's watch break?
Judges
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:07PM
For reasons that escape me the candidates insist on the buzz words " right to privacy" and "Roe is settled law" rather than say, heck we want someone to support abortion rights. That's where they are so why the facade?
Hillary Favors a Pro-Choice Litmus Test For Judges
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:06PM
And some social conservatives still want to argue that in a Hillary vs. Rudy race, there would be no difference between the two candidates on abortion.
Rhetorical Shift
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:05PM
In a flash, "the right to privacy" replaces "pro-abortion" as the term of, er, "choice."
Malveaux Is a Menace
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:59PM
Have you ever seen a ranker display of media bias in her followup to the sound question about the Supreme Court to have the candidates includes their position on "abortion rights"?
Obama
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:55PM
Goes after Hillary for suggesting raising the cap on earnings for social security is a tax increase for the middle class, lecturing her that he's only raising it on the top 6% and comparing her to Rudy and Romney. Hers is clearly the only viable general election position but does he score points? Well, the real netroots think social security isn't in crisis at all so it's hard to see how he gains in the primary on this issue.
There He Goes Again
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:44PM
More sanity from Biden: "There's nothing in the Patriot Act about profiling." The sheer idiocy of the preceding discussion -- set forth by the moronic Ms. Malvaux when she reminded her questionee that he had voted for the Patriot Act, this about a question from an Islamic American about profiling -- beggars belief.
Re: Hillary on Iran
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:44PM
But when carrots and sticks, in practice, turn to lots of carrots and no sticks, we have a problem.
Profiling
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:43PM
Now, that's a good question professionals don't usually ask. Biden reminds crowd of "facts" --dead silence. Biden reminds the crowd he was right then and then says it's not about who was right then.
Hillary on Iran
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:33PM
Carrots and sticks sounds sane. Her opponents who have a shot at the nomination do not.
CNN Pro-Mahmoud Orchestration
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:30PM
The orchestrated first question from the audience declares appeasement of Iran the only acceptable policy -- and imagine using an Iraq vet as part of this skit.
In Important News...
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:30PM
The Guardian (via Drudge), on something that matters:
The report by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will intensify US and European pressure for tighter sanctions and increase speculation of a potential military conflict.
I Thought There Was A Writer's Strike
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:22PM
Yet somehow, Hillary just rattled off one canned line after another.
"I'm not playing the female card," in Vegas, "I'm playing the winning card."
"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
But if saying "I'm thrilled to be running to be the first woman president" and repeating her oft-recounted story of all the women in their 90s who approach her at campaign rallies isn't playing the female card, then I'm Al Pacino.
The Nonagenarianette Vote
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:22PM
Phil: There she goes again. How many 90+ year old women have approached Hillary in this campaign wanting to see her win because they want to see a woman President? (Spoiler alert: Hillary and Iowa's 90 year old gals are discussed at some length in Phil's new piece, "The First Lady President" -- forthcoming in the Dec-Jan American Spectator.)
I'm not playing the gender
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:17PM
card but I'm comfortable in the kitchen she says. Campbell, she says all so condescendingly, there is discrimination, dear. I guess some people find this endearing.
Dodd's Moment, Part II
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:10PM
This time he saves his party from kneejerk protectionist pandering by reminding his confreres that we live in a global economy...
Dems on Iraq
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:05PM
Interesting that now, they have to hedge a little bit when criticizing the war. Obama still said the war policy was a failure, but he still had to acknowledge that the surge has had success in some areas.
Obama Caves
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 9:03PM
His defeatist response to question on whether Gen. Petraeaus's-led surge is working has just handed this debate to Hillary -- assuming she gets to answer the surge question at some point.
Re: Dodd
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:59PM
Like I said the man is winning me over. He's rivaling Biden for the most sane one on the stage award.
Obama's Foreign Policy: Always a Thrill
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:59PM
Hillary incidentally finally sounds commanding on Pakistan. Funny how she can blow Obama away the instant he starts muddling.
Surge Opportunity
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:59PM
Why is Richardson allowed to bloviate -- is there no Democratic Rudy on hand to set him straight? Instead we hear from Kucinich, who hasn't been briefed on Iraq since last February, apparently.
Dodd's Moment
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:56PM
He's saving his party from itself on foreign policy apropos Pakistan, democracy, and human rights. Hillary jumps in, as if in supports, but gets sidetracked by blaming it all on Bush....
Bill Richardson
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:54PM
Is there anyone who has slipped more during the course of the campaign? When it started he was many conservatives' favorite Democrat. Then folks said, well a good VP. Now, in his "give peace a chance" and "human rights" trump American security mode Hillary shouldn't let him anywhere near Foggy Bottom.
Dana Carvey's Opening
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:46PM
What could Gov. Richardson be thinking when he announces he wants to be the Education President? Isn't that what the first President Bush called himself?
Don't say Reinvent
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:45PM
"We're in the 21st century. We do need to...reimagine it." HRC on education.
Boy Kucinich
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:42PM
How did the son of a Teamster truckdriver grow up to become such a wimp?
Re: Dodd
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:40PM
Ok he is against No Child Left Behind and illegal immigration. Got my vote. And therein may lie his problem in the race..
Hillary on Drivers Licences
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:37PM
Now she's a firm "no"--against it. This woman has absolutely no principles. But she benefits because both Obama and Edwards tried to hedge on the issue by talking about comprehensive reform.
Re: Not To Be Petty
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:37PM
Not that I'd notice, but my wife says Ms. Hillary is wearing too much makeup.
Warmongers!
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:36PM
Richardson: "Barak wants to start a generational war?" Sorry, but it's the boomers who're still stuck in their own private Vietnam. He wants a debate on the issues. But that's Edwards Mud.
Obama has switched from saying "illegal immigrants" to "undocumented workers" and back to "illegal aliens." Hmm. A nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. A snappy phrase.
CNN is not going easy on HRC. But Obama gets the OK then, licenses? question. "Undocumented workers don't come here to drive." Or go to In-N-Out. (I've been to the Vegas In-N-Out. Sure about that?) Obama's not taking the question. "I support the notion that we have to support public safety...." Yikes. Edwards can hack the question. Time for another Dodd break.
Dodd
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:36PM
says we should discourage illegal immigrants from coming here. Outrageous. Just outrageous.
CNN Fairness Doctrine
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:35PM
How easily the media boys are cowed -- first John Roberts with Edwards now Blitzer with Obama ask questions that Hillary botched two weeks ago. Clinton News Network, anyone?
Obama is
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:34PM
slipping into the fuzziest driver's license answer since, well, Hillary.
Let Me Entertain You
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:31PM
"Hell No" Biden tops Governor Congeniality Richardson in Vegas floor show audition.
Off to the Races
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:28PM
Throughout this liveblogging process I will heroically not refer to Wolf Blitzer as Teddy Ruxpin. And we're off:
Obama is helped being placed next to Clinton. She is not imposing beside him. But oh what a slow start. "I appreciate this opportunity?" Better than Clinton's See-N-Say slogans, at least. A-a-a-nd...meltdown. Heckler a Hillary plant? Round one Obama.
Edwards saves himself from the brink of oblivion and unleashes the hounds. Hillary-Bush-Cheney. Continues to defend a system that's broken, rigged, and -- yes -- corrupt.
Clinton comes back up for air. On what planet is John Edwards' "mud" "right out of the Republican playbook?" This is an extraordinarily weak defense. And the Hillary-shout kicks in.
Joe Biden continues to be the most appealing voice up there. He's utterly at ease without being a slouch. And the Hillary-cackle kicks in. Biden will "immediately interface with Putin" to get him off Saak's back.
Back to Edwards, still on Clinton, still on corruption, still on choices. Scattered boos at another attack on HRC turns into a round of applause for JE's red meat. Time for a Dodd break.
Not to be petty
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:27PM
but... the lighting is awful and Hillary doesn't look so great. Oh, come on, you thought so too. And she should bring back the style consultant who said "bright colors."
Edwards vs. Clinton
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:24PM
Edwards makes a much more pointed criticism of Hillary--even hitting her with the in-league-with Bush-Cheney charge. Hillary accuses him of "throwing mud" that's "right out of the Republican play book." She wants a positive campaign, but as she concluded her statement, her shrill screaming voice returns.
Biden the Wiseman
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:23PM
He's right -- Americans don't care what's going on on that stage tonight. But he should have noted they're more interested in the indictment of Barry Bonds.
Re: Obama vs. Hillary
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:20PM
Given the oppourtunity to take her on on the waffling issue, Obama again fails to go for the jugular, talking about a "new kind of politics." Hillary hits back on Obama's lack of a mandate for universal healthcare.
Obama v. Hillary
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:19PM
His first answer was the clearest, most succinct description of Hillary's shortcomings given to date. After a Hillary health care response did Obama just criticize Hillary for a mandate based healthcare plan? I think so -- and does it a second time, pointing out that the mandate is not "enforced." I think I tuned into the Thompson-Romney debate.
Fire-Proof Hillary
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:15PM
Clinton just said her pantsuit this evening was made of asbestos. What a lame line. She still hasn't given up on the "pile on" theme.
Introducing Tonight's Starting Lineup
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 8:13PM
I turned on the TV just as the candidates were coming out one by one, introduced by the arena announcer at some hokey NBA game. It was embarrassing; not a single high five exchanged between any of them. LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony they are not. Las Vegas evidently will never recover from the rap hosting it did of last season's NBA All-Star game.
Re: Hillary's Leadership Gap
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 6:25PM
Actually, Phil, it's not true that Hillary's never led anything. In her husband's first term she ran the Task Force on National Heath Care Reform... into the ground. As Brad Delong put it in a classic post from 2003:
My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.See? Leadership experience!So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...
Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.
Polling
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 3:27PM
Hillary's Leadership Gap
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 2:34PM
In advance of tonight's debate, Clinton strategist Mark Penn has released a memo. It begins:
What is the most important card in this race?
The leadership card. That is the card that we see in poll after poll that analyzes why people are voting for Hillary Clinton.
And so while opponents are strategizing and re-launching their campaigns with aggressive personal attacks on Sen. Clinton, one truth remains - running for president is not a qualification for president.
The voters are looking for someone who has the strength and experience to lead, and little has changed in the last few weeks outside of the massive media coverage of the attacks.
One of the most absurd aspects of the Clinton campaign is the repeated claim that she is an experienced leader even though she has very limited experience--just over one term in the Senate--and has never led anything whatsoever. So far, she's been able to get away with this in the primary (as the polls Penn points to in the rest of the memo show) because her major opponents have little experience, but she will be incredibly vulnerable on this point in the general election. Virtually all of the candidates on the Republican side with a reasonable chance of winning have more experience or leadership background. When asked in the last debate to respond to Rudy Giuliani's stinging rebuke of her lack of experience, Clinton was elusive, and pivoted to Bush-bashing. That will not be enough during a general election campaign that could last nine months.
Not Lindsey Graham's Buddy
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 2:09PM
Buddy Witherspoon, a veteran Republican National Committeeman who is exploring a GOP primary challenge to Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, was in D.C. to meet with reporters. Witherspoon hopes to capitalize on grassroots conservative discontent with Graham.
Two issues Witherspoon raises are illegal immigration and conservative judges. Graham is potentially vulnerable on both counts, since he supported the failed "comprehensive" immigration legislation and was a party to the "Gang of 14" judicial filibuster compromise. Both positions were unpopular with the base.
I asked Witherspoon whether he thought those issues would be enough to mount a successful primary challenge, especially since Graham had taken some steps to protect his right flank on taxes and abortion (usually the best openings for conservative primary challengers). He argued that Graham has a McCain-like image of trying to be a maverick at the expense of his party, a problem that goes beyond specific votes or issue positions. Witherspoon pointed out that Graham had teamed with John McCain on torture; Graham had also stated that he was open to raising the payroll tax cap.
The primary is scheduled for June 10, 2008. Graham had $4.2 million in his campaign account at the end of last quarter.
Huckabee's Closes in on Romney in Iowa--ARG
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 11:16AM
Economic conservatives may think he's Huey Long meets John Edwards but they like him in Iowa: this has him only 2 pts behind Romney. The others are all bunched at 10-11%. And among thsoe who say they will defintitely participate: Huckabee leads 24-23%.
Romney Responds to MassCare Criticisms
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:55AM
Re: Local Arkansan
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:51AM
Re "There's probably not an American Spectator reader who would vote the way Max does": I hope that's not true. Heed Ezra Klein's "conservative bloggers I like" list, liberals, and expand your horizons!
Local Arkansan Takes on Huck
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 10:09AM
It's always nice when a former competitor quotes you approvingly. When the competitor is Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times (weekly), it's especially gratifying. Max is one of the liberal journalists who makes you wonder sometimes just how he could possibly arrive at the opinions or interpretations he reaches, but whose facts are always dead-on accurate. There's probably not an American Spectator reader who would vote the way Max does, but he's great to grab a cup of coffee with and great when it comes to knowing all the ins and outs of Arkansas politics. The other day he wrote what might be THE definitive story on Mike Huckabee's controversies in public office in Arkansas. It appeared at Salon, but now it seems that some sort of sign-in is required to read it there, so I instead provide a link to a reprint of Brantley's piece at a pro-Romney web site. Do read it. And when you get to the last paragraph, then if you are a regular reader here at The American Spectator, well....you might see something that looks a little familiar.
But I digress. The point isn't that Brantley quoted me; the point is that Brantley's account should be must reading for journalists and for GOP voters alike. Go see for yourself.
Huckabee's Tax-Hike Problem
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 7:57AM
This YouTube video has been making the rounds; in it, Mike Huckabee pleads with the Arkansas state legislature for tax increases on anything they might be willing to tax. Huckabee responded to this by falsely claiming that he was only asking for tax hikes to cover education spending that was mandated by an Arkansas Supreme Court decision. In fact, the special session dealing with the court's mandate came several months after the speech excerpted in the YouTube video. The anti-Huckabee blogger who started this trouble comments: "He lied for a reason. He knew what he was saying was wrong. He had plenty of time to think about this. My video has been out there for 2 days. He lied because he knew that what I've been saying is true." I'm not sure that's fair -- it could be that Huckabee's underfunded campaign just doesn't have a nimble enough operation to keep their candidate accurately briefed.
Jim Geraghty reports that the Romney campaign is gearing up to go after Huckabee on taxes. Huckabee's handling of this flap doesn't inspire confidence that he'll be able to effectively deflect an attack from the very much not-underfunded Team Romney.
Raising Money from Commonwealth Care
Posted by on 11.15.07 @ 6:18AM
Commonwealth Care is apparently a new fundraising tool -- for Fred Thompson. Todd Harris, Thompson Communications Director, sends out this:
"Mitt Romney says his government-mandated health care plan is one of his most important accomplishments as governor. But what does his plan really accomplish, and is this the kind of health care plan YOU would want to be forced to pay for? Today, November 15th, Massachusetts residents who fail to register with the government and show proof of health care coverage will be slapped with a tax penalty for this year! For individuals, the amount will be on average $219 this year and they will receive a punitive fine as much as $2,000 over the next year. Small business owner? It's even worse; you'll be fined $295 per employee who isn't enrolled in Romney's government-mandated health care plan! So what sort of services does Romney's health care plan provide?
"Per the state website: $50 co-pay for abortions
"While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover 'medically necessary' abortions in state-subsidized health plans, Mitt Romney's plan covers ALL abortions - no restrictions. After it passed, Romney vetoed dental care for Medicaid recipients from his health plan, but did nothing to prevent coverage of abortion on demand for a mere $50. Romney has tried to distance himself from his Hillarycare-type plan, but you can watch the video where he takes full credit.[Video is here.] There's nothing conservative about Mitt Romney's health care plan. It's a government subsidized health care plan that requires citizens to register with the state, slaps working people with tax penalties, and provides $50 abortions on demand.
"Contrast this with Fred: 100% pro-life voting record. Has said
repeatedly that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Opposes embryonic
stem cell research and human cloning. Tuesday, The National Right
to Life Committee endorsed Fred. NRLC is the nation's largest
pro-life organization representing over 3,000 local chapters in all
50 states. Help support the true conservative."
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Sin City Dems
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 10:50PM
Headed to Las Vegas tomorrow for the debate and a few other no doubt ridiculous political rallies/events. Watch for updates in this space often as WiFi allows tomorrow. The CNN update list just sent along the following debate eve poll of likely Nevadan caucus goers (Nov. 9-13):
Likely Democratic Caucus-Goers'Choice for NomineeClinton 51%
Obama 23%
Edwards 11%
Richardson 5%
Biden 4%
RE: Gingrich on God
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 4:20PM
Following up on Jim's earlier post on last night's premiere of Rediscovering God in America, one of the more interesting examples of God in Washington, D.C. sits atop the Washington Monument (completed in 1884).
The Monument's capstone is engraved with the Latin phrase, Laus Deo ("Praise Be to God"). Although visitors cannot see the inscription (from either the ground or the inside), it is there, facing east.
Interestingly, the Washington Monument is the highest structure in D.C. Coincidence?
Schilling for McCain
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 3:43PM
Will this put McCain over the top in New Hampshire?
Re: Thompson Endorsement
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 3:29PM
Is Romney disavowing Paul Weyrich's bribery accusation? Nope. In response to my question Spokesman Kevin Madden would only say: "Governor Romney is thankful for the support he has received from pro-life advocates, he respects those that have offered their support for other candidates, and he will continue to work with ALL of the grassroots activists involved in the pro-life movement throughout this campaign."( His caps, not mine, which I can only guess is meant to say NRLC is not the only game in town.) Well, Weyrich is a pretty influencial guy and Romney appears to see no upside in criticizing his supporter. His surrogates, we can surmise, will continue to whack non-endorsing pro-life groups and individuals with impunity.
Rudy in a Narrowed Field
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 3:28PM
Rich Lowry wonders, "If Rudy is in the high 20's nationwide, how possibly does he win when the field consolidates?" One of the overlooked aspects of Giuliani's strength in national polls is that he not only is the first choice of a plurality of Republicans, but he also leads in polls that ask Republicans their second choices. For instance, in this AP/Ipos poll, Giuliani is the first choice of 29 percent of respondents, and the second choice of an additional 20 percent for a combined 49 percent. McCain comes closest with a total of 35 percent, followed by Thompson at 31, and Romney at 27. This Cook/RT Strategies poll had similar findings. Sure, we don't know how those numbers will look after the early states, but the evidence at this time suggests that Giuliani is the default candidate for many Republicans who currently support somebody else.
UPDATE: Rich Lowry responds, skeptically.
Immigration Wars
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 2:33PM
More McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 1:47PM
Clearly, McCain is eager to capitalize on the reduction in violence in Iraq. "I do appreciate the fact that when the surge started, when we were at a low point in the
On his new Website quiz show:
"I am trying to inject a little humor, I will admit that it's a little juvenile. When I read it, I thought, 'ah, let's go ahead, maybe somebody will enjoy it.'"
On the rhymes with "kitch" incident:
"The constant access, the constant exposure, and you're gonna make a misstatement. And something is going to happen like we had the stop by at the little restaurant in
, at Hilton Head, and the woman made a comment about Senator Clinton, and you'd think, from watching at least one of the networks, that I somehow was guilty of misbehavior. But the fact is that I said I would have a respectful debate with Senator Clinton. I have said hundreds of times that I respect her. In fact, I have an excellent relationship with her. But the fact is that there are fundamental differences between me and Senator Clinton. And they've all got to do with our philosophy, with our outlook on the role of government that a liberal Democrat has versus a conservative Republican." South Carolina
McCain Opposes Medical Marijuana
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 1:19PM
There was a bizarre exchange on medical marijuana in the just- completed John McCain blogger call.
A questioner named Jonathan (I didn't get his full name) asked, "Should federal law supersede the will of the people in a given state when it comes to medical marijuana?"
McCain started chuckling. "The will of the people, my friend, is that medical marijuana is not something that the quote 'people' want," he responded. "Certain people feel strongly about this issue, and they show up at most town hall meetings, obviously feel very strongly about it. There is no convincing evidence…there's evidence, but no convincing evidence to me that medical marijuana relief of pain and suffering cannot be accomplished by prescriptions from doctors… So, when you're talking about the will of the people, you're going to have to show me the will of the people besides the will of a small number of people who feel very strongly about the issue, as obviously you do."
The questioner mentioned that voters approved of medical marijuana in a
"There may be times when the will of the people, for example
Rudy Giuliani has also come out against medical marijuana.
UPDATE: It turns out that Jonathan Rick asked the question. Also, a commenter notes that Mitt Romney is also opposed to medical marijuana.
Licenses Too Ill
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 1:09PM
Eliot Spitzer is abandoning his plan to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Presumably Hillary Clinton will not say Spitzer's plan should be abandoned, but certainly recognizes why Governor Spitzer is abandoning it.
P.S. Dang, the sans-serif font makes the last word in my headline look like a roman numeral 3, thus ruining the pun.
Family Feud
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 12:55PM
If friction with relatives causes discomfort over the Thanksgiving table next week, take heart: At least you don't have a niece who's savaging you on the LA Times op-ed page. Benazir Bhutto does.
A-Paul-ing Logic
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 12:24PM
I was going to point out that this column about Ron Paul's troubles on the homefront is, um, unpersuasive but David Freddoso fisks it so I don't have to.
Yes, my post title is rather a-Paul-ing as well.
Boom- Thompson Strikes Back
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 11:39AM
Is not like the Romney folks
didn't have it coming.... The Thompson team just released this
statement from director Todd Harris:
"Gov. Romney is new to the pro-life movement and his campaign clearly has a few things to learn about it. First, they should understand that despite their campaign's every effort, groups like the National Right to Life Committee's PAC (NLRC-PAC) cannot be bought. NLRC-PAC is supporting Fred Thompson because of Fred's 100% pro-life voting record. They know he stood with them yesterday, he stands with them today, and he will stand with them tomorrow. It is unseemly for the Romney campaign and its supporters to suggest that NLRC-PAC's coveted endorsement is based on a bribe. Second, this unfounded accusation is as outrageou s as it is ironic, given the Romney campaign's long history of spreading money around to anyone who will take it.
"If the Romney campaign is looking for the reason they did not receive the NLRC-PAC endorsement, they can start with the fact that Gov. Romney was pro-choice just two years ago. They should also consider the fact that Gov. Romney's own health care plan in Massachusetts offers taxpayer funded abortions for a mere $50 co-pay and requires by law that a representative from Planned Parenthood sit on the MassHealth advisory board. Tellingly, Gov. Romney made no such requirement for a representative from the pro-life movement.
"The Romney campaign was clearly hoping for this endorsement and are now clearly upset. But being denied an endorsement is no excuse to impugn the integrity of the very organization they were just days ago trying to woo."
More here.
Re: The You Can't Buy Iowa Dig
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 11:36AM
So it's "crucial" for the Iowa caucuses to be first because Iowans "are relating" to Mike Huckabee's values? ("I want a president who is willing to wage a war against my checkbook as fierce as the one he's waging against Islamofascists," the fantastical sage Iowan muses, "and one who isn't afraid to use the White House bully pulpit to occassionally challenge me to lose a little weight.") By that standard, any candidate ahead in any state could make the same argument--isn't every candidate running for president, with the possible exception of Fred Thompson, convinced of how "crucial" their "values" are?
Yet if the Romney camp sent a similar statement along--and as McCain v. Bush, New Hampshire, 2000 proved, you can't "buy" the Granite State, either--I'm sure we'd be treated to serveral posts about just how terrible the latest inauthentic, creepy flip flop by the too business-like bionic man--have I missed any of the usual qualifiers?--was. After all, why did he live in Massachusetts all those years if his values were New Hampshire values? Indeed, were the race to become a two-person Guiliani/Huckabee race, I expect Huckabee's shining reviews here would end rather abruptly.
Not that anyone actually has to worry about that. The media likes Huckabee as a likely-loser insurgent because a mini-culture war within the Republican Party fits the narrative they like best/is easiest to write. What's not for the New York Times and friends to love about a candidate who they can remind us in every story does not believe in evolution or who, even better, gives them opportunity to posit truly loving Jesus means standing arm-in-arm with Al Gore on global warming? However, as Quin Hillyer bravely and ably pointed out recently, Huckabee is not without flaws. And sure as the words "anti-war" began to be joined by "return to the gold standard" in Ron Paul stories when the man started raising real money, Huckabee's "aw, geez, he's such a nice guy" honeymoon will be cut short by any significant rise in the polls, even if the terms he uses to describe himself will be stuck with us for much longer: First George W. Bush told the world "compassion" was a innovation in conservative thought. Now Huckabee says he's conservative, "but not mad at anybody about it"--you know, as opposed to the rest of us hate-criminals in waiting.
Bill Clinton liked the Huckabee "not mad" line enough to repeat it on a Sunday show recently while praising Huckabee. Since any viable Republican candidate must be by necessity devil incarnate in ClintonWorld, I'm assuming Bill touting Huckabee as the ideal reasonable Republican means the former president is betting he won't have to verbally mutilate Huck this summer on the campaign trail. Personally, I think it's a good bet.
Fashion Nazis
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 11:33AM
The Pine Lawn City Council on Monday passed a law against saggy pants. Offenders can face fines of up to $100. Not quite the Nuremburg laws, but it does seem these folks have gone mad with power. And what about T-shirts that say "I'm what Willis was talking about." Can't we ban those too? Really, shouldn't it be the parents' responsibility to monitor what their children wear?
Gingrich on God in American History
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 11:01AM
Last night, I attended the premiere of Rediscovering God in America, a film produced by Citizens United and hosted by Newt and Callista Gingrich. Essentially, it is a look at the influence of religion on American public life from the founding through the present, illustrated in part by a tour of the many Washington, D.C. area monuments containing explicit references to God.
The production quality is high, making the stroll through Arlington National Cemetery and trip to the Lincoln Memorial quite attractive, and the former House speaker's narration is as effective as you would expect. The film also features historians Douglas Brinkley and Walter Issacson, former Attorney General Ed Meese, TAS contributor and intellectual Michael Novak, and Wallbuilders President David Barton, among others. Some of the quotes from Founding Fathers and great presidents on the importance of religion as a support for the American republic are familiar; others less so.
Rediscovering God is an effective rebuttal to those who would banish religion from the public square, without overstating the historical case as some conservative "Christian nation" exponents tend to do. The film offers a balanced look at church and state in the United States, emphasizing that the idea that our rights come from God extends liberty to many faiths or none at all. The DVD wouldn't make a bad stocking stuffer.
NY Times Errs on Rudy Ad
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 10:44AM
In its story on the the new Giuliani ad, the NY Times writes: that, "the spot features gritty, black-and-white images of New York -- a Harlem movie house marquee and the words, 'Sex World...'" Actually, if you watch the ad, the movie theater is clearly HAREM.
According to one website, the Harem was one of the porno theaters near Times Square that was condemned by the city during the Giuliani era.
Re: Buying the NRLC Endorsement
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 10:30AM
It's not only low for a Romney backer to accuse the Thompson campaign of buying the NRLC endorsement, it's laughable given Romney's own relationship with Massachusetts Citizens for Life. If you recall, Romney accepted the group's endorsement in his 1994 Senate race, then in 2002, emphatically denied he had ever accepted it, and ran away from the organization in a debate. The group was critical of him throughout his time as governor, but then Romney gave them a $15,000 check, and his wife Ann --who had previously donated to Planned Parenthood--now serves as co-chairwoman for them. Suddenly, they endorsed Romney for president, and he regularly touts their support in speeches and debates.
Re: Rudy is on the Air
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 10:04AM
I thought it was a mostly solid ad, and it's important for Giuliani to emphasize his record transforming New York City. By saying he's "somebody who has dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis" it is inclusive of 9/11, but doesn't explicitly say so. On the minus side, I think it was a mistake for him to say in the ad that the American people are "not going to find perfection" in him. There's no reason, unless prompted, to say something like that. It just reminds people of his messy personal life, Kerik, etc. Also, I thought the images showed while he was talking about New York City before he became mayor could have been grimier, with boarded up windows, trash on the streets, prostitutes walking around Times Square, the sound of sirens in the background, etc. Maybe the producers thought that would have been over the top (though it would not have been an exaggeration).
Also worth noting is that according to the press release, the ad is set to run in New Hampshire starting Thursday, but not Iowa. This reinforces the belief that the Giuliani campaign has largely written off Iowa, and will be focusing on the Granite State to make its push in the early states. With several candidates now all on the air in New Hampshire, it should be interesting to see how stable Romney's lead is there in the next few weeks.
...Is Back
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 9:56AM
Now here's a clip that really loses something when it's transcribed -- it's only the prim affect of the woman who asks the question that renders hilarious what would otherwise be merely crude. Don't play it if you are uncomfortable with hearing the word "bitch" in a non-canine context.
Does This Help?
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 9:43AM
Rudy is on the Air
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 8:51AM
Rudy is going up with a TV ad in NH tomorrow. The ad, showing Rudy up close talking right into the camera, reflects the often heard refrain from campaign advisors that "Rudy is the best spokesman for Rudy." The theme is "tested" and uses to no one's surprise the NY experience as evidence he can get results. Almost as interesting is the statement from campaign manager Michael DuHaime in the release saying: "America deserves an authentic leader who has been tested in times of crisis and has a real record of results." That "A" word -- authentic -- has been rattling around in my brain for a week since all of the top campaigns' spokesgals used that term at the national press club. It is both a sword and a shield. There's another guy, not so authentic, Rudy will say(sword) and although he doesn't match up on all issues with the base he is "real"(shield). And I suspect we're going to see some comparison ads as time goes on looking at NY vs. Massachusetts governance. For now, the ads indicate the pre-season is over, the headlines with Romney's poll numbers aren't what the Rudy team wants to see a couple weeks from now and it's time to get serious.
UPDATE: And at least on national polling something is going on: Cook/RT Strategies has Rudy's largest lead to date in that poll (17 pts) with him at 29% and Thompson, Romney and McCain all at 12%. This reflects the drop off we've seen for Thompson in other polls( here he is down 8 pts from mid-September) but also a drop for McCain( 4 pts) and a little bump (3 pts) for Romney. This is what Rudy opponents' feared: Rudy has his core of roughly 30% and the others divide up the rest. Whether this will be duplicated in individual states is the big question.Iowa Reaction
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 6:31AM
His campaign forwards on this statement from Gov. Huckabee: "There's definitely momentum as people are paying attention to my message. We are seeing first hand why it's crucial for the Iowa caucuses to be first -- Iowa Republicans are looking beyond my campaign budget and are relating to my values and where I stand on important issues." That would be the "You can't buy Iowa" dig.
Professor Steffen Schmidt of Iowa State University: "You can go back 4 months and I said Huckabee fits the GOP profile best. He is very likeable, a minister, a man whom people admire from his self discipline in losing weight, a governor, a conservative, funny, self deprecating, plays rock n' roll music. So why is everyone surprised?" Professor Schmidt also notes that while we are familiar with the flip flop charge Iowans have not yet been subjected to ads emphasizing Romney's position changes on various issues. And Thompson? "You cannot play in the Super Bowl by skipping half the games in the season."
Thoughts on Hillarycare
Posted by on 11.14.07 @ 12:36AM
Hillarycare was probably a major reason the Democrats experienced historic losses in 1994. The Contract with America was important, but not necessarily more so than the recoil from an attempt to socialize 12% of the national economy.
Back in 1992, Americans weren't nearly as antsy about their health care as they are today. HMO's produced inconveniences but lowered premiums substantially. People who were covered by their employer were generally okay with their out of pocket costs and with what they were getting. Certainly that was the case with white collar types.
Today, I think the picture is different. Premiums, even HMO premiums, have gone up considerably. The co-pays are higher, the base prices are higher, many drugs cost more, etc. Employers are feeling the squeeze, too. GM's Rick Waggoner has complained that he often feels he's in the health care business rather than the automobile business.
What I'm suggesting is that the idea of off-loading health care costs onto the government is becoming a more attractive idea. I suspect a company like Ford or GM would almost certainly benefit from a government takeover of health care. At the same time, health care plans have become expensive enough for people covered by their employers to make them more willing to listen to talk of government sponsored care for all.
Private health insurance was once an attractive way for employers to compensate employees without exposing them to more tax liability. That win-win, for reasons of medical liability and other factors that increase cost, has become a source of growing alarm for both employers and employees. The interests of corporate welfare and individual welfare are coming together in a perfect storm. Democrats, generally interested in extending the New Deal and the Great Society, are eager to oblige.
The standard case against government health care has been that it will result in much higher taxes, that health care delivery will become less customer friendly, that services will become more scarce, and that the pace of innovation will drop off sharply. That case is still a strong one, but I'm not certain at all Americans and, perhaps more important, American corporations are nearly as resistant as they once were. I suspect that if a Democrat is elected, national health care will be in the bag.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
VIDEO: John Bolton Speaks With AmSpec
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 10:36PM
Here are some video clips of my interview with John Bolton earlier today, right before our Newsmaker Breakfast. We spoke about Iran, the 2008 elections, true UN reform, and the unfortunate shift in the Bush Administration's foreign policy in recent years.
Huckabee Tries To Contain Glee
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 9:56PM
Huckabee's man on the spot in Iowa Eric Woolson says of the latest polling: "I think the polling reflects Governor Huckabee's strong appeal to Iowans and the connection he's able to make with voters but the important point to remember about the Iowa caucuses is that it's an organizational process. We have a lot of hard work to do in the remaining 51 days leading up to Jan. 3. The goal has always been to finish in the top three and that goal is unchanged." Well, suffice it to say that their goal is probably higher than third but it's smart to manage expectations. Romney's fix is a bit of his own making-- with hundreds of events in the state and millions spent in ads and the Ames straw poll all he has is a 6-11% lead over Mike Huckabee. That said all that money and time spent by Romney did go into setting up an organization and it could very well deliver on January 3. One more important point: nearly 60% of Iowans say it's too early to make up their minds.
Do They Give Out Pulitzers for Nasty Emails?
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 9:13PM
If so, somebody nominate this guy for another one now.
Providing he retracts his apology, of course.
Hold On, Markos, I Thought the Blogosphere...
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 9:11PM
...made the evil Traditional Media completely irrelevant? I guess Maureen Dowd was right all along....
Still, there is definitely cause for celebration in KosWorld this evening.
Who says Iowa is in the bag for Romney?
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 7:41PM
Not this poll. And more evidence that McCain at 4% should bug out of Iowa -- where his comeback could crash -- and throw everything into NH. Brownback or no Brownback it's not worth a 5th place finish 5 days before NH. Will Romney folks have their own "expectations lowering" media call soon or is it too late for that?
NH looks solid for Romney but the "minds not made up" remain over 60%. And if McCain falls off the map in Iowa do his voters shift to Rudy?
For Thompson: those ads better pull him out of 4th in Iowa and something better get him out of 6th(!) in NH or his "strategic bridge to South Carolina" will go the way of the Bridge on the River Kwai. ( On the electability factor did NRLC make a mistake?)
UPDATE: And in South Carolina this one says Rudy 26%, Romney 20%, Thompson 18%, McCain 14% and Huckabee 12%. This poll has it not so close in Iowa with Huckabee 11 pts back but McCain still in 5th.
Journalistic Justice
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 7:39PM
Iowa Heats Up
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 3:26PM
Re: Thompson Endorsement
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 1:14PM
The video here goes a long way toward explaining Thompson's appeal. He seems like a real person with a full life and a philosophical bent, not the average artificially consultant-constructed candidate we have come to see so often. He may not have what it takes to be president(or may have missed an opening this summer) but if you had to sit down for an hour and have an interesting conversation with someone or if you had to choose a trustworthy person to head a social security commission you could do a lot worse. But for better or worse we are electing a president and those are generally Type A people, with enormous energy and drive and somehow his persona --which he is too honest to conceal --doesn't match the job description. Now a great VP pick is another story..
John Bolton Newsmaker Breakfast
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 11:48AM
This morning, The American Spectator hosted John Bolton as part of our Newsmaker Breakfast series and we talked about a wide-range of foreign policy issues.
Bolton, who just wrote the book Surrender is Not an Option (my review here), spoke about the drift in the Bush Administration from its tough policy on WMD proliferation early on, to its more recent capitulation, especially since 2006. On North Korea, he said we had returned to the same Agreed Framework-type policy that we had during the Clinton Administration and that the North Koreans violated. The focus has been more on disabling than dismantling the nuclear program, which he describes as being like "taking the keys out of your car and putting them on your nightstand." With regard to Iran, Bolton said the U.S. has deferred to the EU, which has offered Iran all of the carrots they have to offer to no avail. He described the possibility of attacking Iranian nuclear facilities as a "last resort" that was "highly risky" and undesirable. One of the risks of military action would be that we would destroy all of the known facilities, while they still maintain facilities we don't know about. Thus, we'd incur all of the political and other fallout, while still leaving their nuclear program intact. He said, however, that the only thing worse than taking military action would be letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons. And giving the diplomatic obstacles, he said, "the sad fact is, we might be close to the last resort."
Speaking about the situation in Pakistan, Bolton said that it's unfortunately one of those countries in which two of America's interests -- democracy promotion and WMD non-proliferation -- come into conflict. The primary concern for the U.S. in Pakistan, he said, should be ensuring that its nuclear weapons don't fall into the wrong hands, so, "unhappily, in the near term, we have to rely on Musharraf." He also noted that Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the opposition, has been named "chairman for life" of the Pakistan People's Party. "Pakistan is a complicated place," Bolton said.
We hope to have some video up soon.
UPDATE: Dave Weigel has more.
Re: Thompson Endorsement
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 11:19AM
I don't think he's gained nothing, but perhaps not as much as he had hoped or as much as he needs. Your question raises a more interesting question: other than his conversion to the pro-life cause does he have credentials and a profile that would attract conservatives to vote for him for president? If you throw in the Olympics, perhaps. But you may be right that if he ran on his record from Massachusetts and did not shift on not only abortion but a whole list of issues he'd be in the back of the pack. Authenticity counts for so little? McCain hopes not.
Re: Thompson Endorsement
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 11:07AM
Whatever people think of the NRLC's endorsement of Fred Thompson, I don't think it's true that Mitt Romney has gained nothing from changing his positions on social issues. If he were a one-term pro-choice former governor of Massachusetts running for the Republican presidential nomination, we wouldn't even be talking about him.
Thompson Endorsement
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 10:40AM
Some think there's a theory by which the NRLC endorsement of Thompson helps Rudy by setting the ideological pro-life bar so low. That would be what some deride as a "zebra" theory (when you hear hoof beats don't assume some exotic explanation for the sound). The "horse"(simple) theory is this a disappointment for Romney. (So I suppose if you buy into the two man race theory Romney's loss is Rudy's gain.) Mitigating the injury to Romney is that the nod did not go to Huckabee who is a more significant threat to Romney in Iowa. Despite having James Bopp, Jr., the longtime counsel for NRLC on board, Romney has yet to land a mega-endorsement like NRLC or FRC. It may not matter at this point with social conservative leaders so divided. However, it would be ironic if all those policy shifts on social issues didn't pay off for him (with a significant nod from one or more top social conservative leaders) but in the end voters chose Romney for executive competence. (Or worse from his perspective, that the downside from the flip flopping on social and other issues outweighed any benefit he gained and he lost on the character/resolute leadership issue.) So my take: good news for Thompson and bad for Romney but unlikely to change the dynamics of the race.
UPDATE: Redstate has an interesting take on how it all went down. And they also think the Commonwealth Care $50 abortion issue which we discussed here is noteworthy.
Why Are We Victims Again?
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 9:05AM
You know, eventually Clinton's advisors will get to the bottom of it.
Campaign Lessons
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 8:32AM
Perhaps there is something to process stories and to lessons learned from how a candidate handles or mishandles his own campaign, which is after all a test of executive skill. Thompson and McCain, both lacking executive experience, have had problematic campaigns. McCain ironically (when you consider his reputation as a budget hawk) let his team spend themselves into bankruptcy. Thompson, never known for his dynamism in the Senate, has drifted and lumbered along and no longer seems quite in the first tier. Romney, befitting his business background, has been a whiz at money and ground organization but lacking his own inner political compass, this suggests, may have caused him to delegate too much to the brain trust of advisors who like all consultants seem never to doubt voters' gullibility. ("Yes, have him change on all the social issues -- and leave no box unchecked!"). For Rudy, a later start and an unconventional path to the nomination has its downside and in the end may not work, but playing by the book has never been his strong suit. So maybe the process stories are more helpful than you might think.
Post on Thompson
Posted by on 11.13.07 @ 6:28AM
Monday, November 12, 2007
Our Veterans
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 8:34PM
Scanning the last two days worth of posts, I note we've made a far more egregious omission than any slighting of wannabe toughguy Norman Mailer -- we let Veterans Day pass without a tip of the hat to the real toughguys. Blame it on November 11 falling on a Sunday, and many thanks for your service.
Re: Norman Mailer
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 8:19PM
For the contrary view on Mailer, it would be hard to beat Roger Kimball's gravedance.
Re: Norman Mailer
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 7:13PM
Larry, Jim is probably too self-effacing to take credit, but on Saturday evening last he did post a brief item on Mailer's death, linking to Mailer friend Taki's lovely tribute. That same day, I was quite taken by this comment, posted on the New York Times website, from none other (fittingly enough) than a former daughter-in-law, especially this: "I never forgot his kindness, his compliments about my contribution to the family for just being myself, his wonderful self-invented breakfasts for one, his wonderful smile and non-critical nature...." The few times I saw he was exactly that way, immensely likable and warm and totally oblivious to his immense writing talent and how much of it got squandered.
NRLC Endorsement Aftershocks
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 6:08PM
I'm not sure that I'd be so quick to read an NRLC endorsement of Fred Thompson as a rejection of converts to the pro-life cause. But disappointed supporters of other candidates should remember the case of pro-life activist Joe Slovenec. In 1998, he failed to win Ohio Right to Life's endorsement over Dennis Kucinich!
Re: Norman Mailer
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 5:54PM
Larry, I have been a philistine in these matters ever since I've been in the work force, so take what I say with several pillars of salt. But for my money, Norman Mailer was best as an essayist/journalist. A great American novelist, not so much. Though there's lots of Mailer I haven't read, so I could be missing something.
Re: Norman Mailer
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 5:01PM
Lawrence, you are so right. From the London Times: Jules Feiffer summed up long ago the position of Mailer's star in the firmament. "Remember in the 1950s and early 1960s, novelists were thought of as very important people," he said. "Back then one still thought of Hemingway and Fitzgerald and Sinclair Lewis as having incredible stature, and Mailer was one of two or three Americans clearly destined to follow in their footsteps. And one treated him that way."
Besides ayone who headbutted Gore Vidal and sat on Truman Capote couldn't have been all bad.
Norman Mailer
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 4:39PM
Politics is all well and good, guys, but really -- no notice on the Amspec Blog that Norman Mailer died? When I was a budding literary boy, the idea of Great Novelist still prevailed as one of the giant aspirations of American culture. That's mostly gone now, and you could make a case that Mailer was the last of the breed. Of course there came Updike and Bellow and Roth and the rest, many of them fine craftsmen, many of them producing excellent work, but all tinged with a slight dilletantism. Mailer had the robust big talent, and he also blew it big-time, also a characteristic of the breed.
Kidney failure, they say. Hell, I've had kidney failure for nearly 30 years, and I'm not dead yet. I'll have to look up the details. Must have been some complications.
R.I.P.
Re: One for Thompson
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 4:11PM
Phil, now that's the first time of being accused of buying Romney spin! I defer to James on what factors are considered in an endorsement like this but it would seem that McCain also has an unblemished record and does support a constitutional amendment. Huckabee is in the same position. Whatever the rationale, if Thompson does rebound Right to Life can claim its share of credit.
Re: One for Thompson
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 2:39PM
NRLC endorsements are very heavily based on voting records, and Fred Thompson has the highest pro-life score of any candidate in the race (although John McCain's pro-life voting record dates back farther). Mitt Romney would no doubt do well on a pro-life candidate survey, but his overriden vetoes don't equal Thompson's record on life issues.
Re: One for Thompson
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 2:15PM
The NRLC's Thompson endorsement shouldn't come as a surprise. Back in March when reports were surfacing that Thompson was pro-choice in 1994, I spoke with the group's executive co-director Darla St. Martin, and she strongly defended Thompson's pro-life credentials. I had always assumed he'd get their endorsement if he jumped into the race. Some have questioned why they would endorse a candidate who opposes a human life amendment, but as far as I understand, the NRLC has long advocated an incremental approach on the abortion issue. It doesn't surprise me that they'd be satisfied with Thompson's 100% pro-life voting record and anti- Roe v. Wade stance. Anybody who is surprised by this endorsement is just buying into pro-Romney spin that somehow it's a two-man race, and Romney is the viable social conservative alternative to Giuliani. In reality, the race remains a lot more complicated, and social conservatives are not ready en masse to jump on the bandwagon of a Massachusetts politician who was pro-choice for at least 35 years, and publicly pro-life for about two and a half.
One for Thompson
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 1:03PM
Huckabee the Happy Taxman
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 12:27PM
A rival campaign passes on this video of Gov. Huckabee telling
the Arkansas House of Representatives he'd "happily sign" a tabacco
tax. In the clip, he also expresses support for an income tax
surcharge, sales tax, or a combination of all of them. The only
saving grace for Huckabee, perhaps, is that the speech took place
when he was still fat, so it looks more dated than it otherwise
might have:
Rudy Strategy
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 11:49AM
Living For Yesterday
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 11:19AM
Kossacks, perpetually displeased with Pelosi and Reid, turn their attention and praise to...Hubert Humphrey.
JFK's Example
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 11:18AM
My AmSpec
piece 11 days ago on evangelicals' concerns with Mitt Romney's
Mormon faith drew many
rebuttals from his defenders. Over the weekend Drudge noticed
an Associated Press article about how Romney's
political consultants are advising him against giving a special
speech addressing his religion:
Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Saturday his political advisers have warned him against giving a speech explaining his Mormon faith.
During a house party overlooking Squam Lake, Romney was asked by voters if he would give a speech outlining his religious beliefs and how those beliefs might impact his administration, much like then-Sen. John F. Kennedy did as he sought to explain his Catholic faith during the 1960 election.
"I'm happy to answer any questions people have about my faith and do so pretty regularly," the former Massachusetts governor said. "Is there going to be a special speech? Perhaps, at some point. I sort of like the idea myself. The political advisers tell me no, no, no - it's not a good idea. It draws too much attention to that issue alone."
I'd never seen or heard how JFK handled those questions about his Catholicism during his presidential campaign, but last night C-SPAN gave a window into his management of the issue by showing a Q&A session he held with the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. His performance was impressive and if Romney could do half as well in a similar forum, he might gain significant support among the electorate.
This link is to a Google cache of the C-SPAN
broadcast, as I had trouble bringing it up directly from their own
site. Well worth watching.
Idiot Box
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 10:14AM
Over at Radar, John Cook debunks the latest "stirring rhetoric" from Keith Olbermann.
Thompson Has Guts
Posted by on 11.12.07 @ 9:28AM
I have to wonder, why has there been such widespread silence about the single most signicant policy proposal of this whole campaign so far? I refer to Fred Thompson's plan, announced late last week, to reform Social Security. It is as courageous a move by any presidential candidate as we have seen for many years. And while I haven't had time to study all its details, on first perusal it looks very solid. It combines "add-on" private accounts with the change in COLA adjustments he long has been advocating, namely to tie them to prices instead of wages. The changed formula alone should take care of an incredibly large chunk of the long-term Social Security unfunded liability.
Here's the thing: From a conservative economic standpoint, the plan is not perfect. But it would mark a HUGE improvement over what we have now. It would extend the solvency of the system by many decades, and it would bolster private savings and investment.
Why not perfect? Frankly, the total switch from prices to wages may be a bridge too far. I prefer what I understand to be the Pozen Plan, namely an income-based sliding scale between a wage-based COLA and a price-based COLA. I really do think conservatives need to be aware that lower-income beneficiaries are also likely to be less able to fully take advantage of add-on accounts and thus would need slightly more generous guarantees in the bais plan, via slightly higher COLAS.
But again, I invite correction on my understanding of these things, because I really have had only a few minutes to delve into Thompson's details while I cite the Pizen Plan from memory.
But the least perfect thing about the Thompson Plan is that it provides for add-on personal accounts rather than personal accounts WITHIN the existing system. I'll save for another time the dissertation over why the latter is preferable to the former. bit suffice it to say that conservatives have good reason for long preferring the latter.
Nevertheless, those criticisms amoung to nitpicking. Overall, Thompson is very much on the right track, and he shows great political courage in taking on half of the single most important long-term economic issue facing this country (the other half being the long-term Medicare mess). On this proposal, conservatives ought to be rallying to Thompson's defense, not greeting him with silence.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Massachusetts Fines Go Into Effect
Posted by on 11.11.07 @ 7:54PM
This week
Expect to see more reports like this on the tricky issue this poses for Romney.(" 'It could [be] boiled down by his opponents that Mitt Romney passed some big government program and now people are being penalized for it,' said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at
If you are a
Now Romney to his credit is not proposing any of this be duplicated on a national level. (Although his spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom is quoted speaking approvingly of the individual mandate plan because it guarantees "no more free riding.") There is good reason to learn from the errors of
Speaking of Hollywood Liberals
Posted by on 11.11.07 @ 7:03PM
I was kidding, of course, about siccing armed strike-breakers on the WGA picket lines. In fact, I'm basically sympathetic to the writers' demand for a piece of the new media pie -- especially after reading about the studio moguls who thought they owned Barack Obama. But seeing all those actors standing on the picket lines in solidarity with the writers does make me wonder: If they really want to help the writers out, why aren't any of them going beyond cheerfully eating the loss from the strike and actually offering to take a permanent pay cut to sweeten the deal for the studios?
Did I just hear peals of laughter in the distance?
Do Audiences Want to See War?
Posted by on 11.11.07 @ 5:58PM
Are Hollywood's Iraq dramas bombing because a) people don't want to hear about Iraq or b) people don't want to hear about Iraq from Hollywood liberals? ... Several hundred commenters at Breitbart.com (most, presumably, sent by Drudge) seems to think they know the answer. It's not Steven Bochco's answer. ... If there were an Iraq film not made by Hollywood liberals, we might be able to settle the argument.Well, it's not a movie and it's not about Iraq per se (though neither are some of the productions mentioned in that AFP dispatch on Breitbart.com), but there is a War on Terror-theme television show, made by Hollywood non-liberal Joel Surnow, called 24. It seems to have done alright.
New Hampshire
Posted by on 11.11.07 @ 9:40AM
Iowa
Posted by on 11.11.07 @ 7:15AM
Iowa State Professor Steffen Schmidt says look at the trends. He notes that both Intrade and the RCP average show the same thing: "Romney is still ahead but flat [while] Huckabee is rising like a rocket but still way behind Romney." As for Thompson? Among locals there Professor Schmidt says " I have heard very little mention of him period."
Now, for those of you who didn't stay up last night watching the Democrats at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner you missed quite a treat. You missed Tom Harkin bragging how he turned a little project he slipped into the ag bill into a billion dollar program to give kids free fuits and vegatables in schools( and wants to make sure every kid in America get the same) proving under Democrats there are no free lunches but plenty of free snacks. As for the speeches Obama certainly had the crowd going but even in this most important of settings his delivery was not without bumps. Nevertheless he is sharpening his message and is taking shots at the politics of polling. Hillary has a new "turn up the heat" metaphor (on Republicans, against Bush, etc.) which leaves me asking what the heck does that mean ? As for Edwards he is pure populist carnival boker-- nothing was gained by free trade( no jobs? no new businesses? he really believes this?) and throwing the lobbyists out and taking immunity away from Blackwater will make things much better. But listen: the Governor, Lt. Governor and a bunch of Congressmen in Iowa are Democrats so someone is buying this.
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
