- 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 8, 2007
Re: Romney Ad
Posted by on 12.8.07 @ 11:51PM
This is worth the five minutes it takes to watch (or watch again if it's been awhile since you last saw a clip from this 2002 debate) and raises the question as to why in a YouTube world Romney would run an ad which says "When it wasn't politically correct, he stood up for life in Massachusetts." The entire point of the ad is to say he was consistent and that is just plainly false. So why run an ad like this? I must say it is rather unnerving to see him ridicule his opponent with such emotion for suggesting he might not stick to his then pro-choice position.
Univision Debate
Posted by on 12.8.07 @ 10:57PM
How much will we hear about sanctuary cities and mansions? Will we play "gotcha" quote with the candidates past statements on immigration. And will someone ask Romney what he meant in the last debate by: "If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, I want to see your papers. Is that what you're suggesting?" ("Funny accent"?)
In all seriousness this is a tricky proposition for the
candidates who have all frankly shown some "evolution" in their
views ( some more extreme than others and some with better
explanations for their shifts) and must balance their tough appeal
on illegal immigration to the conservative base without going over
the top and undermining their shot in Florida, for example, with a
significant Hispanic population. (Notice, that
Marco Rubio the powerful Florida Speaker of the House who was
courted for months by Romney Florida chair Al Cardenas did announce
his endorsement -- for Mike Huckabee.)
First Oprah....
Posted by on 12.8.07 @ 5:51PM
Looks like Chuck Norris is going to the Granite State for an event called...Huck and Chuck.
Huckabee's Authoritarian Streak
Posted by on 12.8.07 @ 4:57PM
The idea that Mike Huckabee as U.S. Senate candidate in 1992 would have advocated the draconian step of quarantining AIDS patients is appalling. It not only displays a shocking ignorance, but is further evidence of authoritarian tendencies in Huckabee that we have already seen in his support for big government, nanny state policies, such as a national smoking ban in workplaces.
Huckabee's defense, which I posted below, that "In the late 80's and early 90's we were still learning about the virus that causes AIDS," is highly misleading. It is true that during the initial AIDS hysteria in the 1980s, all sorts of false information was being spread by the media, including the now laughable idea that AIDS could be caught by using public toilet seats. But by 1992, it had been well established that AIDS could not be transmitted by casual contact-I was even taught this when I was in high school at the time. The idea high school students would have a better understanding of what causes AIDS than a man running for the U.S. Senate-and a man now seeking the presidency-is alarming.
But beyond the ignorance, what is also troubling in Huckabee's statement below is that he says, "In the absence of conclusive data, my focus was on efforts to limit the exposure of the virus…" This is inexcusable. The idea of quarantining U.S. citizens is such a massive violation of civil liberties, that the only way you would even consider it would be if there were conclusive evidence about the spread of a deadly, untreatable, easily communicable disease, without a cure, that would wipe out millions of people imminently if it were not quickly contained. The idea that "in the absence of conclusive data" Huckabee's instinct would be to advocate the most draconian policy imaginable, is, frankly, scary.
Huckabee Statement on AIDS Qurantine Story
Posted by on 12.8.07 @ 4:27PM
The Huckabee campaign has just passed on the following statement:
Before a disease can be cured and contained we need to know exactly how and with near certainty what level of contact transmits the disease. There was still too much confusion about HIV transmission in those early years. Recall that in 1991, Kimberly Bergalis testified in front of Congress after contracting HIV from her dentist, and that summer a study was published showing that HIV was transmitted through breastmilk more easily than had been thought. But the federal government provided some guidelines: Also in 1991 the Centers for Disease Control recommended restrictions on the practice of HIV-positive health care workers.
At the time, there was widespread concern over modes of transmission and the possibility of epidemic. In the absence of conclusive data, my focus was on efforts to limit the exposure of the virus, following traditional medical practices developed from our public health experience and medical science in dealing with tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.
We now know that the virus that causes AIDS is spread differently, with a lower level of contact than with TB. But looking back almost 20 years, my concern was the uncertain risk to the general population - if we got it wrong, many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political correctness last.
My administration will be the first to have an overarching
strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States,
with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will
provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals.
We must prevent new infections and provide more accessible care. We
must do everything possible to transform the promise of a vaccine
and a cure into reality.
Furthermore, I am proud that the United States has led the global
battle against HIV/ AIDS. We have both a strategic interest as the
world's only superpower and a moral obligation as the world's
richest country to continue to do so until this scourge is a
memory.
I supported the current Administration's proposal to double our
initial commitment from $15 billion to $30 billion over the next
five years for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR). PEPFAR has already done an extraordinary amount of good,
by providing drugs for over a million people and care for
four-and-a-half million people, but it expires in 2008 and must be
reauthorized. I support an increase in our commitment to the Global
Fund. Through PEPFAR and the Global Fund, we can do our fair share
to meet the Millennium Development Goals we affirmed in 2000, which
include universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and
care."
Newsweek's Gift to Romney?
Posted by on 12.8.07 @ 1:48PM
Marc Ambinder suggests that the latest Newsweek poll, showing Huckabee way out in front in Iowa, may actually help Romney by lowering expectations for the caucuses. I think that's right, and I'd also add this: Newsweek's pollsters have had a consistently lousy track record over the past several election cycles. Their methodology seems to encourage wild swings that don't show up in other polls. This poll may therefore drive the CW to discount Romney's chances by an overstated margin.
Not Just DuMond
Posted by on 12.8.07 @ 11:27AM
Re: Romney Ad
Posted by on 12.8.07 @ 10:03AM
Friday, December 7, 2007
Re: Romney Ad
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 9:36PM
The Thompson campaign gets into the act with this release:
"Romney: Believer of Convenience
'Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire
of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.'
-- Gov. Mitt Romney
We Couldn't Agree More...
Mitt Romney released a new TV ad today where he says he stood firm
for things that were 'politically incorrect.' Here's what the media
is saying:
"A bigger threat to [Romney's] Republican presidential candidacy,
advisers say, is a record of policy flip-flops and nagging doubts
about his credibility." (AP, 12/6/07)
"This Iowa ad attempts to defuse criticism of Mitt Romney as a
flip-flopper who changed his stance on key social issues. But it
engages in revisionist history to do so. (Washington Post,
12/07/07)
"Mitt Romney's latest ad, 'Not Politically Correct,' may have some
people wondering if the TV spot is strategically correct because it
outlines positions that may renew charges of flip-flopping. (New
York Times, 12/07/07)
"When he was running for governor, however, Mr. Romney stuck to a
socially liberal platform, including supporting abortion rights.
Mr. Romney has said repeatedly during this election cycle that his
position evolved. He's also been criticized for his past record
supporting gay rights. (New York Times, 12/07/07)
"Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 on a pledge to
support abortion rights. To portray him as a champion of life at
the time is simply misleading.... But the ad's suggestion that
Romney was a consistent opponent of abortion is not supported by
his record....
"The commercial appears to be aimed at reassuring evangelical
Christian voters that Romney took bold stances on issues important
to them. But it relies on a selective reading of his record.
(Washington Post, 12/07/07)"
Team Thompson so far has focused on Huckabee in Iowa but this volley at Romney-- too tempting perhaps to bypass-- may be an indication that Thompson may now think he has a shot at Romney. If the Newsweek poll is to be believed he is within striking range.
Re: Iowa News
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 5:43PM
I'll Drink to That
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 4:07PM
Michael Moynihan notes good news from Baghdad: As Islamist militants have retreated, it's become safe to buy alcohol again. The story of one shopkeeper, who has defiantly re-opened across the street from where the Mahdi Army burned down his old store, prompts this exchange in the comments:
Conhugeco | December 7, 2007, 2:21pm | #Heh.Paulus Ishaq, a Christian liquor salesman - I wonder what his life insurance rates are?
ed | December 7, 2007, 2:24pm | #
Doesn't matter. He's going to heaven.
Appeasing Iran?
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 4:06PM
Right on schedule, the accommodationists have begun to come out of the woodwork. Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh -- the always-predictable CFR's resident Iran hands -- had a piece in yesterday's International Herald Tribune laying out their ironclad logic for cutting a deal with Iran's ayatollahs. Here's a sampling: "Iran, as the National Intelligence Estimate noted, is hardly the radical power determined to upend the regional order. Iran is an unexceptionally opportunistic state seeking to assert predominance in its immediate neighborhood... The task is to conceive a situation in which Iran would want to be contained - in other words, one in which it would see benefits in limiting its ambitions and abiding by prevailing norms."
This argument would actually be quaint if it wasn't being taken quite so seriously. After all, until very recently, the idea that Iran's radical regime can be bribed into a cooperative mood had been the driver of Europe's Iran policy. We all know how that has turned out.
To my mind, the real question here is whether -- now that regime change, military action, and comprehensive international sanctions are all essentially off the table -- there is anything that we can actually offer the Iranians that is more attractive than their current circumstance. My personal suspicion is that the regime there thinks it has things pretty good at the moment, thank you very much.
Bow Tie Blues
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 3:18PM
Okay, so I signed up for the Save Tucker updates because I love Carlson's writing of yore, I very much enjoyed his book and, when I have time in the afternoon, his show is usually one of the most sensible. No apologies! But this list of bulletpoints Save Tucker just sent along for those looking to write NBC letters are nonetheless pretty entertaining.
- MSNBC claims to be balanced and fair News Organization. Canceling TUCKER would silence an important and entertaining Conservative voice.
- Instead of lurching to the left, MSNBC should provide a balance to Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Dan Abrams.
- Tucker Carlson is being canceled because he presents a conservative point of view. Tucker Carlson has brought conviviality, manners and an unfailing sense of humor to talk Television. Tucker treats guests from both left and right with respect and spirited debate.
- This is an ideological purge and an attempt to target younger views by shifting MSNBC to the far left. MSNBC will lose viewers if Tucker Carlson is canceled.
- Does MSNBC want to be the next Air America?
My guess is this isn't the sort of stuff that NBC execs are going to care about. They also forwarded a link to a story speculating about the possibility that the disappearance of Tucker's bow tie might have been the result of an order from the corporate paymasters.
Romney Ad
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 2:06PM
Romney is trying out a new ad in Iowa entitled "Not Politically Correct." He uses that term I think because it is a buzz word/phrase with conservatives but he really means "expedient" or "convenient" -- but those words may be a bit too close for comfort. The ad goes after his "conviction" issue and is certainly a test of what voters will believe. It includes this line: "When it wasn't politically correct, he stood up for life in Massachusetts." Well that would be after he ran as a pro-choice candidate in 2002, got elected excoriating poor Shannon O'Brien for challenging his pro-choice bona fides and started planning his run for the presidency. A rival campaign chimes in: "He should have added a line saying, 'when it wasn't politically correct, Mitt Romney simply changed his position along with the political winds.'"
Iowa News
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 1:58PM
Well, here's reason to be modest about the punditocracy's ability to assess the impact of events. Apparently the Des Moines Register is doing Romney no favors in its coverage of The Speech and to boot spares Huckabee the trouble of reciting all the ways Mormonsim departs from other faiths. That is what Iowa caucus goers are reading today.
Merry Christmas, Statist
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 12:31PM
Reason staffers link to a couple great holiday gift ideas, including actual U.S. government red tape (!) and a board game, Public Assistance: Why Bother Working for a Living? Both of which, I believe, would make fine alternatives to the Born Libertarian onesie.
Strike and the City: Special Edition
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 12:28PM
For anyone who might be interested, I've posted a couple bits from Gilbert Gottfried and Colin Quinn that couldn't be shoehorned into my Writers Guild strike piece from last week.
Raving Leftist?
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 11:29AM
I do not deny that reporter Murray Waas is a leftist. So what? What matters is not his opinions but his facts. In the case of his strongly sourced articles on Huckabee's actions with regard to vicious rapist Wayne DuMond, his facts are solid. Just as we conservatives can do good straight reporting, so can lefties. But don't take my word for it: Read Waas' pieces for yourselves, and see if they do not impress with their thoroughness and the strength of the evidence he presents.
Re: Rudy and Huckaboom
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 11:11AM
I do agree that the mostly urban fiscal conservative pundit crowd( including me I admit) have next to zero impact on those who are finding Hucakbee as their guy. And indeed the barrage from Club for Growth I think is largely ineffective, if not counterproductive, as he plays the Mainstreet vs. Wall Street tune. Just as social conservatives had no single champion pre-Huckaboom, fiscal and foreign policy conservatives now appear divided, leaving McCain and Rudy chasing the same voters, for example, in NH. Is Huckabee beatable in Iowa and SC? Maybe not unless the Dumond story eventually does him in. But not every state is Iowa and SC.
Re: Huckabee and DuMond
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 11:05AM
Team Huckabee passes along this Redstate post describing reporter Murray Waas (who Quin vouches for) as a "raving leftist."
Also:
Rudy and the Huckaboom
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 10:59AM
I wonder if there might not be a connection between the two trends noted below: Mike Huckabee's rise and Rudy Giuliani's stagnation. Pundits, including many on the right, predicted that social issues would be trumped by other considerations even among a plurality of religious conservatives. Those pundits appear to be wrong.
Two candidates entered the race in an attempt to fill the vacuum to the right of Giuliani: Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Romney adopted the issue positions and the rhetoric, but his Massachusetts record complicated his effectiveness as a social conservative messenger. Thompson, by contrast, has the record but hasn't been willing to tailor his issue positions exactly to the specifications of leading social conservative groups (with the notable exceptions of the National Right to Life Committee and some state pro-life groups) and seems uncomfortable with the rhetoric.
Nevertheless, skeptical social conservatives turned first to Romney, having learned about him from generally favorable treatment in the conservative press. Then they discovered his past social liberalism and how recently he changed on abortion and other issues. The buzz then surrounded Thompson, whose poll numbers rose in anticipation that he'd get into the race. Yet when he finally threw his hat into the rang, there were complaints that he didn't meet expectations and soon his numbers began to decline.
Then attention shifted back to Romney, who devoted considerable resources to socially conservative Iowa and eventually South Carolina. Combined with the traditional Massachusetts advantage in New Hampshire, he once again seemed the practical choice for Republicans who thought Giuliani was too socially liberal. But there remained gnawing concerns about his authenticity.
Enter Mike Huckabee. Huckabee speaks the evangelicals' language, has a consistent record on their issues, and impressed people at venues like the Ames straw poll and the Values Voter Summit. As word spread about his underfunded campaign (and, as I suspect we'll eventually find out, as a network of evangelical pastors and activists provided a supplement to his campaign in Iowa) and the media adopted him as a friendly evangelical, he caught on. Watching the other factions of the party insist on fidelity to their issues, from taxes to immigration to foreign policy, social conservatives wanted someone who met their litmus tests.
That's why the conservative campaign against Huckabee, however justified, might be counterproductive. Few conservative pundits tried to take down Giuliani. It is usually the mainstream media, not the conservative press, that has exposed Giuliani scandals. Elements of the right, meanwhile, have started pulling out all the stops against Huckabee, including the Club for Growth when the former Arkansas governor was still an asterik candidate.
I'm not saying conservatives shouldn't air their concerns about Huckabee, many of which I share. And it could just as easily be true that Huckabee will prove a flash in the pan in large part because of his conservative critics. But it could also contribute to the feeling of many social conservatives that they are being shortchanged. We'll see.
Driving Judith
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 10:33AM
New York's Daily News has a front-pager reporting that Judith Giuliani's taxpayer-funded security detail actually began as far back as 1999, well before the earlier-acknowledged Dec. 2000 date, and even before their relationship was publicly disclosed in May 2000.
At first, I wondered whether these stories were to some extent written into Giuliani's numbers, but there's really no other explanation for his recent drop in national polls than this steady stream of stories, which highlight his messy personal life, undermine his message of fiscal discipline by coming accross as reckless with the taxpayers money, and portray him as being covert and dishonest. If you look at the RCP chart, notice the recent nose-dive to 23.6 percent, his lowest numbers since the chart began in February. Coupled with the Huckabee surge, his national lead has narrowed to an average of 7 points. Until the recent decline, his lead had been comfortably in the double digits.
Going forward, the main question is how much more is out there? Is this just the tip of the iceberg, as Giuliani's critics have been saying all along?
AP Poll
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 9:55AM
The new AP poll reveals that not very many people have read Quin's reporting - at least not yet. Rudy is at 26% (down 3 from last time), Huckabee moves up from 10% to 18%, McCain is at 13%, Romney at 12% and Thompson at 11% (down 8%). The Huckabee phenomenon reminds me of the Thompson surge in September- displacing McCain for second but not overtaking Rudy. And indeed it seems that Huckabee has replaced Thompson as the new potential Rudy alternative. The question remains why Romney never stepped into this role-- and others ask the same query as to why he never "popped." His campaign has always maintained that he was an unknown and couldn't break out until he won an early primary but why then the Huckabee run? This seems as good an explanation as any.
Huckabee Just Lies About DuMond
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 9:21AM
I hate to beat a dead horse, but Mike Huckabee keeps falsifying and falsifying, and shifting more and more blame, in the case of rapist Wayne DuMond. Do we really want such a weasel as president? I mean, this is a guy who refuses to accept responsibility for his own mistakes. As amply reported elsewhere, DuMond was relased only after public and private lobbying by Huckabee in support of that release. Four different parole board members said they released DuMond because Huck wanted them to. Huck says they were all Democratic appointees, conveniently leaving out that HE reappointed at least one (I think two or three -- I'll have to check this -- but at least one of the key ones) of them. And so on. The record is abundantly clear, but all Huck does is keep blaming the parole board and blaming predecessor Jim Guy Tucker for "commuting" DuMond's sentence. But a commutation down to 39 years (which Huck publicly supported anyway) is NOT the same thing as a grant of parole. Anyway, here is the real story, by an award-winning journalist whose reporting on this case in Arkansas is accepted left, center and right. Now compare it to is the pack of obfuscations and buckpassing by Huck to Wolf Blitzer, and see if this is the kind of stand-up leader and (non)truth-teller that ought to be in the Oval Office:
HUCKABEE: My heart goes out to the Shields' family. There's no way to ever say anything that would bring some type of resolution to the understandable grief they have.
And quite frankly, I don't blame people for being angry, whether they are angry at me or they want to be angry at the governor before me who actually commuted his sentence, which I didn't do. Or angry at the parole board for paroling him. And if I'm the object of the anger, I understand that. I accept that.
BLITZER: Well, what -- but let me ask you this...
HUCKABEE: There's nothing bright about this situation. It's a horrible thing.
BLITZER: Well, what responsibility do you have in this horrible tragedy that developed?
HUCKABEE: Wolf, my only official action in this was I denied his commutation. It was actual given by Jim Guy Tucker when Bill Clinton was governor back in 1992.
It was on my desk. I did consider it. I even thought that he met the criteria for parole in support of it.
I wish I hadn't. But I didn't parole him. And governors don't parole people in Arkansas, nor can they stop a parole. And that's the tragedy, I think, that this went through several years and many different people. And all of us failed. That's the truth. All of us failed.
BLITZER: Because there's a letter that you apparently wrote that was published in "The Arkansas Times" to Wayne Dumond in which you said to him, "My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place."
Did you write him such a letter?
HUCKABEE: I wrote it because that's when I denied him, and a parole meant that he had to have had supervision. Had I granted his commutation, there would have been no supervision at all. I wasn't comfortable with that.
He had an exemplary prison record, he had the recommendations, he had met all the criteria, and that's why I think all of us are very sad. But I did not commute his sentence. And his sentence was commuted several years before I became governor. That made him parole eligible. I not only denied his commutation once, actually three or four times when he presented it in the course of the time that I had the case during my tenure as governor.
BLITZER: There was an article written back in 2002 in "The Arkansas Times" that quoted three former parole members basically as saying that you influenced them in a significant way to let this guy go. One, Charles Chastain, writing, "He made it obvious that he thought Dumond had gotten a raw deal and wanted us to take another look at it."
Another, Ermer Pondexter, "I signed the (parole) papers because the governor wanted Dumond paroled."
And a third, Deborah Springer-Suttlar, "For Governor Huckabee to say that he had no influence with the board is something that he knows to be untrue. He came before the board and made his views known that (Dumond) should have been paroled."
Are they telling the truth?
HUCKABEE: Wolf, they are not. The reality is that I was invited to the board by the chairman, Leroy Brownlee (ph). He asked me to come as the new governor back in 1996.
I talked to them. The discussion came up, but it wasn't about Dumond. The overall discussion was about my general policy toward clemency.
Those are three people out of seven that waited six years before they ever came forward and said there was pressure. And every one of them had been appointed by either Bill Clinton or Jim Guy Tucker before me.
If as a brand-new Republican governor I was able to go in and convince a board, a board that every one of whom had been appointed by Democrat governors before me, I'm a pretty persuasive guy. And the other members of that board would give you a different story.
And interestingly, these people who make these allegations not only did so six years later, but did so after I did not reappoint them to $75,000-a-year jobs, to which they had been appointed by a previous Democratic governor.
BLITZER: So the charge you're making is they were politicizing, they were blaming you on political reasons, is that what you're saying?
HUCKABEE: And, Wolf, that's what is so heartbreaking about this. There are families who are truly, understandably and reasonably grief- stricken. And for people to now politicize these deaths and to try to make a political case out of it, rather than to simply understand that a system failed and that we ought to extend our grief and heartfelt sorrow to these families, I just regret that politics is reduced to that.
The Aftermath
Posted by on 12.7.07 @ 12:15AM
Well if those impressed with The Speech are reduced to predicting the margin of Huckabee's victory the praise from Chris Matthews won't mean all that much. The most interesting has been the reporting about ordinary-ish ( real ordinary people don't hook up with pundits and reporters I suspect) people who seem complimentary but not terribly moved. A nice sampling of varied views is here. Some criticims but for different reasons are here. It will be worth considering whether this week was a good or bad thing for the GOP and the country at large. Having shared one of his religious precepts about Christ there seems no reason why Romney shouldn't and won't be asked endless follow up questions. I think a Justice Ginsburg like approach ("no hints, no forecasts, no previews") on matters of faith was an altogether better course for candidates to follow. I would agree with Seth Leibsohn's observation that: "Governor Romney today made an issue that was secondary or tertiary into an issue of primary importance: his religion." That I think --regardless of one's views of Romney himself -- we will come to regret. UPDATE: Maybe the most insightful and helpful in measuring reaction is the Wall Street Journal's news account of evangelical reaction.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
What the NIE Hath Wrought
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 8:18PM
The fallout from the new Iran NIE continues. In today's Roll Call, Mort Kondracke touches upon the practical consequences of the intelligence community's U-turn: "The finding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- reversing a 2005 declaration that Iran had such a program -- ended any possibility that Bush could win support for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. It also undercut Bush's ability to win support for United Nations sanctions, though European sanctions still are possible."
Therein lies the rub. Even before the release of the new NIE, the Bush Administration was having a tough time convincing Russia and China of the need for more serious measures against Iran. In its aftermath, that task has become well nigh impossible. After all, why should Moscow and Beijing get behind the Administration's assessment of the Iranian threat when its own intelligence community doesn't? And without any serious sticks that it can use against Tehran, the White House has less leverage to modify Iranian behavior than ever before -- something that the Iranian regime understands all too well. A pretty pickle indeed.
Re: The Bush Bailout
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 8:14PM
Phil, when somebody hurts, government has got to move.
The Bush Bailout
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 5:18PM
This is awful. It is hard to think of a worse signal to send the free market economy than if you take out mortgages on houses that you cannot afford, the government will rescue you. Bush said, "We should not bail out lenders, real estate speculators or those who made the reckless decision to buy a home they knew they could not afford." Of course, the very act of making sure borrowers do not default, effectively bails out lenders. And obviously people who are having trouble paying their mortgages couldn't afford their houses. So his statement is completely vacuous.
Can we just skip past the primaries and get on with an open-field general election so a new president can take over next month?
Re: Americans Hate Atheists
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 4:33PM
I thought it was atheists, unencumbered by the Sermon on the Mount and other laws and parable of the holy books, who were inclined towards hate and intolerance. Good to know a majority of Americans are still more worried about what everyone else believes (or, um, doesn't) than the commandments of their own faith.
You Can Actually Put Jack Bauer in Jail?
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 4:23PM
If the Chinese couldn't break him, the California authorities certainly won't.
Yes...But How Is George W. Bush's Chili?
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 4:17PM
The man who never misses an opportunity to brag to the world that he wakes up every morning knowing exactly what he believes can't figure out--during a fine interview with Ross Douthat--how well George W. Bush's presidency has been going:
If you had to give George W. Bush a grade right now
for his time in office, what would you give him?
I wouldn't.
You wouldn't?
No, I wouldn't. History is better at looking at things after
they've had time to simmer. I'm a pretty good chili maker. I can
tell you right now, the chili tastes better two days from now than
it does the day you make it, because the flavors get
in.…
Huckabee knows he wants to be president, he just has no idea how our current one has been doing for the last seven years. I mean, George W. Bush might taste better two days from now, so what's the point of discussing how he tasted the better part of a decade? Look, he's a chili eating man who cares. Folksy! Stop bothering him with the details and let him emote already. Huckabee apparently never watches the news, either:
Generally speaking, do you think it's fair for
people to take a candidate's theological convictions into
consideration at the polling place?
As long as everyone
gets the same scrutiny. That's what I don't think is fair: I've
been given an unusual level of scrutiny. No candidate gets quizzed
to the depth that I do about faith.
Really? Even Mitt Romney?
He hasn't
gotten nearly as much for his Mormonism as I have for being a
Baptist. I mean, I've never heard the kind of interviews with him
that I got from Bill O'Reilly or Wolf Blitzer. No one's just kept
pressing and pressing and going into the details of his doctrine.
Not that I've heard.
Uh, right. Might be an interesting theory to bat around with, say, someone who has been living in a cave for the last 18 months. Alas, liberal on taxes, liberal on the environmentalism and liberal in his desire to ultimately be a victim...Not that that actually helps him with the libs.
The Only Opinion That Counts
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 2:44PM
Hugh Hewitt weighs in on Romney's speech:
Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst.
A Line Too Far
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 2:34PM
Americans Hate Atheists
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 2:12PM
New Pew Research Poll finds--not surprisingly--that 53 percent of Americans hold unfavorable views toward atheists. Muslims are considerably better off in the U.S. than unbelievers. Only thirty-five percent of the public view Muslims unfavorably. Mormons come in third (27 percent don't like 'em). Jews are viewed more favorably than Catholics. That's got to be a first.
Huck's Loaves and Fishes
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 2:00PM
Courtesy of Jim Geraghty at NRO's Campaign Spot, this is just getting way too creepy. Huck says a higher power is helping him rise in the polls and expandig the effect of his campaign money like it is loaves and fishes. We have a full-fledged religious self-idolater on our hands. Just terrific.
Re: Huckabee on Immigration
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 1:29PM
Mark Kirkorian thinks Huckabee did him proud. Romney make be less able to attack on this subject given his own problem. Now that I think of it Thompson, Rudy and Huckabee have detailed immigration plans but I think this is what Romney has put out which seems a little thin ( "secure the border"-- wow! really?).
No Chip Off the Old Belloc
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 12:15PM
Jeremy Lott offered somewhat different advice to the old Mittster. Seems a bit unRomney-like, no?
Can 346,639 Pups Be Wrong?
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 12:00PM
Facebook for dogs? My boys are already barking for updates.
Retain Your Prejudices?
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 11:56AM
David Weigel offers an interesting take on Romney's speech that I might not entirely agree with but is well worth reading and considering. In part:
Romney is asking voters to retain their prejudices about faith, especially the personal faith of politicians: To demand that the people they elect have a relationship with God that they approve of. Is Romney's slow-motion three card monte going to convince religious voters that they can trust him over Huckabee? I don't think so. I know some of those people. They're not stupid.
Romney's Speech
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 11:51AM
It was a good speech, and I think it's going to be good for Romney politically. Ross Douthat, among others, has suggested that this is a terrible time for Romney to be making the conversation about Mormonism, and he instead should be attacking Huckabee where he's weak. But Ross assumes there just isn't enough time to do both. He's wrong. Romney will get some mostly-positive coverage out of the speech, and there will be plenty of time to go on attack in a few weeks. It's the Feiler Faster Thesis in action.
Re: Romney Speech
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 11:28AM
I lost my bet: he said "Mormonsim" once. Some agree not many minds will change.Bill Bennett has some quibbles and others say "wow." Others seem surprised the coverage would do what Romney did not-- probe the details of Mormon faith. But what did they expect?
UPDATE: Folks outside the Beltway seem mixed.
Re: Romney's Speech
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 11:22AM
It's hard for me to judge the speech as somebody who is bored by all the talk of Romney's Mormonism and who could care less what his religion is. I have no interest in seeing a political candidate have to field questions about all of the aspects of his faith that people find outlandish. Therefore, I have no way of telling whether the speech would change the minds of any voters who view his religion as a cult and say they would not vote for a Mormon candidate. As far as delivery, it was a typical Mitt Romney performance--smooth, and almost never veering from the prepared text. I wonder if getting this off of his chest might have the same effect on Romney that Rudy Giuliani's speech in Houston in May on his differing views with conservatives had on him. In the weeks leading up to that speech, Giuliani, if you might recall, was starting to stumble on the abortion issue, especially when in a debate he said if Roe were overturned it would be "okay." While the speech Giuliani gave didn't win over his biggest critics or even say anything substantively different on the individual issues than he had earlier in the campaign, the act of delivering the speech and being more direct about his differences with conservatives helped him hit his stride as a candidate. Perhaps the same will be true for Romney.
Re: Romney Speech
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 11:03AM
The speech didn't break any new ground, but it walked the line between emphasizing shared social conservatism and themes of religious tolerance. It was competently delivered, though reactions will probably be based largely on people's preexisting feelings about Mitt Romney. Romney clearly spoke to a friendly crowd at the Bush Library.
The Speech
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 10:58AM
"Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
Well that's the rub, isn't it?
Initial impression: He warmed up as he went along but the first part when talking of his own faith seemed stilted and tentative. (The audio on the feed was poor however.)
The Speech was fine but there of course is an inherent contradiction -- he will say just enough about his religion to make certain voters feel warm and fuzzy (Christ is son of God) but no more. Although he disclaimed it a good chunk of The Speech was in fact a JFK type plea for tolerance and a pledge to separate his particular faith's principles from the task of governing. The second part of the stump was fairly standard fare about religious faith as a foundation of American values. On balance, I don't see that people who had a problem before will be persuaded nor did he make strides in appearing "more real."
Romney's Faith Should Not Be An Issue
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 10:43AM
Ron Paul on the Mormon Question:
"We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.
***
"The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends."
Romney's Speech
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 10:25AM
Through the use of UStream, the Romney campaign is enabling bloggers to easily stream the speech on any site. It'a a smart move that will no doubt increase viewership. You can watch the speech live below starting at 10:30 am:
UPDATE: I changed the embedded video to post to archive the speech.
Huckabee on Immigration
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 10:20AM
Details of the Huckabee immigration plan that I mentioned a few
days ago have been released by the campaign. It's a 9-point plan
partially modeled on an approach outlined by Mark Kirkorian of the Center for
Immigration studies. It calls for building a fence, increasing
border security, and enforcing the law on employers. Huckabee also
comes out against amnesty, with a plan that would require any
illegal immigrant to register with the INS before leaving the
country. If they do so, they won't face a penalty if they return to
their home country and apply for legal entry into the United
States. If they don't leave voluntarily and are caught, they will
be barred from future reentry into the U.S. for 10 years. The plan
also argues that creating a FairTax would provide a disincentive to
immigrate illegally. The remaining points of the plan are: "Empower
Local Authorities," "Ensure Document Security," "Discourage Dual
Citizenship," and "Modernize the Process of Legal Immigration."
Such "modernization" includes eliminating the visa lottery for
adult siblings of U.S. citizens, increasing visas for high-skilled
laborers, and expiditing processing for those who served honorably
in the military.
The Speech Coverage
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 9:47AM
The early release of The Speech has gotten folks chattering. Campaign Spot has a run down of skeptical reaction. With coverage only on CSPAN-3 and web streaming Romney does not exactly have his public unfiltered moment before millions of voters. What he will have is the media retelling and evaluation of The Speech. If they are grumpy that's a problem.
Hard Data on Huck's Soft-on-Crime Record
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 9:45AM
Back on Oct. 24 the Spectator published a column in which I wrote this: "Finally, Gov. Huckabee had a propensity to be almost as prodigal with pardons as was his famous predecessor by the name of Clinton." The Huckabee campaign changed the subject by complaining that I had used the word "pardon" when describing the release of rapist Wayne DuMond. I immediately apologized for the error, while correctly insisting -- as recent stories have borne out -- that Huckabee was indeed responsible for DuMond's release. But in the exchange, the Huck campaign temporarily succeeded in diverting attention from my broader point, which is that Huck was as soft on crime as any wooly-headed Dukakis ever was.
Well, now comes proof. Today, the Arkansas leader has the numbers. They are astonishing. They show that Huck "issued more commutations and pardons than all of the six neighboring states combined."
Wow. We now see more and more that HUck is the diametric opposite of Rudy Giuliani on every issue under the sun. Rudy is known, of course, for being tough (wisely so) on criminals and on successfully making once-dangerous New York into a safe place. Rudy is a tax cutter and a fiscal conservative; Huck is a tax hiker and a big spender. Rudy is tough on foreign policy; Huck has no clue about foreign policy but his tendency is to be Jimmy Carter-like. And of course, in the one area where conservatives may give Huck the advantage, Huck is pro-life while Rudy isn't. But again, they are opposites.
Somehow, I believe Rudy's assurances more about how he will be operationally pro-life because he will appoint conservative judges than I trust Huck's assurances that he won't raise taxes -- or, indeed, his assurances on anything, because for a preacher, he sure does have a tendency toward falsehoods.
Anyway, the lesson is this: If you want a wooly-headed guy in the Oval Office who is inclined to be weak against criminals and weak against terrorists (close Guantanamo, etc.), then vote for Huckabee.
But if you have a brain, well....
Must Be A Slow Visionary Foresight Day
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 9:42AM
The gang over at DailyKos takes a break from preening over its collective prophetic abilities long enough to produce a lengthy poem about Rudy Giuliani. Like Serpico, I'll give you the end first:
And so he dreams of his ascent
And thinks to himself alone, when spent,
How many more there are, content,
that I could screw as President!
Pork-Busting Randian
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 9:19AM
David Weigel has a great profile of California Rep. John Campbell up today at Reason. Here's a taste:
If Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) said his book shelf was a time capsule, a memorial to the modern GOP, you'd believe him. Here is Stephen Slivinski's Buck Wild, a jeremiad against the Bush-era big-spending Republicans. Here is Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept, the terrifying tale of how "radical Islam is destroying the West from within." Here is one of Watergate felon Chuck Colson's bestsellers on how Christ can save your life.
Less predictable are the tomes bookending the collection: not one but two hardbound copies of Ayn Rand's 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, a favorite among many supporters of free markets and limited government. "Those aren't my only two copies," Campbell says, laughing. "Atlas Shrugged is the book I give to our interns after they spend a summer here, working for free. I consider it to be the authoritative work on the power of the individual."
And here's the rest. Perhaps there is hope after all?
Novak on The Speech
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 7:50AM
Bob Novak today: "All that is left for Romney to write is a
speech that asserts the Constitution imposes no religious test for
the presidency. However, that runs the risk of implicitly indicting
anyone who votes against Mitt Romney as a bigot. As he awaited the
Texas speech this week without knowing what Romney will say, one
adviser hoped that the candidate would come across as a man of
faith and integrity.That adviser is hoping to reverse Romney's
performance in last week's dismal Republican presidential debate at
St. Petersburg, Fla. Romney no longer is called the perfect
candidate hampered solely by religious prejudice. After a half-hour
immigrant-bashing duel with Rudy Giuliani, he looked like somebody
who would say anything to be nominated. At College Station today,
Romney will try to correct that impression, even if he does not win
over bigots."
That may be the real test for Romney: whether he projects a core of
personal faith, rather than someone marketing himself to religious
conservatives. And while all this is going on those libertarian
streaked New Hampshire voters are looking on -- and listening to
McCain talk about frugality and success in Iraq with Curt Schilling. Hard to be
everywhere and message separately to everyone. UPDATE: And some of
those NH voters in the Boston media market will be reading this which a bit over the top but
nevertheless I think correctly identifies Romney's problem as not a
Mormon one but a conviction one.
Union Leader on Sancturary Mansion
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 7:01AM
The McCain endorsing Union Leader (h/t The Page) picks up on the Sanctuary Mansion story : "Here is what is wrong with Mitt Romney's 'sanctuary mansion'' problem: For someone touting himself as a brilliant manager, he has fumbled badly an issue that should have been easily resolved long before now. Romney can't plead ignorance or blame his aides for this one. He was told last year about the illegal aliens doing lawn work at his Massachusetts mansion. Having taken a hard campaign line on illegals, one would think he would have been smart enough to end that lawn service immediately." It would seem this is the shield for Huckabee in Iowa(who before we went down The Speech and the Dumond trail was being attacked for college scholarships for illegal aliens) and the sword elsewhere for McCain and Rudy who were already on the credibility/authenticity/hypocrite theme.
Romney Release on The Speech
Posted by on 12.6.07 @ 6:35AM
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam's words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
…
"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."
…
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
…
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"
…
"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements."
…
"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self -same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency."
...
"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Better Late Than Never
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 10:52PM
The always astute, always challenging James Poulos added his two cents to the What is Huckabee's appeal? debate over at Postmodern Conservative a few days ago. It is, not surprisingly, well worth a click over. Here's a taste:
It's never easy to square faith and politics in everyday life -- especially at the national level. But this latest innovation, like all I can think of, ends up doing so by subjugating both to a higher calling. I think that calling is some kind of strange universal love that ultimately considers the love of Christ to be, well, in need of supplementing. The state must perfect divine love. Though such a concept horrifies me, it's a lot easier to swallow when the imperfection is mass race slavery and the statist in question is the reluctant, humble, and agonized Abraham Lincoln. The state is not a vehicle for spreading love around the world, and no faith I can think of fails to turn to heresy when it replaces its whole God with partial Eros.
UPDATE: Just to clarify, the title of this post wasn't meant to suggest James was late to the topic, but that I was tardy in searching out his take on it. I should be checking Postmodern Conservative daily, as should you.
Re: Romney Speech
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 8:06PM
Fred Thompson's SC Co-Chair comes out with some doozies on The Speech and Mormonism. One hardly knows what to say-- Is she representative of evangelical thinking? Is The Speech going to remotely help with people who think as she does? By contrast this is one of the more thoughtful and thought provoking pieces on the subject.
UPDATE: Apparently the Thompson folks don't much mind her
remarks. I think I liked it better when I was under the illusion
that religious tolerance was the norm in America. Responding to
Mosteller's remarks Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said: "Sadly,
bigotry is still alive and well, but thankfully it's only practiced
by an ignorant few. The vast majority of Americans don't elect a
president based on what church they go to, but they do care about
their values. Mitt Romney's values are as American as you will
find." Perhaps a preview of comments tomorrow.
Child Terrorism
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 6:34PM
In making arguments related to the War on Terror, conservatives sometimes run the risk of preaching to the choir rather than convincing others at home and abroad of the true nature of the Islamist threat. Earlier today, I saw a screening of the film the Making of the Martyr, in which director Brooke Goldstein traveled to Israel and the Palestinian territories and interviewed Palestinian children about their aspirations to be martyrs. At the screening, Goldstein argued that the best way to reach liberals as well as foreign governments is to emphasize that Muslim children being raised to be suicide bombers are in fact victims of child abuse and their indoctrination constitutes a major human rights violation. The focal point of the film is Hussam Abdu, a Palestinian teenage dwarf, who was sent on a suicide bombing mission when he was 15, but he became scared and surrendered to the Israelis before detonation. Goldstein interviewed him as he was serving a sentence in an Israeli prison. Almost like Henry Hill in Goodfellas recalling, "As far back as I can remember, I've always wanted to be a gangster," Hussum gloats about how much respect is given to families of martyrs back home. As the film documents, suicide bombers are treated as rock stars in the Palestinian territories, with their posters plastered across their villages. One young Palestinian girl who was interviewed casually observed, "Every girl wants to be a martyr," while a young boy at a summer camp declared there are only two choices, "victory or martyrdom." All in all it's a scary but eye-opening look at how the next generation of terrorists is being raised, which has implications not only for Israelis, but for Americans, given that similar incitement is common throughout the Muslim world.
If you have the time, you can watch the film online for free here.
Re: Sanctuary Mansion
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 5:36PM
I don't know whether this spectacularly negative segment on CNN is indicative of the coverage Romney is getting elsewhere both in early states and nationally on his lawn problem. Aside from making the "hypocrite on immigration" point they have Scott Reed making the broader "credibility gap" argument. The story in isolation is on one level small and silly (hey it's a very big house and an even bigger lawn-could he even see who was raking the leaves?) but if you are inclined to believe or be worried about the conviction quotient this may be persuasive. If you love Romney, think he's incredibly smart and has basically the right ideas on issues you care about, you probably just shrug.
Mossad vs. the CIA
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 4:55PM
The Israelis aren't buying the NIE's sanguine assessment of the Iranian nuclear program. "It seems Iran in 2003 halted for a certain period of time its military nuclear program, but as far as we know, it has probably since revived it," say Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
It makes sense that Iran would back off in response to the invasion of Iraq, but then resume their pursuit of nukes once it became clear that the occupation wasn't going smoothly. As Max Boot points out, the NIE itself offers "high confidence" that the nuke program was stopped in 2003, but only "moderate confidence" that it hasn't been restarted.
Boot thinks the NIE is a diplomatic victory for the mullahs, because it makes it harder for the US to credibly play bad cop to the Europeans' good cop. Doesn't the Israeli position mitigate that problem somewhat, though? Israel does have its own air force, after all.
Hannukah Ham Update
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 4:34PM
The Manhattan Balducci's where the picture I posted yesterday was snapped has changed its signage:
Update: As of Tuesday morning 12/4, the hams are now tagged with green "Perfect for the Holidays!" signs.Which holidays would those be, I wonder? Is there a holiday coming up where ham is traditionally served? Maybe Bill O'Reilly can help me out with this one.
Jaw-Jaw With Iran
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 3:50PM
Robert Kagan makes the case that now would be a good time to start direct negotiations with Tehran.
The Heroic Elephant in the Room
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 3:29PM
If the latest Rasmussen numbers for Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are to be believed (and I'm skeptical), let's just forget about it and have a real pundit primary: Michael Gerson vs. Ryan Sager.
The Case for Mitt
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 3:20PM
Can a compelling case be made for a Romney presidency? David Keene, ever astute in his Hill column today, comes closer to doing so than anyone else will.
Re: Boston Legal
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 2:16PM
The NEA Endorsement
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 1:58PM
Does the NH NEA impending nod for Huckabee make you feel warm and fuzzy? Well I guess they weren't going to give the endorsement to Rudy ("Well, I love teachers…but I actually care about the kids more.")
UPDATE: The Marist NH poll has Romney at 29% and McCain and Rudy tied at 17%. Huckabee is at 11%, Paul at 6% and Thompson at 4%. The 29% is lower than most polling for Romney in the state and than his last Marist poll figure which was 34% at the beginning of November. Rudy is also down (from 23%) and McCain slightly up (from 14%) last time. Are Romney and Rudy knocking each other down to the benefit of McCain?
Re: Sanctuary Mansion
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 1:34PM
"Romney's account differs from that of landscape company owner Ricardo Saenz, who said that Romney didn't press the issue of whether his workers were in the country illegally. Asked if the Romney household expressed reservations about rehiring him after last year's story, he said, 'Why would they have any problem?' "
Al Franken Gets Something Right
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 1:03PM
"They should be allowing more dogs in places," Mr. Franken deadpans to the voter, "dogs in grocery stores, dogs in hardware stores."
Apparently he's kidding, but I wish he weren't. C'mon, Coleman, up the ante. My boy Bear is sick of sitting home on Friday nights watching his little brother chase his tail.
Playing Favre-ites
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 1:02PM
In happier news for Quin, Sports Illustrated has named Gulf Coast legend Brett Favre Sportsman of the Year. Not everyone is happy about it. Shouldn't it have been Roger Federer?
Re: Specifically
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 12:48PM
Re: Specifically
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 12:32PM
By giving into the howls of the mob [Romney] has unleashed a ridiculous exploration of the details of his religion (which seems bizarre in a presidential race- did I miss this with Joe Lieberman?), assured 24/7 Mormon coverage( which let's face it will make some uncomfortable) and ultimately will make The Speech, I think, seem either disappointing or like he was "pulling a fast one" when The Speech itself doesn't march through Mormon theology.
You didn't miss it with Lieberman, Jennifer, because no mainstream individual, political group or media outlet could get away with saying, "Say, Joe, you better explain this crazy Jew stuff because it's making some Christians nervous." Thankfully, we got Joe Lieberman: The Historic Choice instead. (FYI: Anti-Semitism is mostly only acceptable these days in left-wing screeds about neo-con cabals.) I tend to agree Romney shouldn't have built the speech up, especially through a few weeks of open heming and hawing, mostly because A) None of the other candidates are being asked to answer for their brand of Judeo-Christian faith and B) To a certain extent, this validates a prejudice that, as I wrote last night, is shameful in the first place. The howling mob you refer to, destined to be made so tragically uncomfortable by news reports of a competing religion, is, I assume, made up of many of those people who find Huckabee just so gosh darn emotive and likeable. That kind of attitude goes beyond simply being too foolish to care about policy, I'm afraid.
Likeable...From a Distance
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 12:23PM
Again, Jennifer, you are absolutely right both about how well Huckabee is doing and also about how his "likeability" is playing a big role in his good political fortunes right now. The truth is that his likeability is only true if you agree with him. If you don't, well...the closest analogy is to another southern Baptist liberal governor, Jimmy Carter. Carter had this "nice guy" image, but the truth was he was mean and petty and prone to fudging the truth and just sort of weird. Both I and Bob Novak are among those who have noted (without specifically making the Carter comparison) that Huckabee shares all these same characteristics. Shawn and John Tabin and Dave Weigel are all correct in that Huckabee's likeability is only skin deep and that the myth of his likeability is amplified by the media's love of his liberalism, which is quite apparent on everything but a couple of social issues. And -- back to the DuMond case -- his expressions of regret would carry more weight for the discerning (rather than the gullible) observer if he would just admit that he was largely responsible for getting DuMond freed. Right now his line is, basically, "I am sorry, so sorry, that he raped and murdered again, but I didn't free him, so it's not my fault." His human sorrow is not in doubt, but unless he acknowledges his own role, then he is expressing sympathy without contrition. As any good theologian will tell you, it is the contrition that is the key. Maybe the preacher should study a little more theology.
They Haven't Soured Yet
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 11:36AM
Quin, you have a lot of work to do. In North Carolina Huckabee is up big (Thompson is sinking like a stone) and another Iowa poll has Huckabee in first. And if you follow Zogby it's a virtual dead heat in Iowa.
Boston Legal
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 11:17AM
The Rudy people delighted in sending around this clip from Boston Legal which others have now picked up. Now it's just a TV show and we can all have some fun but it's not exactly accurate. Romney never supported gay marriage. What he did was say in the 1994 debate against Ted Kennedy that he could provide "more effective leadership" on gay rights than Kennedy. In 1994 he also criticized the Boy Scouts for their policy barring gay troop leaders. What earned him the endorsement of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts in 2002 was his support for domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. He also supported federal legislation prohibiting discrimination against gays (he no longer does.) From time to time he would indicate approval of adoptions by gay couples. But I think he's been consistent on opposing gay marriage. So don't get your news from Boston Legal.
Serfdom's Cradle
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 11:08AM
Does putting a baby in a Born Libertarian onesie cross the line into unwarranted initiation of force?
Anderson Cooper Likes Him, Why Can't You?
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 10:40AM
Over at Reason Dave Weigel is kind enough to name-check both Tabin and I in a post on Huckabee's much-balleyhooed, rarely questioned likeability. Weigel, per usual, is onto something:
The fact is that reporters really, really like Huckabee. One reason is his general affability but another is something the other GOP candidates can't steal: His liberalism. Much as reporters want Barack Obama to succeed to diminish the power of more radical black politicians (something I noodled three years ago), I think most (less me) like the idea of a Beliefnet/Michael Gerson big government conservative taking the religious right over from the Bill Bennetts and Pat Robertsons.
Re: Why Do People Like Huck
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 10:13AM
Quin thanks once again for your knowledge all of things Huckabee. I didn't miss the fact that Huckabee's not telling the truth on this, I pleaded ignorant on the subject and just commented on his technique. But of course I would like terribly to believe that substance matters, the truth gets out and the best man wins. I just have my doubts. In the short run, at least, his emotive response does shed light on why he has been doing so well. Whether he continues to do so and whether this will be responsible for his undoing remains to be seen.
Re: Why Do People Like Huck?
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 10:03AM
I posted my entry before seeing Jennifer's. Jennifer, you make a good point in that Huckabee is very convincing at expressing regret. That's why he is doing so well in the polls: Because he is so good at sounding good, no matter whether what he says holds water or not. You miss the most relevant point, though, Jennifer: What he says is an outright lie. Here is the big whopper in what you quote from him: "Nobody, not me, not Jim Guy Tucker, not Bill Clinton, not that parole board, could ever imagine what might have transpired.. " This is, to put it kindly, a crock of manure. The whole point of the Murray Waas story out today is that Huckabee was warned repeatedly and convincingly EXACTLY what was likely to transpire if DuMond were to be released, and he ignored all those warnings. Meanwhile, the evidence presented is absolutely overwhelming that he strongly intervened with the parole board to secure DuMond's release -- and he seems to have lied about that too. Just like he lied about whether or not he was "ordered" by his state's courts to impose a particular tax hike, and just like several other now-documented misrepresentations he has made about the circumstances of his tax hikes. (To be fair, I think that at the state and local level there can indeed be reasonable times, although not many of them, to raise certain taxes for particular purposes. That said, Huck's record is in every way that of a fairly profligate taxer and spender.)
But back to DuMond: We can believe Huckabee's denials, or we can believe the overwhelmingly documented evidence. There was a time when Republicans were empiricists, meaning that we actually pay attention to evidence, to facts. The evidence here is clear. Huckabee has no good answer for it, no matter how sincerely he regrets the ultimate, deadly result of his horrendous decision -- a decision whose horrendous results were eminently predictable.
Huck Freed Rapist, AND Lied About It
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 9:50AM
This detailed, convincingly irrefutable column today on the Huffington Post (don't be turned off by the source; the writer is a solid journalist and he backs up every single word he writes) should, if there is any justice, destroy whatever credibility Mike Huckabee has left. It shows that Huck utterly ignored a boatload of evidence from other rape victims of now-infamous rapist/murdered Wayne DuMond that DuMond was dangerous and vicious and would likely rape again. And it tells of serious efforts at a cover-up by Huck directly and by his campaign aides in 2002. Frankly, on substance, it is the single most devastating news story of this entire election cycle, for either party. Every single step that Huck takes, somebody ought to question him about this story. In substance, it is WORSE than the Willie Horton case, because the governor's (Huck's) involvement was so personal and so specifically directed at freeing DuMond. This is serious, serious stuff, and it shows a serious, serious lack of judgment. Indeed, reading all the details of Huck's actions, and of him ignoring the heartfealt pleas of DuMond's victims despite their heart-wrenching stories, is almost nausea-inducing.
Why Do People Like Huck?
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 9:17AM
The Wayne Dumond story is back in the news. I will defer to Quin on substance( although I have written on Huckabee's economic record I plead relative ignorance to the details of the case and whether Huckabee is responsible ) but there is something here which answers in part the question as to why people seem to "like" Huckabee more than Romney. Here is how Huckabee talked about the incident awhile back. Huckabee's research guy sent around the transcript of his GMA appearance which includes this: "It was a horrible situation, horrible, I feel awful about it in every way. I wish that there was some way I could go back and reverse the clock and put him back in prison. But nobody, not me, not Jim Guy Tucker, not Bill Clinton, not that parole board, could ever imagine what might have transpired.. . .I am deeply sorry, and I mean, awfully, just horrified of what happened to (inaudible). And there is not a single person that will ever bring those women back to their families. But that's the story, that's what happened. " Contrast that to Romney on the Judge Tuttman story. He repeatedly declined to express any regret -- for the incident, for appointing the judge, for anything. All he and his press shop would say was: dump the judge and the "system" failed. There are lots of differences on the merits between these two but as a window into how the candidates react and how they handle reaction to stories the contrast is telling. How does the average voter react to the two approaches and the two candidates as people( which I am sorry to say is more important that specific policy for many voters)? I think they will feel more sympathy and relate better to Huckabee. They still may be persuaded by others not to vote for him but this explains I think in part why he is "connecting." (Listen, conservative pundits never got the Bill Clinton biting the lip and "feeling your pain" act but a lot of voters did.)
New Rudy Ad
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 8:44AM
This is the first "Rudy is a tough SOB who's going to stare down the bad guys" ad. Interestingly the new Washington Post ABC poll shows Romney's biggest weakness is on fighting terrorism. (In that category Rudy and McCain are tied with 31% thinking they do best and 17% thinking Romney does.)
Re: Specifically
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 6:43AM
Shawn, I agree . Frankly this type of article--don't want to "surprise" people-- exemplifies my objection to the roll out and giving of The Speech. By giving into the howls of the mob he has unleashed a ridiculous exploration of the details of his religion (which seems bizarre in a presidential race- did I miss this with Joe Lieberman?), assured 24/7 Mormon coverage( which let's face it will make some uncomfortable) and ultimately will make The Speech, I think, seem either disappointing or like he was "pulling a fast one" when The Speech itself doesn't march through Mormon theology. He had to market it as the Mormon speech people have been demanding (to satisfy some pundit group and frankly to get the attention he wants) but indications are from him and others that it will be a rather banal discussion generically of faith in America. I find the whole effort odd in the extreme and irrelevant to the real issues which concern people about Romney, --not his "faith" but his lack of political conviction and the sense that he will say virtually anything to get elected. As to the latter, there is, unfortunately, no speech to cure that ailment.
NH Poll
Posted by on 12.5.07 @ 6:32AM
Mitt Romney 37
John McCain 20
Rudy Giuliani 16
Mike Huckabee 9
Ron Paul 8
Fred Thompson 4
Duncan Hunter 1
In the recent Fox poll McCain was also in second. In the AP poll he was in third.
UPDATE: I think Charlie Cook may be right and we have distinct races, in distinct states that may not be affected by one another. The two latest Florida polls show Rudy with a 14 pt and an 18 pt. lead in Florida. (Huckabee's momentum shows up with a second place in one and a near tie for second in the other.) On the other hand if you believe the Romney Big Momentum theory, none of this matters because all the polls will change after Iowa ( or Iowa and NH).
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Specifically, The Man Has Faith
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 10:33PM
Oh. My. Gawd. Mormons don't drink coffee? Or alcohol? And they believe in an afterlife where souls are still up for grabs? Insane. I also hear those secret underwear turn into spacesuits when the temple rocketships launch at rapture.
Can we stop now? Please?
The "specifics" of Romney's faith are no more outlandish than the "specifics" of any other religion. If an atheist wants to lecture on the weirdness of Mormonism, fine. Anyone following a book they believe is divinely inspired, however, is going to have to work pretty hard at not seeming bigoted or, dare we say, jealous--the recruitment rate and cash reserves of the Church of Jesus Christ these days are nothing to sniff at, after all--since no Mormon belief is any crazier than what Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Protestant beliefs look like to someone outside of those faiths. If you're an evangelical who buys into all the great and miraculous events of the Old and New Testament you need not convert to Mormonism to recognize the miracles of the Book of Mormon are not so excessive in comparison. Not by a long shot.
By all means let's see all the Giuliani and Thompson press releases attacking Romney dutifully cut and pasted in here. He deserves some of it, no doubt. As for his religion, its reputation should neither rise or fall with the speech Mitt Romney gives tomorrow. Many of those who happen to also practice his religion are great Americans--I know and love many Mormons myself--who do not deserve to be belittled by people who want to hang onto what is apparently, shamefully one of the last acceptable prejudices to publicly declare.
More than one pundit has posited Mitt Romney must tread softly tomorrow to avoid giving the impression that he's calling those among the religious right who harbor these prejudices bigots. Happily, I am not running for president and therefore not bound by the same constraints.
There's Still The Speech
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 9:06PM
This is a pretty good argument for Romney not to go into the specifics of his faith. ( No use "surprising people.") So perhaps there is very good reason to stick to the seven simple points but hopefully not veer off into "Barney" speak.
LA Times Poll
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 7:58PM
Confirming similar movement in Gallup the LA Times poll shows Rudy dropping 9 pts. to 23%. Huckabee is now in second at 17%( up 10 pts). Thompson is in third at 14%, McCain at 11% and Romney at 9%. Perhaps Huckabee has become the alternative to Rudy. Quite a choice, huh?
Poorw Widdle Biww and Hiwwawy!
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 7:27PM
Oh, I feel so bad for poor little Bill and Hillary Clinton! The media just isn't fair to them! Oh, woe is them. At least that's what Bill Clinton says. Specifically, reports Breitbart, "During a campaign stop on behalf of his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president said he can't understand why so much of the media coverage of the campaign ignores her experience." He thinks she would be doing better against Obama if the mean old media just focused on how much more experience she has than what Obama has.
Okay, fine. He wants a focus on her experience, here's a focus on her experience. How about her experience not just firing but trying to have prosecuted the totally innnocent people who ran the White House Travel Office? How about her experience getting rich at a 250-million-to-one shot, in terms of the size of her $99,000 profit on one corrupt $1,000 investment in cattle futures? How about her telling falsehoods under oath about the Travel Office mess? How about the corrupt Whitewater/Castle Grande/Madison Guarantee deal or one of them; they all run together) where the Clintons avoided losing their shirts while taxpayers had to bail out the S&L to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? How about her experience hiring scary private investigators to pressure women into keeping their relationships with her husband away from public scrutiny? How about her experience with corrupt Chinese/other Asian fundraising schemes? How about her experience conveniently misplacing billing records for two years? How about her experience saying that Social Security does not face a crisis when it manifestly does? How about her experience proposing a failed socialistic health care proposal? How about her experience in White House temper tantrums, and using foul language, and fomenting bizarre conspiracy theories (not to mention oxymoronic ones) about a "vast right wing conspiracy"? How about her youthful flirtations with Black Panther types and with Communists?
And I could go on and on. Bill Clinton wants experience? We'll look at experience. Gladly.
Re: Sanctuary Mansion
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 7:21PM
"The Globe, in a follow-up report, contacted the Romney campaign Tuesday to ask why the former governor continued to allow two illegal immigrants to work on his property in Belmont, Mass. Community Lawn Service not only mows the grass, but also rakes leaves in the fall.
Romney promptly drafted a two-paragraph letter to Ricardo Saenz, the company's owner, informing him of the termination.
'As soon as we were given credible information that people assigned to work on the governor's property were not of legal status, we acted,' Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said. 'The governor has been on the road almost constantly since the beginning the year and hasn't interacted with the people working on his lawn.'"
Isn't there anyone who lives there -- even a footman or someone -- who keeps an eye out?
"Sanctuary Mansion," Revisited
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 7:17PM
The Boston Globe has posted its story that evidently prompted Romney to fire the lawn care company today. When Giuliani used the "sanctuary city" line during the debate, I thought it was silly. I still do. But it has given new life to an embarrassing story that Romney seemed to have overcome more than a year ago. So it may turn out to be a politically savvy move by Giuliani after all.
Thompson Reems Romney
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 6:39PM
Statement from spokesman Todd Harris:
"First Mitt Romney was FOR illegal immigrants working on his lawn,
and then he was against it, then for it, and now I guess he's
against it again. Sounds like his position on amnesty."
UPDATE: A rival camp chimes in: "After having thrown stone after stone on the illegal immigration issue, it looks like Mitt Romney's glass house has finally shattered. Talk about the height of hypocrisy." Next in the queue: employing the adage that you should not interfere when a rival is in trouble, Rudy Communications Director (never shy) Katie Levinson says: "I think it speaks for itself."
UPDATE 2: Patrick Hynes, the blogger outreach consultant for McCain, broadens the response: "Ever since he changed his position on illegal immigration reform earlier this year, Gov. Romney has demagogued the issue to death. This latest incident shows he is no more sincere on illegal immigration than he was on the day he laughably insisted that he is a lifelong varmint hunter. Or the time he said he voted for Mike Dukakis because he wanted to vote against Bill Clinton twice. Or the time he said Ronald Reagan was his hero even though he doesn't support President Reagan's economic policies. Or the time he said he he strapped his dog to the roof of his car during long distance trips because the pooch enjoyed fresh air. Or the time … or the time … or the time …" Well that would be one way of looking at it.
Romney Continued to Employ Contractor w/Illegals
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 6:23PM
Romney Spokesman Kevin Madden
releases this tonight:
"One item to bring to your attention.
Upon learning that a company caring for the governor's property was employing individuals who are not permitted to work in the United States, Governor Romney took immediate action to terminate the lawn service company in question for failing to comply with the law.
Provided here is a statement from Governor Romney and the letter of termination to the company.
Statement by Governor Romney:
"Today, I fired a landscaping company that I learned was employing people who are not permitted to work here in the United States. After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions. They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status. We personally met with the company in order to inform them about the importance of this matter. The owner of the company guaranteed us, in very certain terms, that the company would be in total compliance with the law going forward.
"The company's failure to comply with the law is disappointing and inexcusable, and I believe it is important I take this action."
- Governor Romney
Letter of termination:
Governor Mitt Romney
December 4, 2007
Mr. Ricardo Saenz
Community Lawn Service
174 Shurtleff St.
Chelsea, MA 02150
Dear Mr. Saenz:
Today I learned that employees of your company, who were assigned to work on my property, are not permitted to work in the United States. Given your company's disregard for the clear instructions provided on this issue last year, I am forced to terminate my contract with your company, effective immediately. My family will no longer utilize your services and all scheduled visits are cancelled as of today.
I am disappointed that our relationship must end on this note, but we simply cannot tolerate your inability to ensure that your employees are legally permitted to work in the United States. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Mitt Romney"
I asked Madden why fire them now? He said "We learned the company hired had again failed to comply with the law. They were terminated once that was learned." Questions remain as to why they were given a second chance, how and when this subsequent offense came to their attention and whether in light of this he should revise and extend his remarks to Rudy in the debate that it is not the place of a home owner to check up on the legal status of his contractor's employees. You can be this will be talked about in the days ahead, despite the fact this was dropped by email after 6pm.
UPDATE: Madden explains that "The Boston Globe presented us with what we judged was credible information." He says that he believes the new incident involved "I believe new people." Never one for a loss for words, Madden chimes in that, "this just underscores the governor's belief that we need a secure employer verification system to guard against hiring those here illegally."
Well, that is one way to look
at it.
Ron Paul's Republican Views
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 6:15PM
Ron Paul discovers that the ladies on The View are fickle: They love you when you're against the war, they hate you when you're against abortion.
Happens to me all the time.
Re: Don't Squeeze the Charmin'
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 4:33PM
Oh, well I guess they're both in trouble then. (Though actually I don't completely agree with Paul Cellucci's criticisms of Romney.)
Decoding Grover
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 4:32PM
Mark Ambinder interprets Grover Norquist's praise of Rudy Giuliani as a "Non-Endorsement Endorsement" that's "as close [to] an endorsement as you'll get from Mr. Norquist."
Ambinder's reading way too much into this. Over pre-dinner cocktails at the AmSpec 40th Anniversary Dinner last month, Ramesh Ponnuru and I were chatting with Norquist about how lots of people interpreted it as an endorsement when Norquist introduced Mitt Romney at CPAC. Nope, said Grover; it was just that Romney was the first to sign the Americans for Tax Reform no-tax-hikes pledge, and he wanted to reward him for doing so. The Norquist letter to Giuliani, and his follow-up comments to Ambinder, are just more of the same: Giuliani promised in the YouTube debate, for the first time, that he'd never raise taxes; Norquist rewarded him with praise. The ATR mission is to get politicians to commit to not raising taxes, and they do their best to make that commitment politically valuable. It's as simple as that.
Re: Huckster Populism
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 3:56PM
Joe Carter, Huckabee's director of research, emails that if you look at the context of Huckabee's comments on CEO salaries, "it makes is clear that he was referring to business leaders that pay themselves handsomely while running the companies into the ground."
Carter points out that Huckabee has said:
"It does trouble me greatly, and my faith does generate this thought, that when CEOs are making 500 times the average wage of their workers, how can you justify that?'' When a CEO makes $100 million while his workers lose pensions or jobs, he said, ``that is immoral. That is a moral issue. I don't know how we can call it anything other than a moral issue. That's not free enterprise. That's theft.''
Personally, I think when a candidate goes out of his way to call himself a Main Street rather than Wall Street Republican, it's fair to categorize him as a populist. But you be the judge.
Chait Is The Real Huckster
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 3:28PM
Wlady, while I agree with many of the criticisms leveled at Huckabee on the blog here today, I think Jonathan Chait needs to brush up on his business history. Saying that Sam Walton's "salary surely qualified as immoral if anybody's ever did" is an utterly ignorant statement. Far from taking an exorbitant salary, Walton was legendary for never taking a salary above $350,000--a paltry amount compared to CEOs at other large corporations. The idea was to instill a culture of keeping costs low to pass on savings to consumers (he also was known for wearing inexpensive clothes). Walton's tremendous wealth came from owning a large percentage of stock in the company that he built from the ground up. If that is Chait's idea of immoral, then words have no meaning.
Huckster Populism
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 2:36PM
Maybe we should let Bush Hater Emeritus Jonathan Chait have the last word on Huckabee's populism. In his TRB column in the Dec. 10 issue of the New Republic, appropriately titled "Huckster," he contrasts Huckabee's denunciation of CEO salaries as "immoral" with the kind words Huckabee has to say about Wal-Mart honcho Sam Walton -- "whose salary," Chait writes, "surely qualified as immoral if anybody's ever did." Instead, Huckabee, in his campaign book From Hope to Higher Ground, calls him a "visionary" and a man of "extraordinary integrity." Even worse, according to Chait, Huckabee was quite happy to see top state employees hired away by Wal-Mart itself (to ensure "docile oversight," according to Chait). How long before Mike visits Wall Street?
Re: Don't Squeeze The Charmin'
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 2:30PM
Short answer, Jim: It's not the size of your time in the public sector that matters, it's how you use it.
Re: Club for Growth
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 1:52PM
Indeed it may be that the rise of Huckabee has provoked these signs of support as economic conservatives (some around here) get nervous that Huckabee could win this thing.
If a couple posts challenging the over-wrought conventional wisdom on Huckabee signifies some of us "around here" are "nervous" others in this same neighborhood must be terrified of Mitt Romney.
Don't Squeeze the Charmin'
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 1:42PM
John, I also prefer Mitt Romney to Mike Huckabee (though I do confess to finding Huckabee more likeable). But I'm not sure why Huckabee is less qualified than Romney's left pinky. Romney obviously has the more impressive private-sector resume, which is certainly worth taking into consideration, but Huckabee served ten years as governor to Romney's four and has won three elections to Romney's one. In terms of experience in politics and government, it seems to me that Huckabee compares favorably to Romney.
Club For Growth
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 1:16PM
Following on the heels of Grover Norquist's letter, Club for Growth sings Rudy's praises on school choice. Should Huckabee indeed become the Rudy alternative we'll have a standardbearer for social conservatives vs. one for fiscal conservatives. Indeed it may be that the rise of Huckabee has provoked these signs of support as economic conservatives(some around here) get nervous that Huckabee could win this thing.
Rudy and Huckabee Tied Nationally?
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 12:40PM
That's the finding of the latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll, which has both candidates at 18 percent, but I'm skeptical. The RCP average (which even includes Rasmssen) still has Giuliani with a double digit lead, with 26 percent of the vote. His poll numbers have remained remarkably steady in the mid to upper 20s/lower 30s range since May. Rasmussen, which relies on robo-calls, had Thompson ahead of Giuliani just a few months ago. So I suspect that either Rasmussen is over-sampling socially conservative voters, or the other polling companies are under-sampling them.
This (Not So) Charming Man
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 12:05PM
John,
You are not alone. I attended a few Huckabee events last week--to be detailed in a column early next week--and saw no evidence I should not continue to contest the now-omnipresent declaration, "Well, you've just got to like Huckabee." Um, no. No, I don't. Maybe a portion of the Republican electorate wants their very own right-wing Jimmy Carter to piously preen and moralize as he embraces class war rhetoric and nanny state regulations, but I'd rather go with someone Bill Clinton isn't so wild about.
Early States
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 11:00AM
Huckabee's "Charm"
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 10:38AM
I've been turning this over in my head for a while, as remarks on Mike Huckabee's charm and likability have become de rigueur: Am I the only one who finds Huckabee viscerally unappealing? There's nothing endearing to me about a cross between a diet guru and a televangelist selling condominiums in Heaven, which is how Huckabee strikes me. The guy's so full of crap I can smell it wafting out his ears. He's running on a quirky-at-best tax plan that has no chance of passing, and gets a free pass from some of the same people who harp endlessly on the alleged phoniness of Mitt Romney (whose left pinky is better qualified for the presidency than Huckabee). I don't get it.
Like a 9-Year-Old Fighting a Heavyweight Champion
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 10:07AM
Note to Kevin Drum: David Freddoso has forgotten more about day-to-day maneuverings on Capitol Hill than you will ever know. You're going to hurt yourself.
Re: Romney Speech
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 9:35AM
Spin Mania
Posted by on 12.4.07 @ 6:26AM
Romney folks are trying madly to lower expectations. In my lay of the land in Iowa account, spokesman Kevin Madden says: "Our goal, and our plan from the beginning, was to be competitive in these early primary states where we had a good opportunity to get known and really reach voters through the grassroots. We've gone from being unknown in Iowa to being in a competitive position there. I'd expect that finishing towards the top in Iowa will help us gather momentum as we move towards New Hampshire, where we have also spent a lot of time and built a great organization." They also make no bones about the fact they are turning the klieg lights on Huckabee's record. Huckabee not surprisingly uses both as evidence that Romney is desperately spinning. The challenge for Huckabee: get his organization in shape so he's not the Howard Dean of 2008.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Is Religion The Problem?
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 10:50PM
Sometimes you want someone to grab Romney by the lapels, shake him and scream "stop!"
The Washington Post reports:
"I think Americans recognize that if you are
comparing two people based on how long you've been pro-life maybe
that should pale in comparison with how are you going to be able to
strengthen the dollars, improve our economy, get better jobs for
Americans. . . [and] end illegal immigration," he said.
You wonder if a greater self-awareness and restraint wouldn't go a long way. Politicians are selling themselves but you shouldn't feel like you're being asked to buy a ginsu knife or a "pre-owned" car. Contrast that to the self-effacing McCain performance on MTV.
Re: Grover Norquist's Letter To Rudy
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 9:56PM
For Giuliani, perhaps the most helpful aspect of the letter is that it is a shield against any future attacks or questions about why he didn't sign the American's for Tax Reform pledge. Does anybody care to wager on whether Norquist's statement that "You are the most successful tax cutter in modern New York history and, on balance, the most successful tax cutter in the Republican field today" will supplant the George Will quote in future debates as Giuliani's most-repeated citation?
Huckabee and Immigration: An Update
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 9:44PM
In a post yesterday I wrote that Huckabee was set to unveil an immigration plan on Monday. While the part about him being close to announcing a plan is accurate, obviously, it isn't going to be unvieled today. I am told by a source inside the campaign to expect it "soon." I will post when I have more details.
Re: Romney's Speech
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 9:04PM
Contrary to advice from David Brody, Romney seems not keen at all about describing with any specificity -even any generality- his faith. This I think is perfectly appropriate under most circumstances but neatly highlights the dilemma he faces. If : 1)he says his faith informs who he is and all he does and 2) his faith is not one most are familiar with (and some are downright uncomfortable with) can he simultaneously say " but I'm not going to tell you anything about my faith"? Well sure he can say it, but with such an approach whose minds will he put at ease? Likely, people who already think religion shouldn't be a factor or people who have satisfied themselves that Mormonism is not a "cult" were fine with him before and will be fine afterwards. I share James' head scratching about what Romney can/should say that will not be off putting or pablum. UPDATE: Given four days to mull this over the press has begun to discuss, even if Romney won't, the ways in which Mormonism "diverges from conventional Christianity" and the differences between Romney's and JFK's situation ( "Kennedy could take for granted that Americans understood Catholicism, whereas few understand Mormonism. And Roman Catholics make up a large portion of the population.") Perhaps a Sunday announcement for a Tuesday speech would have cut short some of this.
Two Man Race? Nah.
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 8:08PM
Rudy's Ups and Downs
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 7:14PM
Darwin and Conservatism: Friends or Foes?
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 4:16PM
On Wednesday, the Robert Taft Club will be holding a panel discussion on Darwinism and conservatism from 7:30 to 10 at the Boulevard Woodgrill in Arlington. The speakers will include TAS senior editor Tom Bethell, Charles Murray, Reason's Ron Bailey, and National Review's John Derbyshire.
A taste:
Many conservatives are critical of Darwin's theory of evolution. Some base their reservation on religious grounds, while others criticize what they call Scientism -- a belief that faith in Darwinism and/or science in general has become a secular religion. Others are concerned by the social and political conclusions that some advocates of Darwinism apply to human affairs.At the same time, Some conservatives believe that studies evolutionary and genetic theory have many conservative implications. Scientists in the fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have suggested that human nature is fixed, rather than being a blank slate. Others argue that work in behavorial genetics shatter egalitarian notions. National Review editor John O'Sullivan has dubbed conservatives who apply these theories as "evol-cons."
Get directions to the event here.
Clinton's Experience Gap
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 3:34PM
Her campaign just sent along a release titled, "HILLARY CLINTON'S REMARKS TODAY ON HER EXPERIENCE AND VISION FOR A NEW AMERICA."
In reality, much of the excepted remarks are comprised of attacks on Barack Obama. Only toward the end does she address her alleged "experience":
"A President can't dodge the big fights, can't find political cover, or have words speak louder than actions. A lot of words we have these days aren't matched by action. And much of the actions I see, I simply disagree with. I have a very clear record on all of these issues. A record of 35 years of fighting for children and families, fighting for working people, fighting for our future - and as President, I will keep on fighting. But I'm running on more than just my record and my experience. I am also running on my vision and agenda of a new beginning for America."
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This might work for her in the Democratic primaries, where she faces the even less-experienced Obama and John Edwards, but it will not fly in the general election. "Fighting" is not the same as winning. It is not the same as actually achieving something. Hillary Clinton has absolutely zero tangible accomplishments to point to, and I think her experience gap could prove fatal in a general election.
Romney 'n' Religion
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 3:29PM
Of course, maybe the target audience of Romney's speech is George Will.
Re: Romney's Speech
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 3:13PM
Mitt Romney faces a challenge in his religion speech that John F. Kennedy didn't. While Kennedy had many arguments at his disposal, at the end of the day his speech emphasized how little his religion would influence his decision-making as president and the limited role he believed religion should play in the public square. Neither of those arguments will resonate much with evangelicals, who want to defend religion in the public square and believe obedience to the Gospel should trump other considerations. And assuming skeptical evangelicals are indeed his audience, he has to find a way to say that his theology doesn't matter without seeming to impugn those who take these theological differences very seriously.
When Hillary Attacks
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 2:28PM
Dave Weigel does a admirable job of exposing the absurdity of Clinton's attack on Obama's leadership PAC.
Lost in the Shuffle
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 11:45AM
Lost in the media swarm over The Speech and Huckabee's lead in the Des Moines Register poll is Thompson. He's in fourth, at 9%, just ahead of McCain. Unlike McCain, Thompson has been up on the air with his TV ads but they seem not to have moved the meter for him. Given the focus on the duel between Romney and Huckabee it may be difficult for Thompson to get attention. His campaign manager talked ahwile ago about using Iowa as a stepping stone to SC. Does a fourth place finish plus possibly coming in behind Paul in NH do him in? Lots of possibilities (e.g. Romney and Huckabee inflcit damage on eachother, allowing Thompson to move up) and perhaps the last Iowa debate will help Thompson, who has gotten very favorable reviews for his substantive proposals lately, get some traction.
Re: Romney Speech
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 11:08AM
I think theoretically a candidate talking about faith and religious freedom who is articulate and polished would stand to benefit from a well delivered speech with a huge amount of national attention. But this is a particular candidate with a particular problem--or he wouldn't be giving The Speech -- with a particular critical segment of voters, Evangelicals, who play a critical role in a must win state. So its success will need to be measured by whether he is able to reach that audience, not make his problem worse and indeed impress them to the extent that he gains back voters from Huckabee. It is possible to do that, but a tall order. And of course, most people won't see or hear The Speech but will get their news from coverage by outlets that are already asking whether Mormonism is a religion or a "cult." Meanwhile, Huckabee is spending his time bonding with Evangelical pastors. Can Romney pull it off? Of course but I understand after less than 24 hours of coverage why many of his advisors were counseling against it. UPDATE: The comparison between Romney and Huckabee here is startling--you wonder if this had gone better if The Speech would still have been needed. I agree with Rich Lowry on Huckbee's weekend performance as well.
Romney's Speech
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 10:43AM
In the end, I think the "Faith in America" speech will be a net positive for Romney, but perhaps not in the way everybody is expecting. In response to Kathryn Jean Lopez's prediction that the speech will be "heavy on religous liberty," Ramesh Ponnuru writes that "the case that voters shouldn't hold his Mormonism against him is not the same as the case for religious liberty, and it would be a big mistake for him to suggest that people who hold reservations about electing a Mormon president are hostile to religious liberty." I don't actually think this will end up being about winning voters who are uncomfortable with the idea of electing a Mormon president. The speech will be heavily covered on the news and he'll be touching on the themes of religious liberty and tolerance that are among the founding principles of our nation. He'll likely come off as a pretty decent guy, talking about how great America is, and some undecided voters will warm up to him. It just may not be the demographic of undecided voters that everybody is talking about (evangelicans who are suspicious of Mormonism).
Southern Yankees
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 10:09AM
Byron York hits the trail with Rudy Giuliani in South Carolina, and notes a changing aspect of the state--northern retirees (largely from New York and New Jersey) moving to the Palmetto state. They tend to be more economically conservative than socially conservative, and Giuliani is courting them heavily. New York transplants are no doubt one source of Giuliani's strength in Florida, but York's column sheds some interesting light on how immigration from the north could help him in South Carolina as well.
Re: Why The Speech?
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 10:06AM
Is Our Children Learning? Um...No.
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 9:57AM
In the opening paragraphs of "B-Boys of the Bronx, Dancing in the Street," H. Jack Martin relates the thrill he felt watching a break-dance battle--for the uninitiated, see here and here--in my Lincoln Center nrighborhood last year:
"It totally blew my mind," said Mr. Martin, 33, the assistant coordinator of young adult services for the New York Public Library. "We were all just, like, 'We've gotta get this into the library.'"
Yes, by all means, let's get this into...the library. Get out the bass-heavy boomboxes and throw down some cardboard. It isn't as if anyone is attempting to concentrate at the library. More:
Little did he know: Breaking, the individualistic, physical form of dancing born in the South Bronx in the late 1970s as part of an explosion of hip-hop culture, has been a fixture at the library for decades, ever since a pioneering generation of entrepreneurial-minded B-boys brought the art form down to Fifth Avenue just below 42nd Street in the early '80s. It was one of the first points of infiltration for what has since become a cherished staple of Manhattan street culture.
A fixture for decades. I think I'm starting to see where things might have gone wrong with education in this country. (No, Ma, I didn't get my book report done. How was I supposed to? I been at the library! Working on my headspin!) Nevertheless, let us swoon at the New York Times meticulously correct use of the term, B-boy.
New Iowa State University Poll
Posted by on 12.3.07 @ 8:22AM
- Mitt Romney 25.4%
- Mike Huckabee 22.1%
- Rudy Giuliani 15.8%
- Fred Thompson 9.1%
- John McCain 7.7%
- Tom Tancredo 4.1%
- Ron Paul 3.0%
Huckabee is well within the margin of error( plus or minus 6%). The figures for Thompson and McCain are virtually identical to the Des Moines Register poll released over the weekend. Unlike the Des Moines Register poll the ISU poll has Hillary up by more than 6 pts: Hillary 30.8%, Edwards 24.4% and Obama 20.2%. It is worth noting that the poll was taken Nov. 6-18 but released just today. If you think the ground has shifted in Huckabee's favor(or in Obama's) since then, keep that in mind as you look at the numbers.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Re: Why The Speech?
Posted by on 12.2.07 @ 10:30PM
The NY Times ("It comes only a week after Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor who a new Des Moines Register poll shows has now passed Mr. Romney for the lead among likely caucus-goers in Iowa, began airing a television ad that highlighted his identity as a 'Christian leader.' Mr. Huckabee's rise in the polls has been fueled by evangelical Christians.") and Campaign Spot both discuss the Romney Iowa polling/Huckabee success with Christian conservatives as the backdrop to The Speech. So is The Speech going to deflect from the polling or heighten attention, suggesting Romney's need to, in Campaign Spot's words, "swing for the fences" to secure Iowa? I tend to share Powerline's take on it ("I still think it's a mistake. For one thing, if it's really true that Huckabee has gained ground because of concerns over Romney's religion, stimulating more discussion of Mormonism will make that situation worse, not better.") Telling voters not to think about pink elephants usually doesn't work. UPDATE: At NRO and elsewhere some are questioning whether this brings back the Muslim in the cabinet question. I think that depends on what the precise message is and if this is about religious nondiscrimination or about convincing evangelical voters that Romney's value system is similar to theirs.
NRO's Problematic Reporting From Lebanon
Posted by on 12.2.07 @ 9:16PM
I don't really have time to do this topic justice at the moment, but you can get up to speed here.
Why The Speech?
Posted by on 12.2.07 @ 8:08PM
Re: Rudy McHuckabee
Posted by on 12.2.07 @ 7:28PM
Rudy McHuckabee
Posted by on 12.2.07 @ 5:25PM
I've made the case that a Mike Huckabee win in Iowa over Mitt Romney would benefit Rudy Giuliani. I still think that, but I'll revise the prediction: It depends on how well Giuliani himself does. If Giuliani performs respectably in Iowa and South Carolina, and either wins or places a strong second in New Hampshire, Huckabee will probably doom Romney (and Huckabee and Ron Paul together may doom Fred Thompson). But if Giuliani can't do better than a distant third in any of the early states, or manages to do worse than that in any of them, Romney may not have to run the table to remain competitive -- or for the race to remain open.
Romney Decides To Deliver Mormonism Speech
Posted by on 12.2.07 @ 5:20PM
After much debate, Mitt Romney has decided to address the issue of his faith head on in a speech Thursday at the Bush presidential library.
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden just released the following
statement:
"The governor has been invited to The George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas to deliver this address on Thursday, December 6.
"Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation.
"Governor Romney personally made the decision to deliver this speech sometime last week.
"While identifying a venue for this address, the campaign consulted with President George H.W. Bush's office last week about Governor Romney's decision. President Bush was gracious enough to extend an invitation to deliver the speech at the presidential library.
"The invitation to speak at the presidential library is not an endorsement of Governor Romney's campaign."
Re: Union Leader Endorses McCain
Posted by on 12.2.07 @ 1:31PM
It will be interesting to see how the Union Leader endorsement affects the race in New Hampshire. The paper was very helpful to Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Pat Buchanan in both 1992 and 1996, but less so to Pete DuPont in 1988 and Steve Forbes in 2000. (Though I suppose a case could be made that DuPont wouldn't have finished fourth in New Hampshire, in a race that included Bob Dole, Pat Robertson, and Jack Kemp as well as George Bush, without the Union Leader.)
Many polls find McCain closer to frontrunner and next-door neighbor Mitt Romney than DuPont or Forbes were to the frontrunners when they ran. But the 1996 Union Leader endorsement of Buchanan came a little earlier in the campaign, maybe September 1995.
TNR Finally Recants
Posted by on 12.2.07 @ 12:46PM
Franklin Foer files a long account of the Beauchamp affair as it appeared from his end. The conclusion:
When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.There's a lot to pick through in Foer's self-serving and tendentious account, but the bottom line is clear: There's simply no excuse for how long it took TNR to retract these stories.
Huckabee Set To Unveil Immigration Plan
Posted by on 12.2.07 @ 10:52AM
Mike Huckabee is set to unveil an immigration plan on Monday that a source inside his campaign described as very tough on illegal immigration.
The plan will be rolled out just as Mitt Romney, in an attempt to stave off a challenge in Iowa, is attacking Huckabee for being soft on illegal immigration as governor.
I'll await details for further comment, but this sounds like a schrewd move by the Huckabee campaign. What is Romney going to do, criticize another candidate for being more conservative during the presidential campaign than he was during his time as governor?
UPDATE: The immigration plan is still on, but will not be announced on Monday. See here.
Union Leader Endorses McCain, Officially
Posted by on 12.2.07 @ 6:56AM
Read why here.
A taste:
It goes on to mention his foresight on the right strategy in Iraq, his long pro-life record, and his heroic service during Vietnam.
- Strange Newt Respect
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Let's Return to the Gold Standard
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
