- 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, December 1, 2007
New Des Moines Register Poll: Obama, Huck In Lead
Posted by on 12.1.07 @ 10:50PM
The latest Des Moines Register poll is out, the gold standard for polling in Iowa, and it confirms that Mike Huckabee has surged passed Mitt Romney to take a slight 29 percent to 24 percent lead. That's a huge 17-point leap for Huckabee over last month's poll and a 5 point drop for Romney. In his analysis of the results, Register columnist David Yepsen notes that though Huckabee is moving up faster than any candidate in either party, he has a thin staff in Iowa compared to Romney's impressive organization. Rudy Giuliani actually improved slighly, moving to third place from fourth, at 13 percent (up 2 points). The biggest drop was Fred Thompson, who saw his support cut in half to 9 percent, from 18, and he has now slided to fourth place. McCain remained the same at 7 percent, but he is now tied with Ron Paul, who rose 3 points from the last poll. These results bolster the view that Huckabee's rise, while threatening Romney, is coming mostly at Thompson's expense.
On the Democratic side, Obama swapped with Clinton to take the lead, 28 to 25, with Edwards right behind at 23. But Yepsen warns that a lot of Obama's support comes from younger voters, who tend to have lower turnout. Perhaps most interesting about the poll is that Obama has overtaken Clinton among female voters, who make up 6 out of 10 caucus goers, and a demographic that Clinton had hoped to tap into.
Drudge: NH Union Leader To Endorse McCain
Posted by on 12.1.07 @ 4:04PM
Assuming this is true, it would provide a boost to the McCain campaign.
Why They Are Headed For the Wilderness
Posted by on 12.1.07 @ 1:36PM
With a shout out to G. Tracy Mehan III for his
Spectator column, the
Washington Post announces that the VA GOP has dropped their
silly loyalty oath. (Read which Supreme Court Justice raised an
appropriate fuss in 1995 when a similar pledge was tried out in
Fairfax County.) Well that certainly worked out for them didn't it?
How many GOP voters did the Party thoroughly annoy and how many
Independents think a political party that tries this must be the
place for them? Spectacular stupidity.
Rudy's Fuzzy Math
Posted by on 12.1.07 @ 12:57PM
An interesting story in the New York Times (yes, consider the source) about Rudy Giuliani's persistent use of inaccurate or misleading statistics to puff up his record in New York City. The most puzzling thing: In almost every case cited, the actual, accurate statistics bolster the points Giuliani was making on his own behalf. So why not just use them rather than gilding the lily?
Is this a Ronald Reagan-like use of apochryphal tales and imprecise data to illustrate points that are basically valid? Or is it a Bill Clinton-like tendency to lie even when you don't have to?
Hillary's NH Reviews
Posted by on 12.1.07 @ 12:56PM
If she is
"regal looking" and she "strikes
all the right grace notes" in her conduct during the hostage crisis
will Hillary get points and a bump based on the tragic events
yesterday? Clearly she must be careful not to make hay out of the
hostage taking but the fawning coverage and opportunity to look
cool in a crisis comes at a fortuitous time for her. This is the
unpredictable stuff which make political prognostication
impossible.
Re: Early States
Posted by on 12.1.07 @ 12:26PM
The intent was not to cherry pick but just to examine polls which came out on Friday. Yes, NH remains the strongest possible opportunity for Romney but it is inescapable that his substantial double digit lead in Iowa has disappeared and the momentum is with Huckabee.( This chart dramatically illustrates what is going on.) I think local press coverage, some of which I pointed out earlier and which readers can get a sense of from the Des Moines Register, is engaged in some Huckabee/underdog rooting. The latest SC poll does show a drop for him in SC; whether this will be duplicated in other polls will get played out in the next few weeks. In another Southern state, Alabama, this poll (taken earlier in the month but released yesterday) does not have a GOP primary line up but in head to heads with Democrats McCain beats Hillary by 10 pts, Rudy wins by 5 pts and Romney is tied. What remains an open question -- the one commentators and the campaigns have been arguing about -- is how a Huckabee win or near win in Iowa would do for his and Romney's numbers in the states which follow. The domino/momentum effect coupled with the very volatile nature of the race should be kept in mind when looking at all of these polls, many of which have small samples and large margins of error.
Re: Romney and the Early States
Posted by on 12.1.07 @ 11:04AM
Jennifer, I don't think it's fair to cherry pick polls less favorable to Romney and conclude that Romney is struggling in the early states, especially because the results are starting to become erratic. The fairest thing to conclude based on the wide range of polls we're seeing is that as of this moment, it's a dead heat between Romney and Huckabee in Iowa, Romney is comfortably ahead in NH (how comfortable depends on the poll), and it's a five-way race in South Carolina. The outcome in SC is impossible to predict without knowing what will happen in the other two states. Overall, at this point, I'd say Romney's effectively unlimited bank account and organizational strength give him the edge. But that's just at this point. Things can change a lot in a few weeks.
Romney Early State Woes
Posted by on 12.1.07 @ 12:19AM
There is some
polling evidence in addition to the Fox NH poll -- from the new
ARG polls in Iowa(Huckabee down by one point) and South Carolina
(Romney falling five points from the last poll to second place)
that Romney is slipping in the early states. Part of the
explanation may be that rivals are picking up the pace-- we saw
Thompson's video at the debate going after Romney on his abortion
statements in 1994 and 2002 and today his campaign chief blasted
Romney for flip flopping on immigration. Rudy of course has been
hammering him for a couple of weeks. Part of this is the Huckabee
surge. And part is the media
coverage of Romney( Rudy also had the press week from hell) which
is reciting the flip flop theme. In Iowa, his efforts to begin to
get tough with Huckabee are portrayed negatively by
some ("bad mouthing Huckabee") which creates another storyline
that Romney is going negative as his numbers decline.
Realistically( cause real people don't follow campaigns between
Christmas and New Years) we have slightly more than three weeks to
tee things up for Iowa and NH. Now is the time for Romney to show
he can pull it together and prove that putting all the chips on the
early states was the right move. UPDATE: Blaming the media is probably not the way to
go.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Another N.H. Poll
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 5:48PM
This Fox News poll of likely Republican voters shows Mitt Romney leading in New Hamsphire with 29 percent, with John McCain in second at 21 percent, and Rudy Giuliani in third at 19 percent. Mike Huckabee is at just 7 percent, Ron Paul at 4 percent. Fred Thompson is also at 4 percent.
A big difference from the rest of the polls? Maybe. But the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
NH Poll: Romney, Huckabee Surge
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 5:39PM
Romney shows continued strength in New Hampshire in the latest Rasmussen poll, just as Giuliani is taking out ads and starting to campaign more seriously in the state. But perhaps more surprising about the poll is that it has Mike Huckabee in a virtual three-way tie for second place in a state that is supposed to be the most difficult terrain for him . Should Huckabee follow up an upset win in Iowa with a strong showing in New Hampshire, it would completely change the race. And you'd have to begin asking, if Giuliani and/or McCain can't beat Huckabee in New Hampshire, how long can they remain in the race?
As far as the numbers were concerned, Romney is at 34 percent, Giuliani and McCain are both at 15 percent, Huckabee is at 14 percent, Paul is at 8 percent, and Thompson is hardly a factor at 3 percent.
As with all Rasmussen polls, there should be a note of caution that they use robotic calling techniques, which some people argue create unreliable results.
Ron Paul Tops $10 Million
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 1:21PM
Ron Paul has broken the $10 million mark for the fourth quarter, even before the next "money bomb." The Paul campaign has set a fundraising goal of $12 million for this quarter, which it increasingly looks likely to meet or even exceed. Will Paul win the money primary this time around?
Mike Gravel Stuck in My Head
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 12:51PM
Why don't they let him say what he wants to say? Power to the people, give peace a chance.
Thompson vs. Giuliani
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 11:29AM
No, not Fred, but New York City Comptoller William Thompson. In a story posted by the Politico last night in response to Giuliani's appearance on Katie Couric, Thompson was quoted as saying that his auditors were "stonewalled" when they tried to look into the matter of Giuliani's security expenses. However, not until the 13th paragraph does the story note that Thompson is a Democrat. Left out of the story completely is the fact that Thompson has designs on running for mayor in 2009, and has been raising money for over a year. Does that automatically invalidate everything he says? No. But it's certainly a relevant detail to consider.
The State of the Stem Cell Debate
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 10:51AM
The debate is over, and President Bush has been vindicated, argues Charles Krauthammer. Not so fast, writes Michael Kinsley.
Krugman Carries Water For Clinton
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 10:44AM
Accuses Barack Obama of "echoing right-wing talking points on health care" by opposing individual mandates.
Re: Expectations
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 9:34AM
As predicted time to try to lower the bar- "But in a sure sign of concern, the Romney camp has begun to raise the prospect of a second-place Iowa finish, insisting it would not hurt his chances in the contests that follow. 'It would be nice if Romney won,' said Doug Gross, an attorney overseeing Romney's Iowa campaign. 'If he finishes in the top two, he's fine.'"
This and That
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 7:22AM
You can find here an excellent
analysis of the promise and problem with the Thompson campaign.
The reality is you have to command an actual campaign to win the
presidency( actually you need the same skills to be president so
it's not an irrelevant consideration) and it's just not
happening.
This gives some support to Rudy in the face off with Romney
over sanctuary cities.
The
Washington Post figures out Hillary is hiding from the media
--something some of us were
grousing about months ago.
You Gotta Hand It To Him
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 1:06AM
Huckabee completely stumps Chris Matthews on questions about his religious faith. Who looks annoyed and peeved in this exchange? (I think there are legitimate questions about the ad but Huckabee makes mincemeat out of the "you're trying to impose a religious test" and "you wouldn't like it if Lieberman advertized his Judaism" attacks). UPDATE: Apparently Romney confronts reality: Huckabee is eating his lunch -- so he drops the first oppo mail piece against Huckabee in Iowa.UPDATE: And talk of Washington elites out to crush him like a bug is music to his ears-if that isn't a populist's dream come true I'm not sure what is.
Now I Get It
Posted by on 11.30.07 @ 12:46AM
CNN was not just offering free air time to Democratic activists they were putting on an ad for this legislative initiative. Since the FCC is so keen on regulating the cable industry maybe an investigation of Debate-gate is in order. If Congress could investigate the Quiz Show Scandals why not? UPDATE: More thoughts here and here.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Anti-Romney Ads By Ineffective Messengers?
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 8:27PM
Yesterday we had this ad from a pro-choice
group and today we had this one from the Log Cabin
Republicans on taxes both raising the flip flop theme. Both have
some factual merit and are amusing but will they work? The Romney
folks
say in essence -- " Hey, look who's attacking us" -- and seem
confident they will have zero impact.(They also dispute the
substance of the tax allegations, presumably on the basis that they
do not consider fee increases and loophole closings to be tax
increases.) They may be right on the flawed messenger point. Until,
for example, Thompson converts his YouTube video into a more
effective ad, Romney can simply attack the messengers as Left
leaning liberal groups out to get him. There is one more debate in
Iowa before caucus time so we'll see if any of his opponents offer
similar critiques. But will they? Thompson himself seems entirely
reluctant to do the heavy lifting of pointing out his rival's flaws
so absent a YouTube video it is unclear whether he will go that
route. McCain? He drips contempt for Romney on foreign policy but
hasn't given him a going over on domestic matters. Huckabee likely
wants Romney to come after HIM so he can wink at the crowd and say
"See how scared the big dog gets when a new pup comes along?" (OK,
he'll say it better.) That leaves the head banging to Rudy. Judging
from the last debate and the campaign over the last week there will
be plenty of that. UPDATE: When
US News and others do another round of flip
flop stories it becomes more problematic as the flip flop tag
becomes part of the conventional wisdom and the shorthand by which
voters come to describe him.
Rudy Responds
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 8:02PM
This sounds like a credible explanation of the Politico Hampton
billing story. If what Katie Couric says is true ("Those 3 former budget directors have basically explained it
according to the way you're explaining it to me today') and the
accounting was appropriate( i.e. the costs weren't hidden and
eventually the costs got backed out and paid by the NYPD) I don't
see this is as the hugely significant story it was painted to be.
UPDATE: Mayor Bloomberg's press secretary provides back up and confirms the
expenses were reimbursed by the Police Department while the
Comptroller who originally raised the issue now says in effect
"that's not how we do it now." (And that's the basis on which this
accusation was made?) Similar to the CBS interview, Rudy explains
the accounting story to ABC
here.
However, if this is the first of
many like
this, it's going to be a long month before the caucus
votes.
End of Discussion
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 6:00PM
When, in the name of forensic accuracy, will we stop referring to these candidate dog and pony shows as "Debates"?
Bill Clinton: Still Flip-Flopping
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 5:43PM
Both the New York Post and the Washington Post have items today disputing Bill Clinton's claim to have opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. The former published an editorial with quotes showing that Clinton may have objected to the timing of the invasion, but did not oppose the policy. The latter reports Clinton privately expressed support for the invasion when he was briefed by the Bush national security team in 2003.
Given that regime change in Iraq became the official U.S. policy while Clinton was president, and that his revisionism can only serve to call into question his wife's judgment since she voted to authorize the war, why a noncandidate and former president would be playing these kinds of games is difficult to fathom. Antiwar conservative blogger Dan Flynn is peeved.
CNN Elects Grover Norquist
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 5:28PM
From the transcript of last night's debate:
Governor Norquist: President Bush made a commitment when he ran for president in 2000 an 2004 that he would oppose and veto any tax increase that Congress sent him. My question to each of the candidates is: Would you promise to the people watching this right now, that you will oppose and veto any efforts to raise taxes as long as you're president?
So Who Wants to Be A Millionare?
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 5:11PM
Perhaps wanting to get in on the Pickens-Kerry bet, CNN's Campbell Brown, in a program about negative advertising, asserted "Naval records and eyewitness accounts by other sailors contradicted just about every claim the swift boat vets made." Alas, Brown did not elaborate as to which claims had been contradicted.
Brown is working hard to win influence and make friends across the political spectrum. The same program has also been criticized by Media Matters because Brown used the phrase "American insurgents" to describe MoveOn.org.
UPDATE: Rob Bluey and Quin Hillyer weigh in on the show.
The Alaskan Showman
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 5:08PM
Mike Gravel strikes again with a hypnotic new video:
A Bad Debate
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 4:38PM
The reason I have not blogged about my reactions to last night's debate was that I was waiting for my column on it to come out. Here it is. In short, Huckabee gained by watching others stumble. But he had no substance. And what I didn't say in the column was that CNN's handling of the debate, from top to bottom, was atrocious.
On Crime Also
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 4:12PM
Romney -- after days of squabbling -- also threw in the towel on the crime issue, saying Rudy did a great job and he(Romney) really wasn't all that responsible for crime. He said: "I think we all recognize that the mayor did a wonderful job at reducing crime in the City of New York. I'm not a mayor, I'm not running for a mayor's job; I didn't have a police commissioner. But I did take the actions that I could, as a state governor, to improve our state police, to strengthen our state police, to be able to put in place the DNA laboratory -- we more than tripled the size of our DNA laboratory -- and did the things we could to improve crime -- our crime enforcement. And I'm proud of the fact that we were able to reduce crime during my tenure."
Glad we cleared that up.
Did Mitt Endorse Rudy's NY Immigration Policies?
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 3:20PM
Reviewing the transcript of last night's debate, I noticed that in criticizing Giuliani for running a sanctuary city as mayor, Romney--perhaps inadvertently--endorsed the central tenets of Giuliani's policies in New York City.
Here's what Romney said (note the part in bold):
But the mayor said -- and I quote almost verbatim -- which is if you happen to be in this country in an undocumented status -- and that means you're here illegally -- then we welcome you here. We want you here. We'll protect you here.
That's the wrong attitude. Instead, we should say if you're here illegally, you should not be here. We're not going to give you benefits, other than those required by the law, like health care and education, and that's the course we're going to have to pursue.
Huh? I though the whole criticism of Giuliani's policy was that he gave health care and education benefits to illegal immigrants and didn't report them. Is Romney suggesting that Giuliani should have given illegal immigrants health care and education, but reported anybody who took advantage of those services to the INS?
Those Out of Touch Republicans
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 2:10PM
There are many reasons to be peeved about the CNN
YouTube debate.
Some have
expressed thoughts similar to mine. (The planted Democratic
questioners are just one visible aspect of the atrocious conduct of
the debate.) For me, the most galling part was the issue selection.
Marc Ambinder rightly asks, for example, why no health care
questions. It is not like the major candidates don't have plans or
that Florida voters don't consider it a top issue. They apparently
had some videos to choose from and
booted them all. Under the belief that guns, abortion, immigration
and gays in the military are the only issues Republicans care about
we got plenty of those questions. That then gives CNN and other MSM
outlets the opportunity to say "See, they never talk about
healthcare or education, those rabid Republicans."
Expectations
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 1:57PM
Early in
November Romney started quietly trying to lower
expectations about Iowa. I would expect to see more of that but
it's a silly game at this point. By some counts he has spent over
$7M in the state and been there nearly fifty days. He's had
hundreds of "Ask Mitt" meetings and of course made a full court
press and won the Ames Straw poll. His campaign has ridiculed Rudy
and others for suggesting you can win without the early states of
Iowa and NH. So at this point it's not credible to say "oh, any of
the three tickets out will do" and further efforts are likely to
been seen, at least by Huckabee folks (who also must manage
expectations), that they have him on the run.
Kristol High on Thompson?
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 1:18PM
Bill Kristol is usually a pretty astute reader of political tea leaves. In light of that, his latest take on Fred Thompson is instructive. He thinks Thompson might be on the move.
Rudy's Blown Opportunity on Farm Subsidies
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 12:27PM
The Club for Growth and Rob Bluey take Giuliani and Romney to task for failing to come out against farm subsidies, and rightly so. Both candidates attempt to portray themselves as fiscal conservatives who believe in free markets, but last night they advocated continuing government supports for an industry because we need to protect the American food supply. Since when does manipulating the economy with federal tax dollars produce more abundance than allowing the free market to function on its own?
With that said, Romney's response was at least consistent with what we know about him, and has an electoral logic to it. He has a history of saying whatever is most politically convenient at the time, and winning
For Giuliani, however, it doesn't add up. One of his greatest appeals is that he is a blunt, no-nonsense guy who has the guts to say and do what others don't. When it was suggested that
David Keene Endorses Romney
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 11:31AM
Chris Cillizza has more. Although Keene's name might not mean much to the average voter, as longtime head of the American Conservative Union, he is one of the most well-connected and well-respected conservative leaders in Washington. Cillizza says he will work to convince "my fellow conservatives that if we are serious about electing a conservative president in 2008, it's time to unite behind his candidacy."
Post Mortem
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 10:33AM
Last night’s was the first debate this year that I have been able to watch more or less in its entirety, so I don’t have near the familiarity that others here do, but some thoughts: The format is beneath contempt. The tendency of almost every YouTuber to make his question an advertisement for himself was sickening on every level – that the questioners think this appropriate when addressing potential presidents; that CNN would encourage it; and that the candidates themselves would stand there and take it without so much as flinching. And the cheering- and booing-sections are appalling as well, taking the focus off of the substance of the candidates’ answers and instead on who is “scoring.” Obviously, I’m way behind the curve in this new age of debates, but I honestly can’t believe it has come to this.
As for the candidates, nobody was great, but I’d say Romney had the best night, even with his share of shaky moments. He seemed less like a suit than he has in the past, and he was both aggressive and controlled. McCain was strong throughout, but he didn’t get enough time, and so almost seemed invisible at points. That’s another indictment of the format, because every time McCain spoke, one was reminded that he is the closest thing we have to an Eisenhower. Fred Thompson was lifeless, vague, and uninspiring. I don’t know why he is running and I don’t think he does, either. Giuliani was okay, but seemed to be a little off most of the night; but he was also the candidate most in the line of fire throughout. As for Huckabee, there’s something creepy to me about his charm that I assume will reveal itself if he hangs around long enough. His self-aggrandizing, self-pitying answer on education benefits for illegals would have fit in nicely at a Democratic debate. Finally, I agree with James P. that Ron Paul acquitted himself well for the most part.
All of the candidates missed an opportunity to fly-swat the questioner who asked what the
Democratizing AmSpec Blog
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 10:32AM
After I hear what Ben of Ben & Jerry's fame has to say about federal budget priorities--I plan to lead a chant of Chunky Monkey, Chunky Monkey!--would readers rather I attend Laundry: An Inconvenient Chore or Take It to the Man: An AIDS Activist's Guide to Bird-Dogging?
Biden Takes Snowman
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 10:29AM
Not much to add on the debate since Joe Biden literally talked through the entire thing last night here at College Convention '08. I just got out of a roundtable discussion entitled, "Democracy Matters--Student Activism On Campus," which basically encouraged attending students to sign onto the usual Naderite voting reforms--public financing, same day registration, having poll workers hold your hand, look deep into your eyes, and explain what an exemplary patriot you are for showing up to the polls in your bright orange Do Something About Global Warming T-shirt. Who doesn't want to be a modern day hero...especially when it's so easy!
It wasn't all that interesting, in short, although I'll type out a few more lines on it later in a round-up piece. Listening to students introduce themselves, however, was another story:
"I'm a political junkie. These days I've got CSPAN on more than SpongeBob."
"I'm also a political junkie…with some dictatorial aspirations."
Okay, so maybe his parents told him he could grow up to be
anything he wants, even the President of the United States or, you
know, Josef Stalin. Another was actually inspirational:
"I come from a very liberal town, so I came here to meet candidates so I can make my own decision and not just take my surroundings at face value."
That's probably a rare bird at College Con, I suspect.
Debating The YouTube Debate
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 9:36AM
After last night, can we finally put to rest the argument of my tech-savvy conservative friends that somehow Republicans need to participate in YouTube debates? It confirmed all of my worst fears. Amateur questions reflecting a clear liberal bias that demeaned the political process as well as those who seeking the nation's highest office. Cartoon characters, guitarists, and a questioner who is part of the Clinton campaign. No discussion of Iran, problems in Pakistan, the Annapolis conference, etc. It was an absolute debacle, and I really hope this experiment is over.
Virginia GOP
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 9:05AM
As explained so well here they can take their oath and... If it is not invalidated this Virginian isn't going to be voting in the GOP primary.
Re: Henry Hyde, R.I.P.
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 9:02AM
Pro-life advocates never had a better friend. On a larger scale he was one of a vanishing breed in the House -- a true gentlemen who was stalwart but without rancor and eloquent but not pompous. There really is no one of his stature in the House today.
That Fred Video
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 8:52AM
His YouTube video is essentially a negative ad but how effective is it? On one hand we've seen those Romney moments again and again so their utility for his rivals does lessen. However, the vigor of Romney's argument in 2002 is why, I think ,Thompson believes it is worth using. The Huckabee segment's usefulness is blunted because he is hardly recognizable. (Good reason to lose weight-- your mistakes will be less recognizable later in your career.) The Rudy segment is going to stir Second Amendment advocates but I wonder why he didn't use an immigration clip since that is such a potent issue, especially in Iowa. The main problem with the ad/video is that it does a better job of saying why these guys would not be acceptable to base conservatives than making the case FOR Thompson. That in nutshell may be his greatest problem in the race. But at least, unlike Romney, Thompson seems to recognize he has to go toe to toe with Huckabee or he's going to run away with it in Iowa.
Henry Hyde, RIP
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 8:43AM
NRO is reporting that an undisputed pro-life champion, and conservative stalwart, has died. Hyde retired from Congress in 2006 and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom earlier this year.
Re: Thompson Abortion Clarification
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 8:38AM
I'm not sure that Thompson's rationale is identical to my own, I'm only saying that a candidate's position on what the ultimate legal status of abortion should be is a separate question from what level of government should be charged with making and enforcing the laws. Ron Paul, for example, opposes both legal abortion and the federalization of abortion law (though he, like Fred Thompson, has voted for various federal abortion restrictions).
Where you may have a stronger point is this: I don't think I've ever heard Thompson say in his own voice what states should ultimately do about abortion. I've seen such statements from his campaign, but when he is asked about it directly he is either unclear or stops well short of a broad ban with the three exceptions. If I'm wrong about this, I'd welcome a correction. Thompson was also criticized for overstating the states' leeway in banning post-viability abortions, since he seemingly failed to acknowledge that what Roe and Casey giveth, Doe v. Bolton taketh away.
Don't Take Our Word For It
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 7:54AM
Huckabee won big with Iowa and Florida voters. The paper which counts the most in Iowa, the Des Moines Register, says he was hot and "got a whole lot hotter" last night.
Re: Thompson Abortion Clarification
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 6:07AM
James, your articulation is not only clear and reasonable it is likely held by lots of Republicans. But that's not what Thompson's clarification says. He doesn't do what Romney has done which is to say "over time..."; his clarification is a flat statement as to what his position is now. I think the reason for the clarification is that in the debate-- I thought I was not listening closely enough but the transcript indicates he was almost excruciatingly unclear even if you were listening intently -- he sounded too muddled and too much like Rudy. They therefore put out a non-nuanced statement that read literally(without the Antle clarification) doesn't jive with the debate comments, to the extent you can understand them. On the larger issue of Thompson, I understand his supporters' frustration. As I note here, he says many of the right things but oddly, for a performer, makes little impression.
Debate Recap
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 1:02AM
For the first hour of the debate, I watched the debate. During the second hour of the debate, I drank beer. I very much preferred the second hour of the debate and consider myself the winner overall.
Re: Thompson Abortion Clarification
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 1:01AM
It is a perfectly respectable position to say that you oppose abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother while also arguing that the states are the appropriate jurisdiction to enact such legislation. That would leave states free to reach other determinations until such time as there is a sufficient cultural consensus in favor of life that every state would pass pro-life laws. It is such a reasonable position that it is my own. Laws protecting life in later stages are mainly passed at the state rather than the federal level. I see no inconsistency in Thompson's answers.
Thompson Abortion Clarification
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 12:46AM
THOMPSON DEBATE ANSWER:
"MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, the young lady's question is -- (applause) -- the -- the young lady's question is premised on if abortion becomes illegal. That presumes Roe versus Wade is overturned, which I think should be our number one focus right now. And that has to do with the kind of Supreme Court justices we put on the bench. (Applause.)
MR. THOMPSON: We should have -- we got to -- I'm getting there. I'm getting there.
That would mean that it goes back to the states, and then the states would have to outlaw it at an earlier stage than they outlaw it now. And then the question would be, who gets penalized and what should the penalty be? I think it should be fashioned along the same lines that it is now.
Most states have abortion laws that pertain -- that -- and -- and prohibit abortion after viability. And it goes to the doctor performing the abortion, not the girl or the young girl or her parents, whomever it might be.
MR. COOPER: Time.
MR. THOMPSON: I think that same pattern needs to be followed. It could just be moved up earlier or much earlier in the process if the --
MR. COOPER: All right.
MR. THOMPSON: -- if the state so determined."
I was confused hearing this but understood this essentially to be a restatement of his states' rights position. His campaign was concerned enough to put out this a few minutes ago:
"In tonight's debate we saw once again that on abortion, Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice and Mitt Romney is multiple choice. I believe abortion should only be allowed in the instances of rape, incest and the life of the mother and penalties should be assessed against the abortion doctor and not the woman."
I don't think Thompson has ever said he would "only allow" abortion in those cases if states decided differently.
Mitt Lambert, etc.
Posted by on 11.29.07 @ 12:15AM
I failed to appreciate the gravity of the "87" year drought answer. I guess you are supposed to know that the number is 86 if you are a real fan.
A glance around the MSM and bloggers shows some consensus: Huckabee and McCain are getting the best reviews.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Wrap
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 11:15PM
John, I agree that Huckabee won the night. He has mastered the art of appearing engaging and almost sweet but resolute on social issues. In a 90-second debate answer he sounds perfectly solid on other subjects like taxes. Remarkably, except for a minor scuffle with Romney on college scholarships for illegal alien kids, no one went after him. The time has passed where the other contenders can just hope he'll go away on his own and I suspect they will come after him next time. McCain is an exceptionally appealing and mature figure and successfully boxed Romney's ears on an issue (torture) which most conservatives likely don't agree with him. On spending and the war there is no one who articulates GOP views better. Romney started strong and went down hill while Rudy did the reverse. As the night went on he seemed to get better and more confident with solid answers on foreign policy and crime( Romney seemed to concede the issue to Rudy.) His abortion answer was remarkable for its similarity to Thompson's and even Romney's position. For now his Hampton visit answer seemed to work and if in fact he had nothing to do with tucking the costs into other accounts it likely will not inflict permanent damage. Thompson was fine but sort of invisible which is baffling for a professional performer. I like him more and more as the campaign goes on but find him incapable of projecting the energy and dynamism a president or a presidential candidate requires. And if they ever,ever agree to this stupid format again we should follow the lead of the Writers Guild and put down our pencils, turn off the computers and go out for drinks.
Liberal Bias At Work At CNN/YouTube Debate
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 11:08PM
Keith Kerr, the retired gay Army general who was allowed not only to ask a question on gays in the military, but give a lecture, turns out to have been a member of the "Veterans for Kerry" steering committee and currently on the "LGBT Americans for Hillary" steering committee.
Closing Thoughts
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 10:58PM
The defining moment of the debate was the Romney vs. Rudy exchange on immigration, and I thought Romney came off better once Giuliani went with the "Sanctuary Mansion" line. Not only did the argument lack substance, but it came off as a cheap shot. Giuliani's answer on guns, which triggered boos, will also not help. Once he said he supported "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership, especially given his past record, I'm sure a lot of conservatives thought "liberal gun-grabber." His answers on most other questions were solid, and he forced Romney to retreat on his crime record, but I think in the moments that were most memorable, the ones that are likely to be rebroadcast, he came off poorly. He was off his game tonight.
For part of the debate, I thought Romney came off quite well, both in his initial exchange with Rudy and doing a better job of deflecting the flip-flopper charge on abortion. But I thought he got crushed by McCain on the torture question, though as I stated, he may benefit from the fact that the Republican base agrees with him. On the bible and South Carolina flag questions, I thought he stumbled, and reinforced the impression that he can't take a firm position on anything.
McCain had a strong showing, and when it comes to defending the war in Iraq, there's nobody who can do it better. Even if you disagree with him on his position on torture, it's hard not to respect where he's coming from. He also came accross as a real grown up on the stage. Personally, I go back and forth regarding my position on waterboarding of terrorist suspects, but when I hear McCain make his case, it's hard to disagree with him. The trouble is, McCain still seems to rub a lot of conservative voters the wrong way. At the Values Voters Summit, I thought he gave a masterful speech, during which he made an emotional case against torture, but the audience members I spoke to after had a different view.
Mike Huackabee had another solid performance, and he continues to win the likability primary. His exchange with Romney on education, I think, represented the kind of Main St. vs. Wall St. campaign he's going for, and I thought he got the better of it.
I'm not sure if it was a great move for Fred Thompson to go negative in his candidate video, but his "I just wanna give my buddies here a little more airtime" line was nice. His answers on entitlements were also solid. But I thought he was overshadowed by all of the other action on the stage.
Wrap-Up
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 10:20PM
It wasn't a great night for anybody -- Romney and Giuliani gave each other black eyes, McCain and Thompson treaded water. As much as it pains me to say it, that makes Huckabee the winner.
Romney's Lambert Field Moment?
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 10:18PM
I could have sworn he said that the Red Sox went 87 years without a World Series. Even a Yankee fan like me knows that it was 86.
Red Sox
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 10:14PM
Roots for American League he says. Not going to make Phil feel better.
Confederate Flag
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 10:07PM
Romney says not an issue we should dwell on but gets around to: flag is divisive and shouldn't be shown. Thompson says do what you want in your home but glad people have decided not to display in a public capitol.
Mars
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 10:05PM
Huck will send Hillary there; Tancredo says no money to send anyone.
Huckabee
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:58PM
Says willing to take support from Log Cabin Republicans but wouldn't change his views. "Americans want someone with principles but not someone mean" message really works when he says it. He knows how to be nice but firm.
Gays In The Military Question
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:57PM
Okay that the gay retired military officer got to ask a question, but did we really need to hear him give a speech?
Gays in Military
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:56PM
Won't answer if he changed his position on looking forward to day when gays serve in the military. Cooper was forceful and persistent- Romney didn't get rattled but wouldn't give a direct answer which most people noticed, I suspect. McCain puts on his military expert hat and says present policy is working.
Vice President
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:46PM
McCain says Bush had to rely on Cheney because he lacked foreign policy, which McCain wouldn't have to do. Straight talking but sort of insulting, wasn't it?
Rudy 9-11 Question
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:44PM
"I would like people to look at my whole record." Talked about stopping immigration of Haitians into US in Justice Department. Gets to remind everyone of US attorney and George Will. "I've been tested." This was a softball and I'm sure the other guys are thinking "hey,where's our softball"?
Nam and Iraq
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:42PM
McCain's right on 'follow us home'. But 'we never lost a battle' is a red herring. How many dead in Vietnam? And for what, even if we'd won? Honor, as Huckabee might say?
What happened?
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:40PM
In the last 45 minutes the tenor of the debate shifted-- Romney has stumbled, McCain and Rudy found their footing, and Huckabee just continues to roll along. Thompson-- nothing he says is "wrong" but nothing is terribly memorable.
McCain vs. Romney on Torture
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:39PM
John McCain had the much better, stronger, clearer and consistent answer, explaining the importance of maintaining American values while fighting terrorism. But more Republicans probably agree with Romney.
Repairing the American Image Abroad
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:36PM
Rudy gives a great answer that mixes tolerance and toughness that was at the root of his leadership post-9/11. McCain is solid in his own right on the war in Iraq, and Duncan Hunter gives a stirring recount of American largese in the world.
Romney on Torture
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:36PM
Respectful of McCain but says he wouldn't want to say whether waterboarding fits the bill. McCain says he is "astonished" he doesn't understand waterboarding is torture and talks about the high ground. He lectures him to talk to retired military officers. Romney seems taken aback and says he's not in favor of torture and cites Coffer Black as an advisor. McCain shoots back "Life is not 24 and Jack Bauer." McCain --even when you don't agree-- is one impressive guy.
Romney's Weakest Moment
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:35PM
Waterboarding. McCain just obliterates him. Period. Wise up, Governor. "I get that advice from Cofer Black." Not good enough. You too, Rudy. One dunk's fine, but also pointless. Dump waterboarding.
Re: The Death Penalty
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:32PM
Touche, MBD. Tell him for me, John, would you, that the proper approach of course is to kill them but cry about it beforehand.
Foreign Policy
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:31PM
Should be on offense on terrorism but reminds voters not to engage in "group blame." (Is this a dig at Romney?) People we are offending are the people we want to offend-- Islamic terrorists. (Another good answer.) McCain boasts of his experience and role in turning Iraq strategy around. His "Let us win, let us win" gets a good round of applause.
Mitt on the Bible
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:28PM
Phil, I think his answer's sound and comprehensible. I can't begin to think what "word for word" actually means. "Sentence for sentence" not good enough? Literalism is a terribly modern way of reading a text, and God's word revealed through man, over many many years, can only confirm, as true as it is, that we see through a glass darkly.
Re: The Death Penalty
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:26PM
Hard to mock Huckabee's answer, James? Maybe, but not impossible: I'm watching the debate with Michael Brendan Dougherty, who quipped, "Basically, he'd kill them but he'd cry about it afterwards."
The Bible
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:25PM
Didn't Augustine give Giuliani's answer a long time ago? Except the part about "a modern context," of course. He should've stopped before nitpicking about Jonah. Romney's answer avoids such pitfalls, tripping through the tall daisies of pre-evangelical Protestantism. Mormonism successfully elided. Huckabee, here, as he must, excels, confirms that God is by definition not ever completely comprehensible to Man.
Romney on the Bible Question
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:24PM
Huh? He really stumbled on that one. He doesn't disagree with the bible, he believes it's the word of God, but does he believe it word for word? I still don't know.
Huckabee
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:24PM
Says Jesus too smart to run for office. Fabulous and engaging answer. Rudy hesitates on Bible question -- Huckabee offers "help". Rudy gives a serious answer about Biblical interpretation, says he reads it and defines him but says some things are "allegorical." Romney says "word of God" and has hard time saying if "literally true." Doesn't seem comfortabel beyond a set line. Huckabee gives a moving explanation of truth, allegory and faith. OK, I hate this debate and these type of questions but I thought Rudy and Huckabee actually told us something and showed some depth. Wow. In a YouTube debate no less.
'Jesus Was Too Smart To Run For Public Office'
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:22PM
Huckabee with one of the lines of the night.
The Death Penalty
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:20PM
Toughest decision Huck ever had to make -- as a human being, that is. But it's hard to mock his answer.
Rudy on Roe
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:19PM
I'll have to wait for the transcript, but Giuliani just came as close as he ever has to saying he thought Roe was a bad decision and that abortion should be left to the states, while adding a qualifier along the lines of "if that's what the Court decides."
Abortion
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:19PM
Thompson's answer was a bit unclear but basically says it should go to the states. Rudy said would not sign a nationwide ban on abortion and would send back to the states if Supreme Court overturned Roe "becasue it was poorly decided." Also says he favors parental consent. Romney says he agrees with Thompson (which if you listened to Rudy was the same). Rudy was as good and clear as he has been in a debate on this.
Ron Paul
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:16PM
Not a cultural libertarian. Stop the presses, with all due respect to our colleagues at Reason.
Black on Black Crime
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:14PM
Huge question. Romney's answer is pretty good; family's important, of course it is. Giuliani's broken-window's approach is still sound. But this back and forth between them isn't fruitful. Will anyone speak to the importance of restoring political liberty to areas that have become stuntedly dependent on the administrative dole of Federal largesse?
Crime
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:13PM
Rudy says Romney has a mixed record( very accurate) that murder went up and burglary did too but overall crime went down. Rudy gets to tout his record, Compstat, etc. Best answer of the night. Romney concedes Rudy did a great job on crime and says he wasn't really responsible for crime as governor but did many good things like setting up a crime lab. This makes the whole back and forth this week silly since they both seem to agree Rudy was great on crime and Romney doesn't dispute the "mixed" characterization.
Rudy Booed
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:11PM
Calling for "reasonable" restrictions on guns (criminal background checks, in cases of insanity). Clearly rattled, Giuliani momentarily forgot the name of Judge Silberman, who wrote the Parker decision.
Rudy on Guns
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:10PM
Says he believes in Second Amendment rights and Judge Silberman's opinion. Thompson says Rudy supported gun restrictions and Rudy restates his support for right to own guns. Thompson in a folksy way ducks question on what guns he wons. McCain injects a note of seriousness --saying he knows how to use a gun.
Thompson's YouTube
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:05PM
The pure attack on Romney and Huckabee was kind of refreshing. "I just wanna give my buddies here a little more airtime." Nice.
I found Romney's answer on abortion a lot more credible than Huckabee's answer on taxes, but I don't know if people who don't already dislike Huckabee would have the same reaction.
Ca-Chunk
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:04PM
Careful with that gun, young man. Preposterous, yes. But populist in a looooong American tradition.
At the Break
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:01PM
This rather painful debate is almost half over. So far: McCain is strong and mature, Romney very aggressive and better than he has been, Huckabee is -- I don't mean to condescend-- a charming guy, Thompson is blending into the background(you want him to be better but he just isn't feisty enough for these) and Rudy did the most important thing he could tonight: give a darned good answer on the Hamptons issue. (I got protection cause people were trying to kill me and the cops did the accounting). On balance: McCain and Huckabee are helping themselves.
Romney's Abortion Flip-Flop Answer
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:00PM
He showed more humility by saying several times he was wrong, that he isn't perfect, that he hasn't always made the right decisions. It worked a lot better for him.
Romney on Abortion
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:58PM
Says on abortion "I was wrong" and says he came down on side of life as governor. Huckabee defends his tax record (if you didn't know all the details it works) with a folksy remark at the end.
Fred's "Campaign-Style" Ad
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:58PM
As funny as Chuck Norris, but so wrong. Not good enough for prime time, man.
Rudy's Response to the Hamptons Story
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:55PM
It will have to play out over the next few days as new details emerge, but I thought it was a solid and forceful answer to a potentially damaging bit of news.
Taxes
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:53PM
Fred and McCain have the right answer on The Pledge (sorry, Grover, you're so right but they're even righter), yet it's Ron Paul who's decisive. Tax cuts are mendacious with budget-busting spending in the gazillions. And the Laffer Curve does not suggest otherwise.
McCain's Ron Paul Moment
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:52PM
McCain's stirring on criticism of Ron Paul's opposition to Iraq and foreign policy views in general, delivered in a way that only he could, will play well with the base. Paul's response that McCain was confusing isolationism and non-intervention is sure to fire up Paul supporters.
Romney on Farm Subsidies
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:52PM
Those Massachusetts liberals can always come up with a good reason to spend the taxpayers' money. Like winning the Iowa caucuses, for example.
Rudy on Politico Story
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:52PM
Not true. I had 24 hour security. I had threats. I had nothing to do with the way they handled their records.
So Far
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:49PM
McCain seems weary (but I am too listening to this) and every inch the grown up he is.
McCain
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:47PM
Says no fair tax and goes after Ron Paul for 1930's isolationism which led to WW II. Big applause.
We All Know That
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:46PM
Is it me or does John McCain sound world-weary in most of his answers?
Ron Paul
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:46PM
Cooking with oil tonight. McCain is totally out of line comparing Iraq to WWII, whatever you think about the two engagements. Totally off base. McCain is an honorable man and his argument for 'letting us win' is not insane. But the rhetoric is inexcusable. I think tonight cements Ron Paul's place in the Serious League. His rebuttal speaks in terms everyone can understand, and the active-duty figures speak for themselves.
Romney's Internet Operation...
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:43PM
...Never stops ticking. They've already sent out a release disputing Giuliani's "New York City was not a sanctuary city" line, passing along this old NYT article.
Spending
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:43PM
McCain oozes credibility and seriousness on controlling spending. Romney says he took on entitlements and provided healthcare without taxes. Rudy lays out his plan: cuts, not replacing workers leaving the government payroll, and getting rid of programs not working. (All three good answers.) Thompson asked for top three programs to get rid of -- doesn't come up with any specific ones but says all of them on an OMB list and touts his social security reform plan. (He is saying the right things but lacks oomph.)
Ron's Conspiracies
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:38PM
This is very dangerous but necessary territory for him to traverse. It's a pretty solid answer. There should be no doubt, regardless what you think about the issues, that the foreign policy elite in the US has a more or less firm consensus about what expertise can and should do to guide America toward ever-more-formalized internationalism. Paul avoided rambling and noodleness. Sound, sane, fair. Good work.
Mitt Romney
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:37PM
Is really aggressive tonight. I don't whether his interruptions are a good thing or a bad thing.
Huck's Exceptionalism
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:36PM
A little rambling, a little unclear as to whom, if anyone, it actually applies. I'm sure there are some star kids of illegal immigrants out there. But the idea that if we 'help just one person' then a policy's good is not a good idea. Romney positioning himself as the guy in the path of a Rudy-Huck ticket? Would Huck really have been picking lettuce? His compassionate appeal is compassionate enough, but flies in the face of sound politics. Mitt makes the attempt to hold the line. It's the right line to hold. But the tide of helpy heroism is strong in this culture, and it may sweep all comers.
Huck vs. Romney
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:35PM
Huckabee explains his reasons for allowing illegal alien kids in Arkansas to earn college scholarships. Romney says "not your money" to give to illegals(rhetorically a good point) but Huckabee gets huge resposne for saying "we're a better country than punishing kids for what parents did." Huckabee's manner, if not his argument, is winning.
Confession
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:31PM
When the guys below 1% are talking I check out the email blasts. Lots from Romney on Rudy's past immigration statements. Thompson team boosts the argument Romney allowed sanctuary cities.
Immigration
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:28PM
McCain's attack on Bush's failures might yet transcend Romney's attempt to be the Change Guy. But the immigration bottom line seems to me straightforward enough:
(1) Stop illegal immigration cold.
(2) Make those illegals who want to be citizens citizens. As fast as possible.
(3) Insist that everyone working in the US should be a citizen. Sorry, free marketeers. This is important.
'86 All Over Again?
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:26PM
McCain just acknowledged that the federal government failed to enforce the border-security provisions of the 1986 amnesty. Maybe that's an easier explanation for why people were skeptical of his similar legislation than going into Katrina and Iraq.
Rudy Asked Sanctuary City
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:25PM
A semi-food fight broke out between Rudy and Romney with a whole lot of interrupting. The "sanctuary mansion" line was pretty effective but the crowd reaction mixed. Thompson on the next question points out Romney previously supported Bush immigration and then makes a vague jab at Kerik which seems odd and also gets scattered boos. Rudy reiterates the policy of New York just allowed kids to go to school, crimes to be reported and medical care reported. McCain says never proposed amnesty( not a good line).
Sanctuary Mansion
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:25PM
I thought Giuliani was on strong ground defending his immigration policies in New York City, but the attack on Romney's mansion was a bit silly, and I thought Romney got the better of that exchange. It's one thing to use Romney's illegal immigrant lawn care workers in a joke, but it's another thing to try and base a serious criticism on that.
Immigration
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:23PM
Romney and Giuliani are tearing each other's throats out over illegals; Fred Thompson is denouncing amnesty. Mission accomplished, Tom Tancredo -- time to drop out.
La Migra!
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:20PM
This is a good exchange. Gloves off, please. It's a fine line between stupid exchanges and real politics, but so far I think we're on the side of the latter. Nice this early.
This Song
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:15PM
Is painful, yeah, but something about this hits my populist nerve. Sigh. And the McCain couplet's cool.
Amatuer Musician
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:14PM
This guitarist is not improving my impression of the YouTube debate concept.
Start
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:14PM
I'm officially disgusted nine minutes in. The reject reel, the guitar guy. Good thing we aren't deciding anything serious like our next president.
Wow
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:13PM
They haven't even asked a question yet and this is already too inane for me.
Cheers
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:10PM
So Mitt, Huck, Ron, and Fred get pretty solid applause and Rudy not noticeably more. Anyone know how stacked this audience is?
Intros
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:05PM
I forgot about this annoying, time wasting CNN intro act. They better not go beyond 2 hours like they did for the Dems.
"It Sounds Ridiculous, But It's True"
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:05PM
At least one martial art-loving New Hampshire newspaper columnist has been swayed Huckabee's way by the Chuck Norris endorsement.
But what of Chuck Norris and Mike Huckabee's influence on our precious children?
Amateur Hour
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 8:04PM
SWEET JESUS this CNN pregame is unprofessional. Who are these kids? Vlogging blows this away without even trying.
Re: Rudy's Hampton Trips
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 7:39PM
Carl Cameron has a report and initial reponse from the Rudy
camp. (H/T The Page) It appears the Rudy camp will argue that the
issue is not the expenses themselves since the Mayor got 24/7
police protection but how the charges wound up in this agency's
account. Well, the legal issue may be that, but the reason for the
trips will not go unnoticed so this will not be a dreary tale of
accountants I imagine. Little gnomes remind us that there has also
been an ongoing issue of
Romney's out of state travel for campaign purposes which cost
the Massachusetts taxpayers over $100,000. Well, I think they'll be
some explaining, if not tonight, then very soon. UPDATE: More
here with Tony Carbonetti
explaining they will investigate and arguing that if the expenses
were intended to be "hidden" they would have just been dropped into
a NYPD security account.
Let's Hear It for the Peanut Farmer?
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 6:49PM
I'm here at the College Convention in Manchester, New Hampshire where Governor John Lynch just argued that the First in the Nation primary forces candidates to be authentic--um, evidence please?--and the fact that Jimmy Carter came here as a nobody and wound up President of the United States of America.
Lord, are these really the best arguments my fellow Granite Staters have for fighting tooth and nail to keep the first primary? I'd rather he argue we need the advertising revenue to rebuild our Great North trailer parks.
UPDATE: A student from Louisiana just asked Lynch if New Hampshire had any local cuisine like they have crawfish and gumbo. It should have been easy to hit this softball out of the park, but instead Lynch opted to preface his answer by asking the Louisiana contingent how man of them had experienced a hurricane. All the hands went up, obviously, and Lynch, smiling suggested they tell New Hampshire kids what hurricanes are like since Granite Staters don't have to worry about them. Then he added his kids liked pizza, even if that wasn't local.
Hmm...perhaps not in the best taste.
Re: Libertarians and War
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 6:36PM
Jim, your line of rhetorical questioning rings true to me. Wrestling with this meme, I've argued today that cries of 'overreach', like hindsight, are often 20/20. Libertarians, liberals, and conservatives alike probably would all still be cheering for the occupation of Iraq if a robust global coalition had done its duty under international law and coercively enforced 1441. Right?
Romney Ad
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 6:24PM
You may recall the Log Cabin Republicans did a faux Romney ad pointing out his past liberal positions. Now comes an ad from Republicans for Choice. They have a particular bone to pick with Romney since he personally represented to them and other pro-choice groups in 2002 that he would be their pro-choice champion. (An enterprising reporter looked at this back in February.) Romney's team played this as an attack by pro-Rudy and pro-abortion forces mad at his conversion to the pro-life cause. Well, that may be true but Thompson and Huckabee, not to mention McCain still benefit when voters get a reminder not only of Romney's very recent pro-choice stance, but the vigor with which he advocated that stance. But at this point I think there are few minds not made up. You either believe this (along with other examples of position flips) was the worst sort of political opportunism or you think this is a perfect example of the power of the pro-life message to chance hearts and minds.
Re: Libertarians and War
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 6:00PM
It seems to me that the intra-libertarian war debate was best captured by the exchange between Milton and Rose Friedman at the end of this Wall Street Journal interview. Libertarians who saw Iraq as a defensive war (like Rose) supported it, those who saw it as an aggressive war (like Milton) opposed it. I think it is fair to say that support for aggressive war is unlibertarian.
McArdle's point that the decision to wage war sometimes comes down to "sticky pragmatic arguments" is fair enough, but some of her claims about "real noninterventionists" are as tendentious as any Rothbardian's assertions about real libertarians. If one doesn't believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States, one cannot believe that Adolf Hitler was a threat? And as a matter of fact, most noninterventionist conservatives who were reluctant to fight Hitler -- Herbert Hoover, Robert Taft, even Charles Lindbergh -- supported rather than opposed U.S. entry into World War II after the attack by Japan. The America First Committee disbanded after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Even Ron Paul supported (with caveats) the U.S. invasion of Grenada, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and a military response to 9/11 well after it became clear that such a response would take the form of an invasion of Afghanistan. Are Taft and Paul, whatever else you might think of their foreign-policy views, phony noninterventionists?
Meanwhile
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 4:44PM
In this NH poll Romney is at 34%, Rudy 20%, McCain 13%, Paul 8%, Huckabee 7% and Thompson 2%. A third place finish in NH would likely end McCain's hopes. There is no impact yet from the start of Rudy TV ads. (The poll was taken over the Thanskgiving weekend as were a number of the polls we've blogged about today. If anyone has a "busy at the mall" advantage you can figure that in.)
Another Problem
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 4:10PM
This must be bad news day in the GOP field. This story suggests Judge Tuttman, before being appointed to the bench by Romney, was the responsible supervising prosecutor on a botched case in which a child rapist was released. Team Romney is mum so far. If true and this was missed in the vetting process in an attempt to find a "great woman" this is a problem -- I think we'd all agree. (And others think it's not the only problem for Romney.)
Libertarians and War
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 3:25PM
Megan McArdle eloquently punctures the "real libertarians are always anti-war" conceit.
Rudy's Hamptons Trips
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 3:24PM
The Politico has a potentially damaging story on Giuliani up, pointing to tens of thousands of dollars of security expenses that were racked up by New York City agencies when he visited the Hamptons as mayor, possibly to see Judith Nathan before he was separated from his second wife. This has the potential to be a perfect storm for Giuliani, because it undermines his emphasis on fiscal discipline, raises the issue of his messy personal life, and allows rivals to paint him as corrupt. This story is the main Drudge link, so it will get a lot of play. Stay tuned for more.
Re: Romney's Muslim Comments
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 2:42PM
Right now the Romney story is as much a bipartisan blogger story as anything else so I'm not sure it's a "MSM out to get a conservative" tale. But to be clear, it's not the worst possible story for Romney, it's just a bad one and coupled with other attacks is not what he needs. And James P., I entirely agree that to the extent this is a story, it is in large part due to this peculiar beating around the bush routine from his campaign. I don't get that at all.
UPDATE: Jim Geraghty has a new witness. Still no video or audio tape but the count is up to five witnesses (not all at the same event). At some point the Romney folks will need to decide if they will walk back whatever muddled sort of denials they put out there.
Grendel: Victim
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 2:39PM
Well, Hollywood has succeeded in portraying the greatest monster of all time as a victim (and the honorable hero as a macho bastard.) How long before modern-day monsters like Stalin and Pol Pot get a similar treatment?
Re: Hucakbee Leads Romney
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 2:32PM
Sometimes a chart really helps. Huckabee's climb is steeper than McCain's fall in Iowa. There are good reasons for it. Romney could of course still win but does beating Mike Huckabee by 2-5 pts. give him momentum? The biggest MSM headline out of Iowa will be( because the Dem coverage dominates) : " Hillary Wins!!" or "Inevitable No More!!" Most likely the next headline down will be either " Romney Squeaks By" or " Huckabee Topples Romney." Perhaps even a small win for Romney is enough to ride a wave into NH ( and maybe he just wins that state on his own) but is it a tsunami to carry him to February 5 ? A lot depends on what happens to the rest -- does McCain drop out if he doesn't win NH and his support drifts to Rudy or does Thompson fizzle, sending his support to Romney? If Huckabee is a near or real giant killer in Iowa does he become the guy to beat in SC? Bottom line: it is remarkable that Romney has spent millions in Iowa, worked as hard as he has and had hundreds of events and finds himself in a dog fight with Huckabee. Who'd have thought?
Re: Romney Muslim Comments
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 2:24PM
I take the points about Romney being in a poor position to be seen as either imposing a religious test for public office or engaged in some kind of post-Tuttman bean-counting. But I'm not sure anti-Muslim charges will outrage the Republican primary electorate. The Keith Ellison controversy, anyone?
Re: Romney Muslim Comments
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 2:12PM
Jennifer, I didn't argue that GOP voters like bigots, what I argued was that they don't like the media accusing a Republican candidate of being a bigot.
Huckabee Leads Romney in Iowa Poll
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 2:02PM
David Brody notes a new Rasmussen poll showing Huckabee edging out Romney in Iowa, 28-25. While Iowa caucus polls are notoriously unreliable, as best we can tell at this point, what we have is a two-way race for first and second between Huckabee and Romney, and a two-way race for third and fourth between Giuliani and Thompson (Rudy currently has the slight advantage 12-11) .
Given how many resources Romney has put into Iowa, a loss there would be devestating. In an odd way, the Huckabee surge could be good news for him, because it lowers expectations, enabling him to get a bounce out of any win, whereas before only a huge margin would suffice.
As for Giuliani, with Thompson likely to spend more time and money in Iowa, fourth is a realistic possibility. Given that he's now making a play for New Hampshire, can he afford to be that far back going into the primary without being damaged?
If Fred were to come in fourth, then potentially lose to Ron Paul in New Hampshire, will he even make it to South Carolina, where he's been slipping?
Re: Romney Muslim Comments
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 2:00PM
In a fit of pique I filed this blog post ridiculing the Great Romney Muslim Controversy. But, reading the back and forth here closely, I now realize that my irritation also extends to the Romney camp's inability to put the kibosh on things in a clear and convincing manner. That's partially the result of the inane and paranoid smog ('racist against Muslims!') that's sicklied over the whole diversity question in this country. But it's also the result of a glitch in the Romney matrix. So please take my post to suggest what the Romney camp ought to say, not what they did say, or actually sense, or really feel, or....
Contain Your Shock
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 1:59PM
Oliver Willis's reaction: "As one of President Clinton's strongest supporters and biggest fans, it pains me to point out that what he's saying here is a load of bull." If the Clintons return to the White House, Willis and his intellectually honest co-partisans are going to have to get used to this. Maybe Hillary should borrow a campaign slogan from Brian De Palma: "Here Comes the Pain!"
Bay State Republican Crack-Up
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 1:55PM
Ah, these criticisms of Mitt Romney by Paul Cellucci and Joe Malone bring back memories -- of when Cellucci and Malone were running against each other for the Massachusetts Republican gubernatorial nomination in 1998. A big part of Malone's campaign was charging Cellucci with being a big spender, like Michael Dukakis. With the early '90s budget crisis resolved and the surpluses rolling in, spending was starting to rise at two to three times the rate of inflation.
Cellucci and Malone also had a race to see who could endorse a rollback of the state income tax rate to 5 percent faster. Malone ended up endorsing the rollback first, but it was Gov. Cellucci who helped pass the ballot measure that made it a reality -- almost. The Democratic legislature froze the voter-approved rollback at 5.3 percent in 2002, during what would have still been Cellucci's term if he hadn't up and moved to Canada to serve as an ambassador.
I'll give Cellucci credit for helping to knock down the income tax rate from 5.85 percent to 5.3 percent. But it was under his handpicked successor, Jane Swift, that the Democrats derailed the voters' decision to have it go all the way back down to the pre-Dukakis 5 percent.
Re: Romney Muslim Comments
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 1:46PM
I think stories about religion as a criteria for office, about Romney's credibility and consistency(who exactly does the religious test apply to?), about selecting on a non-merit basis(which includes Judge Tuttman) are not helpful. He has bigger issues including Huckabee in Iowa and the targeting of his record in Massachsuetts but this doesn't help. And I actually don't think GOP voters like bigots or people who appeal to bigotry nor do they like selection by "bean counting" to include members of this or that group so in the end a "I don't like these people in my Cabinet" stance is a loser. ( On that score, I think McCain was pretty much pitch perfect on the issue today in the call.)
Re: Romney Muslim Comments
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 1:16PM
Jennifer, honestly, do you really think Romney is going to be hurt in a Republican primary because the liberal media is accusing him of being anti-Muslim? Even if some of those taking issue with his account are Republican, you know it will be easy for his campaign to spin the incident as the politically correct police attacking a conservative. Like I said, if there's audio or video evidence contradicting his current account, it becomes a matter of honesty, and feeds into the flip-flopper charge. But for now, I think he's okay.
Re: Romney Muslim Comments
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 1:08PM
I think if it was a he said-he said you would be right, Phil. But we now have I think four different people saying the same thing and no flat denial from Romney. The latter is odd, as I and others have commented, and clearly his opponents as McCain did today will use it as a wedge to make an affirmative action argument. For those who think Romney is not the most straightforward candidate in the race the fencing with the media likely doesn't help put their minds at ease. How long the story brews and how serious it becomes depends on who else steps forward and whether Romney can give a definitive and credible response. For now, the story continues to bubble along. But it's probably not as problematic as a new poll showing him behind in Iowa.
Pre-Debate Jabs
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 12:51PM
Former Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci is the headliner
for the Rudy pre-debate email blast which quotes Cellucci as
saying: "Not only was Mitt Romney unsuccessful in cutting taxes, he
raised them. Fees went up, government spending went up, and we
still don't know just how much his universal health care plan will
cost Massachusetts for generations to come. By any measure, Mitt
Romney was unable to bring about the fiscal discipline in
Massachusetts that Mayor Rudy Giuliani brought to New York City."
They then recite the litany of "fee increases" and "loophole
closings" passed by Romney and focus on the rising costs associated
with RomneyCare and the contention that his healthcare plan
included a "tax." They include for example: ""This is certainly a
tax increase on business,' declared Mike Tanner, health-care
analyst at the free-market Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. He
called the requirement that everyone get health insurance
'unprecedented in terms of government interference in people's
lives.'" (Brett Amends, "For Romney, Reforms May Be Just What
Doctor Ordered," Boston Herald, 4/6/06). And this: "The impact of
this law on employers is substantial … [T]he reality is that
the $295 penalty is small potatoes compared with the other
obligations in the law. Say, for example, you open a restaurant and
don't provide health coverage. If the chef's spouse or child is
rushed to the hospital and can't pay because they don't have
insurance, you -- the employer -- are responsible for up to 100% of
the cost of that medical care. There is no cap on your obligation.
Once the costs reach $50,000, the state will start billing you and
fine you $5,000 a week for every week you are late in filling out
the paperwork on your uncovered employees ... These provisions are
onerous enough to motivate the owners of small businesses to limit
their full-time workforce to 10 people, or even to lay employees
off." (Betsy McCaughey, "Romneycare's Fine Print," The Wall Street
Journal, 5/5/06)
They also make the argument that the state tax burden rose
10.75% from 2002-2006 under Romney and that "recommended budgets"
grew by over 22% between 2003 and 2007. Team Romney has yet to
respond but in the past they have insisted that fee increases and
loophole closings are not "tax increases." Romney has of course not
proposed RomneyCare as a national plan but he and his spokesmen
have vigorously defended it and the individual mandate.
Romney's Muslim Comment
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 12:49PM
Given the lack of either video or audio as to what Romney actually said, I don't think this will be a problem for him. As long as he sounds reasonable now, sticking to his current statement that what he was really saying was that we didn't need a Muslim cabinet member to fight terrorism, he'll be fine. If video or audio emerges contradicting his current account, that could be a problem. But right now, politically speaking, I think it's a non-issue.
McCain Ribs Bill Clinton on Iraq Comment
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 12:39PM
John McCain implied this morning that Bill Clinton's statement that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning was motivated by Barack Obama catching Hillary Clinton in
"It's hard for me to gauge what the former president does, I just don't understand this revelation at this particular point in time, I'm sure it's all coincidental," McCain said sarcastically during a blogger call this morning, in response to a question by Townhall's Matt Lewis. "What this is going to lead to is a full examination of his handling of Osama bin Laden, other threats, the North Korean situation—his much trumpeted agreement—and others. I sure it's all just pure coincidence that he should have to mention that at this particular moment as Senator Obama closes on Sen. Clinton in Iowa."
McCain also spoke about his recent trip in
Asked about his past opposition to the Bush tax cuts, he argued that when he opposed them in 2001 he was concerned that they wouldn't be accompanied by spending reductions, and in 2003 he had reservations about cutting taxes while going to war in
I asked McCain for his take on the Annapolis Conference, but he said he hasn't followed it as closely as he should have, so he doesn't have a comment. He said it is good to emphasize that
McCain on the Campaign
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 12:26PM
McCain's just completed blogger call had a mix of Iraq and campaign questions. (Phil will have more later.) I asked him about Iowa and whether his poor standing in the polls there posed a problem for his effort and whether he would back out. He candidly admitted that "we're having difficulty" there, mentioning his opposition to ethanol subsidies. He said he was "struggling" but that his ground team was strong and he intended to participate in the Iowa debate in December. He then made the argument that it is all about "beating expectations" and jousting to be the "comeback kid." He gave no indication he would pull out of Iowa at this stage. I asked about the reports alleging that Romney would not want a Muslim in his cabinet. He said forcefully that "we need to take the highest and best qualified people." He asserted that since we have Muslims serving in the armed forces there is no reason why they could not serve in any capacity in government. He then analogized to the Judge Tuttman situation, pointing out that Romney had said "we needed more women" and reiterated his(McCain's) intention to make merit based appointments. Later in the call Jim Geraghty asked if it would be "useful" to have a Muslim in the cabinet. McCain carefully responded that he would certainly call on the Muslim community for advice but that the decision to staff cabinet positions would be made on the basis of background, expertise, etc. Jim asked specifically about Zalmay Khalilzad. McCain said he had been in the position of ambassador to Iraq because of his experience and qualifications, not his religion, just as Ambassador Crocker was chosen for expertise.
No Compassion for Conservatives
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 11:45AM
Yuval Levin spoke at a forum for Michael Gerson's Heroic Conservatism. Ross Douthat posts a lengthy excerpt, which includes a defense of fiscal conservatives, who Gerson mischaracterizes and mistreats throughout his book.
I reviewed Heroic Conservatism in the December/January issue of TAS. Read and let me know if I was too compassionate a conservative.
Re: What Did He Say?
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 11:29AM
Yet another account seems to confirm Romney isn't keen on Muslims in his cabinet. Others are remarking on the curious state of non-denial responses. If you have multiple folks making the same claim the choices are: 1) they are all in cahoots and lying, 2) I made a mistake, or 3) What I meant was X. By tonight at 8pm Romney will need to pick which one.
Romney and Rudy Ups and Downs
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 10:38AM
Romney has good news and Rudy bad news from a SC poll. In Florida the latest poll, as Phil points out, has Rudy up 21 pts and his RCP average lead over 16 pts.
NRO offers the advice many of us have to Romney on immigration-- stay away from the sanctuary city argument which allows Rudy to explain that he was encouraging illegals to report crimes. Especially now when the crime issue has been reintroduced this seems like wise advice. Indeed, Rudy may now wants to point out that Romney's criticism was misplaced and reflects poorly on the judgment of his rival.
Meanwhile the battle of the records goes on with Rudy circulating this story which says: "The study, released today by the Massachusetts Institute for a New Economy, or MassINC, finds Massachusetts is still far from recovering the jobs lost in the recession that began in 2001. Six years later, the state still has 100,000 jobs to go." (Rudy surrogates are holding a press conference in Boston today likely to taunt Romney about this.)
Can His Pro-Choice Views Actually Help Rudy in FL?
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 10:32AM
A new CNN/Opinion Research poll of likely Republican primary voters in Florida, in addition to showing Giuliani with a 21-point lead, finds that just 20 percent believe that abortion abortion should not be legal under any circumstances, while 34 percent say it should be legal in "all" or "most" cases. Does this make Giuliani's lead in Florida more stable, allowing him to stave off early defeats and gain a big win heading into Feb. 5? Hard to say, because another 43 percent of the GOP electorate in the Sunshine State says that abortion should be legal in "few" cases, but it doesn't specify what "few" means. When "few" means only in cases of rape and incest, that is considered an effectively pro-life position, whereas if "few" means in the first trimester, it would be an effectively pro-choice position. Needless to say, it's an interesting result, because one argument that pundits have been making is if the race gets narrowed down to a two-man race between Mitt "three-legged stool" Romney and pro-choice Giuliani, Romney will win. This Florida poll suggests it may not be as simple as that.
As for the horse race numbers, Giuliani was at 38 percent in the poll, followed by Romney comfortably at second at 17. This poll also had another poor result for Fred Thompson, because he was supposed to give Giuliani a run for his money here, and now he's dropped into a third place tie with John McCain at 11. Mike Huckabee, who came in second in a Florida poll we mentioned yesterday, was back to his more traditional fifth place in this poll at 9 points, and Ron Paul was at 5. Also worth keeping in mind that two-thirds of voters remain undecided.
Yes, Huck's Record is That Bad
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:25AM
Yet another solid article comes out examining Mike Huckabee's real record. Read it.... and wonder when the other candidates and the national TV media are going to hold Huckabee to account.
Fund on English
Posted by on 11.28.07 @ 9:13AM
Our friend John Fund's latest column is absolutely essential reading for all who care about maintaining a common culture and for all who care about protecting private entities from crazy lawsuits and meddlesome rules. Sen. Lamar Alexander has offered an amendment to protect great organizations such as the Salvation Army from lawsuits over English-only policies -- but Nancy Pelosi, predictably, is blocking the amendment. Not only is Alexander right on substance, but (to add to what Fund says) Newt Gingrich has repeatedly highlighted in recent years that "official English" policies are overwhelmingly popular with the American people, including with citizens of Hispanic origin. Do read John's piece to find out more.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Ready To Rumble
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 10:19PM
Tomorrow's debate will likely be a brawl with the Rudy-Romney face off on crime, taxes and healthcare as well as the Judge Tuttman story still brewing not to mention the Muslims in the cabinet story. This may be a three-ring circus but it could be critical for the Iowa and NH contests which finally are within sight.
Marc Ambinder does a fine recap of the issues plaguing Romney in Iowa to which I would add just a couple of items: 1) Thompson's failure to catch fire there and elsewhere left a good chunk of down to earth, regular-guy and gal conservatives ripe for the picking. Huckabee was rising at the right time and I think caught a number of these voters on the rebound. 2) There is an element of class and geography at work here-- Romney is the millionaire from Massachusetts and Huckabee is the neighbor from Arkansas. In that regard the Club for Growth crusade against Huckabee, regardless of the merit of the Club's arguments and their impact nationally, may do little to harm and indeed may help Huckabee as he plays the local underdog under attack from Wall Street. (It would be nice if elections were fought on the merits of conservative policies but let's get real.) Huckabee makes a funny analogy here to explain it himself.
Romney will likely be in everyone's line of fire (who doesn't benefit from having him lose in Iowa?) so how well he withstands the onslaught may help voters decide just how tough he is. More importantly, we'll see if he learned anything in the empathy department.
The New Fusionism
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 7:54PM
Fusing Giuliani and Huckabee into a single candidate.
If You Can't Lick 'Em, Vote Huckabee
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 7:50PM
Adam Thierer wonders if there might not be something contradictory about Mike Huckabee expressing concern about moral decay and the decline of Western civilization while also trumpteting the endorsements of Chuck Norris, Ric Flair, and Ted "Cat Scratch Fever" Nugent.
Re: What Did He Say?
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 6:05PM
Campaign Spot spoke to Mansoor Ijaz who asked Romney the Muslims in the cabinet question. Ijaz's response sounded credible but Romney disputes his account. Then comes this: a separate account by two Republicans at a separate fundraiser who say Romney made a "no Muslims in the cabinet" remark which they took as racist. So is this an affirmative action story or a discrimination story or a credibility story? If the remarks were made there are other folks who heard them so the Romney team would be well advised to answer fully and completely with first, last and final explanation of what their candidate meant. Republican voters are serious about terrorism and the threat of Islamic fundamentalism but I see no evidence they would be receptive to this viewpoint which as David Frum has pointed out would eliminate one of the most qualified foreign policy experts around.
UPDATE: Did Romney make the statements? Spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom doesn't quite answer but says this: "Governor Romney doesn't hire people solely based on their religion, race or ethnicity. As governor, Mitt Romney had a diverse Cabinet with women and minorities. There were people of many different backgrounds in senior positions, and they were selected based on their skills and qualifications. That's the same approach he'll bring to the White House."
UPDATE 2: I tried one more time. What about these three poeple
who have specific allegations? "What Governor Romney typically says
is that he doesn't have a quota box that he checks off for Muslims
or any other minority. He hires the most qualified people,
irrespective of their ethnic or religious background." Well that
clears up things.
Annapolis: Disaster, or Harmless Waste of Time?
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 5:48PM
There's been an interesting back-and-forth today over at Contentions about the Annapolis Conference. Noah Pollak more or less takes Jeff Emanuel's view -- that the Bush administration has taken a dramatic wrong turn. John Podhoretz is more sanguine:
I discern, in the end, very little change [in US policy], despite the worries. The open evidence so far indicates that the low-expectations summit has in fact met its low expectations, with the "lots of other nations present" business proving essentially meaningless except as a bragging point for the diplomats who got them there and a shopping opportunity for them and their wives at outlet malls and Tysons Corner. That doesn't mean the State Department wouldn't like it otherwise. But that doesn't seem to be the story of this summit. If we've seen the worst of Annapolis - and I grant you we may not have; we won't know for a few days - I think we can actually breathe a sigh of relief.That seems right to me. As far as I can tell, this exercise on the Chesapeake is worthless, but ultimately inconsequential.
Re: Romney v. Rudy On Crime
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 3:20PM
Phil, you are right of course, that Romney doesn't want to get into an argument with Rudy about crime stats. The Tuttman story gave Rudy the opening to talk about his strong suit (and others to leap into the affirmative action debate) but Romney did not need to take the bait. Stories like this suggest maybe Judge Tuttman was not in the wrong (good for Romney that his judge wasn't a liberal wimp but bad since he instantly threw her under the bus) but also that crime was not a top priority for Romney. Every minute spent on this by Romney is not spent on immigration, or taxes or fending off Huckabee. That is perhaps the biggest downside for him of a story like this.
Concerns About The YouTube Debate
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 3:11PM
I have always been an opponent of these YouTube debates, and like Jim Geraghty, I am especially concerned about the timing of tomorrow's showdown. Right now, the Republican race is entering a phase in which the candidates are really starting to take their gloves off and go after each other. More than ever, we need a trained journalist to moderate the discussion and ask pointed questions drawing out the contrast among the candidates. Instead, we'll have to suffer through the spectacle of snowmen asking questions. The democratization of the media has produced a lot of wonderful results, but sometimes it's best to leave things to professionals. Hopefully I'm proven wrong.
Romney Hits Rudy As The Man Without A Plan
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 2:49PM
With Rudy Giuliani taking aim at RomneyCare for imposing an individual mandate, Team Romney hits back by saying that Giuliani doesn't even have a specific healthcare plan, only "a vision." They also hit Giuliani for statements he made on his radio show as mayor, in which he had positive things to say about HillaryCare in 1994:
UPDATE:Flashback: Mayor Giuliani Supported HillaryCare In 1994:
In 1994, Mayor Giuliani Praised The Clinton Health Care Plan As "Doing Some Pretty Good Things." " In 1994, Mr. Giuliani ... saluted the Clinton health care plan as 'doing some pretty good things' and boasted that New York offered 'universal health care,' not least for illegal immigrants. 'Isn't it better they get some humane treatment for themselves?' Mr. Giuliani told a caller." (Michael Powell, "Giuliani Pulled No Punches On The Radio," The New York Times, 10/5/07)
Giuliani spokeswoman Katie Levinson responds:
"Campaign Trail Mitt Romney is once again standing
in a glass house with a bunch of stones in his hands. Governor Mitt
Romney passed a mandate and tax hike laden health care plan in
Massachusetts which Hillary Clinton's own legislative director said
was just like Hillarycare. Rudy Giuliani, on the other hand, fought
to find free market, private solutions to the health care
challenges New York City faced and he has the record to back it
up."
Re: What Did He Say?
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 2:16PM
Romney clarifies here. If that's the "real" Romney that's pretty good. The best comments on the subject of race and affirmative action in recent years, of course, belong to Chief Justice Roberts: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." And: "It's a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."
UPDATE: A rival says when running for Senate Romney was in the gender boasting business and wanted companies to count employees by race (so they could be harranged, apparently).
Re: Huckabee In Second
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 2:03PM
It's worth noting that in most Florida polls, Huckabee is in the 8-10 percent range, in fifth place.
Huckabee in Second
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 1:20PM
In Florida. Rudy 26%, Huckabee 17%, McCain 13%, Romney 12% and Thompson 9%.
UPDATE: Given Huckabee is clearly the second place guy in Iowa as well does it make sense for Romney to ignore him in his first "contrast" mailing on social issues? It would seem at some point Romney is going to have to either say "I'm better on social issues" and take value voters away from Huckabee or say "I'm better on everything else" in a Rudy like appeal (politics is filled with irony) but ignoring the elephant in the room seems foolhardy in light of where they stand in the polls.
UPDATE 2: Another Iowa poll showing Huckabee(24%) with in 2 pts of Romney, Rudy in third(14%), then Thompson(10%) and McCain(7%). Thompson's TV ads do not seem to have pulled him up, at least not yet.
What Did He Say?
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 11:53AM
Does Romney really think divorced people
shouldn't be president and Muslims don't get a cabinet seat until
their percentage of the population increases? Some people
are
insulted or
amazed by the former.
As to the latter issue, Romney appeared to say that
Muslims should only be
in lower level positions, not the cabinet given their percentage of
the population. In light of the recent tussle over whether Judge
Tuttman was really an affirmative action hire I found this hard to
believe( even more so since Romney of all people should immediately
rule out religion as an disqualifier for public office) so I asked
spokesman Kevin Madden about it. He directed me to this from
Romney's CNN appearance: "... But I also think that suggesting that
we have to fill spots based on checking off boxes of various ethnic
groups is really a very inappropriate way to think about how we
staff positions. I'm very pleased that, among my Cabinet members,
for instance, I had several African-American individuals. I had
people of different backgrounds. But I don't go in every
circumstance I'm in and say, OK, how many African-Americans, how
many Hispanic-Americans, how many Asian-Americans, and fill boxes
that way. I fill responsibilities based upon people's merit and
their skill. And, sometimes, it includes many ethnic minorities.
And, other times, it includes different minorities. But I'm very
pleased with my record." Madden also added: "At this point, we're
not focused on what Governor Romney's cabinet might look like. But
the Governor does not believe that in order to effectively fight
radical jihad you need to have Muslims serving in the Cabinet."
Well, "need" to have them may not be the root of the problem. If
the CNN statement is the "real" Romney answer that is reassuring;
if the "wait until they get a higher percentage in the population"
is the answer that is deeply troubling. Of course, a rival camp
thinks the latter is the "real" Romney, offering this: "Today we
learn that this guy is not sure whether or not he'll appoint folks
based on the specific percentage of people of a certain background?
Does merit not matter? Or should any African American, Hispanic
American or Asian American appointments be worried they only can
get a job in a Romney administration based on their percentage of
the population? That sounds like a Hillary cabinet, affirmative
action based, not one determined by a businessman's acumen to find
the very best."
Romney vs. Rudy on Crime
Posted by on 11.27.07 @ 11:06AM
It's quite silly of the Romney camp to let themselves get dragged into a debate with Giuliani over their records on fighting crime, because any discussion only draws attention to Giuliani's greatest strength.
Team Romney is arguing that their man had a good record on crime as governor because violent crimes overall dropped 8 percent. However, the mother of all violent crimes-murder-jumped 7.5 percent.
Over at NRO, Plymouth Country, Massachusetts D.A. Tim Cruz defended the Romney crime record. But his defense of Romney could actually be used to help bolster the case for Giuliani.
Cruz writes:
To address the growing murder rate in the City of
Boston - what Governor Romney termed an "epidemic" and a "serious
crisis" - he offered to have State Police troopers assist Boston
police officers with patrol duties. He provided an immediate influx
of $700,000 in state aid to faith-based and community groups
working to solve this problem by diverting young people away from
activities that lead to violence, particularly gang
membership.
Cruz left out one crucial fact-that during Romney's time as governor, murders in Boston jumped 25 percent, according to FBI statistics. At every stop on the campaign trail, Giuliani points out that what separates him from his rivals is that others talk about what they're going to do, but he actually gets results. Here we have a case in which Romney called something an "epidemic" and "serious crisis" and took action to address the problem, but the problem he sought to address got far worse.
Deroy Murdock has a useful comparison of the Giuliani and Romney crime records:
While it's tricky to compare a four-year
governorship with an eight-year mayoralty, the FBI's Uniform Crime
Statistics illuminate Romney's and Giuliani's records on law and
order. While murders grew 7.5 percent in Massachusetts during
Romney's 2002 - 2006 gubernatorial term, they plunged 66.7 percent
across Giuliani's two mayoral terms (1993 - 2001). Burglaries rose
5.8 percent under Romney and slid 68.2 percent under Giuliani.
While robberies climbed 12.3 percent on Romney's watch, Giuliani
supervised a 67.2 percent reduction in robberies. As Romney saw a
32.5 percent reversal in motor-vehicle theft, such crimes cratered
73.3 percent under Giuliani. Overall, Romney's crime index fell 8.2
percent, while Giuliani's tumbled 56.1 percent.
The Romney campaign should find a way to change the subject, and fast.