- 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 15, 2007
Endorsement
Posted by on 12.15.07 @ 11:37PM
You gotta love a paper like the Des Moines Register whose editor refuses to discuss immigration or foreign policy in the debate and then endorses McCain, citing his immigration and foreign policy views and experience. ( Both the Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe of course do McCain no favors with the base by citing immigration and opposition to Bush tax cuts as top reasons they support him.) But I stopped believing 99% of newspaper endorsements mattered in 1980 (confirmed in 1984) when practically none would endorse Reagan.
A New Base For 'The Base'?
Posted by on 12.15.07 @ 10:24PM
Where is al-Qaeda these days? According to at least one informed observer, the bin Laden network may be shifting its logistical base of operations from
Huckabee Responds To Romney on Foreign Policy
Posted by on 12.15.07 @ 7:47PM
From the Huckabee campaign:
Today, Governor Romney attacked Governor Huckabee's latest article in Foreign Affairs. In doing so he attempts to distance himself from his previous positions on the war in Iraq. Earlier this year Governor Romney endorsed setting "timetables and milestones" for Iraq policy but called for keeping them private - an approach introduced by Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Senator Pryor was so enthused to have Romney's support that his office publicly commended the Massachusetts's Governor, stating, "At the end of the day, the president doesn't have an exit plan." Michael Teague, a spokesman for Pryor, said in an interview. "We think [President Bush] should be forced to develop that, and we're happy to see Mitt Romney feels the same way."
"I am disappointed by Governor Romney's attempt to label me as a "Democrat" because of my tough approach to foreign policy," said Governor Huckabee. "Perhaps he should read the article in its entirety before making such ill-informed comments."
In contrast to Governor Romney's claims that the surge was not working and that we needed to set a timetable for withdrawal, Governor Huckabee has been steadfast in his support of victory in Iraq and the nation's "War on Terror." He remains confident that the gains our Armed Forces are making in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to increased security both at home and abroad.
Julia Carson, RIP
Posted by on 12.15.07 @ 7:15PM
Indiana Rep. Julia Carson has died of cancer. RiShawn Biddle reflected on her service here.
Back and Forth
Posted by on 12.15.07 @ 4:44PM
As noted early and picked up elsewhere Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom is going after Huckabee for his lack of "depth" on foreign policy. I asked him whether Romney was challenging his smarts or his experience. Fehrnstrom didn't directly reply but offered this: "Unlike Mike Huckabee, Governor Romney doesn't joke about foreign policy, and he doesn't speak in Mother Goose rhymes about how we should conduct our foreign affairs. It's far more serious business than trying to get kids on a playground to be nice to each other, which is what Mike Huckabee believes." Meanwhile Team Thompson jumps into the fray, finding it ironic that Romney was accusing Huckabee of running from the GOP on foreign policy, beginning with this title on their email: "Mitt Romney Has Decided To Be The Arbiter Of What's 'Republican' or Not, How Ironic..." They then proceed to remind us of all the "I was an Independent"/"I wasn't a Ronald Reagan Conservative" quotes. Thompson generally has been focusing on Huckabee, looking to pry loose voters who may be disposed to Thompson as an alternative but perhaps the Romney down in the dumps talk has gotten Thompson thinking. Could he get close to Romney and be the real Iowa surprise?
Huckabee's 'Clueless' Foreign Policy
Posted by on 12.15.07 @ 4:40PM
By using the word "clueless," I refer not only to Michael D. Huckabee's understanding of international relations as outlined in his Foreign Affairs essay, but the 1995 Alicia Silverstone teen movie, which seems a surprisingly relevant comparison, given Huckabee's opening paragraph:
More than anything, Huckabee's essay is startling in its incoherence, and it has something within it to scare off any faction of the conservative movement. To those who remain supportive of President Bush and believe he has helped keep us safe since Sept. 11, Huckabee writes that "the Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad." He goes on to echo liberal talking points in criticizing Bush for his handling of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Al Qaeda. For those conservatives who believe that Iran does not deserve to be awarded with diplomatic ties to the U.S. given its "a world without America" and "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric-not to mention funding of terrorist activities directed at Americans in Iraq-Huckabee thinks we should talk with the Islamist government, because "When one stops talking to a parent or a friend, differences cannot be resolved and relationships cannot move forward. The same is true for countries." I'm sure there are some non-interventionist conservatives who may agree with Huckabee's criticisms of the Bush administration for being overly macho, and needlessly confrontational with Iran. Yet what they have to look forward to in a Huckabee administration would be continued U.S. presence in Iraq, possible air strikes on Pakistan, a larger military, and a foreign aid program that would make Lyndon Johnson's Great Society look like a trivial domestic initiative. "We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts -- which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope," Huckabee writes. "The United States' strategic interests as the world's most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations as the richest."
While Huckabee accuses President Bush of being arrogant, he doesn't seem to have any problem playing teacher to ignorant Americans:
And in case you're wondering, Huckabee understands the enemy, because he's heard of Sayyid Qutb.
Then there's the recurring "if only I had been president I would have made all the right decisions" theme.
On Iraq:
On Al Qaeda:
Huckabee concludes his article by saying:
As I wrote earlier this week, can we really afford to trust somebody with zero foreign policy experience who has a record of helping to release the most violent of criminals back into society, to stare down our enemies?
I totally understand that many social conservatives are rallying behind Huckabee, because they feel he is the only candidate who represents them. And I also understand that some Huckabee supporters feel as though us Northeastern conservatives are being condescending in our criticisms of Huckabee and his followers. But for those social conservatives who also view national security as important, I strongly advise taking a look at his Foreign Affairs article and examining his record as governor, and asking whether you seriously believe he is up to the task of being commander in chief during a time of war.
What They Are Doing on Saturday
Posted by on 12.15.07 @ 1:32PM
Friday, December 14, 2007
Beauchamp Denouement, Continued
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 5:39PM
Peter Scoblic talked to Beauchamp during a period when TNR accuses the Army of not letting Beauchamp talk to them. Hmmm.
More Huck Ethics Problems
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 5:30PM
The Politico has the details of another set of questions about Mike Huckabee's ethics. To be fair, the bit about having some contributors ending up on boards and commissions is not, in and of itself, a huge deal. It happens all the time, in every state, and it is not necessarily corrupt. But it it comes on top of so many other bizarre actions involving the Huckabee's getting "gifts" and using state funds for questionable purposes, etc. (and this article also contains lots of good info on all that stuff), then the PATTERN of behavior starts to look suspicious or ethically questionable.
The Changing of the Guard?
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 5:10PM
A former Iowa Precinct Captain for Hillary Clinton, switches to Obama as a result of Clinton's negative attacks. Video here.
Making Tom Coburn Look Like Robert Byrd
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 3:59PM
Jim Geraghty also gives some thought to Ron Paul's domestic government-cutting side, wondering what Washington would look like under a Paul presidency. It brings to mind another thought experiment. Paul has unquestionably benefited from being the only antiwar Republican in the field, and certainly wouldn't have received favorable treatment from Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert if he were merely the pro-life tax-and-budget slasher candidate. But would he have gotten more favorable treatment from conventional conservatives if he was running for president without the war in Iraq?
Costly Caucuses
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 3:06PM
Writing in the Examiner, Tim Carney says that Iowa's gain is the taxpayer's pain.
Re: The Clinton Panic
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 1:14PM
Phil: It would also show her unfitness for the pressures of the office. She wilted under a non-attack from a moderator who was doing his job by asking fair questions. The press has been generous, and she has faced a challenger who keeps all of his punches up, when he can bring himself to throw punches at all. The brittleness is pretty extraordinary. If this counts as adversity, what does she do when faced with real adversaries?
Rasmussen: Huckabee Leads In Florida
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 1:08PM
I am highly skeptical of this poll, which is way out of whack with every other Florida poll I've seen. But for what it's worth, Rasmussen has Huckabee in the lead in the Sunshine state at 27 percent, with Romney at 23, and Giuliani in third at 19. Needless to say, were there any validity to this poll, it would be a nightmare for team Rudy. Contiued strength in Florida is about the only bit of good polling news he's seen as of late, and winning the state is a central part of his strategy.
In virtually every other poll, Giuliani has a comfortable double digit lead.
Another Theory on Rudy's Sliding Poll Numbers
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 11:44AM
So far, the two main reasons given for Giuliani's recent slide
in national polls have been the Judith security detail stories and
the military success of the of the surge in Iraq, which may have
made national secuirty less pressing in voters' minds. But in
writing my previous post on Hillary Clinton, I wonder if Giuliani's
slippage is in some way related to the fact that Clinton herself is
no longer inevitable. One of the things that has helped Giuliani
maintain his national lead all along is the perception that he
would be the best Republican to prevent the ultimate nightmare
scenario of another Clinton presidency. Maybe now that Clinton
looks more beatable, coservative voters no longer feel they have to
make sacrifices on the social issues by nominating Rudy as the
Hillary Slayer.
UPDATE: I see the Politico has explored this.
Enough High Minded Stuff
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 11:43AM
Interview With Mike DuHaime
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 11:32AM
The Clinton Panic
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 11:30AM
Should Hillary Clinton go on to lose the Democratic nomination in what would be one of the most spectacular collapses in political history, one of the primary reasons will be the way she went into utter panic mode once she had a single lousy debate performance. First her campaign tried to blame Tim Russert and then tried to play the female card, both of which backfired dramatically. Then she started moving on to attacking Barack Obama for something he wrote in kindergarten, which is almost a Saturday Night Live version of opposition research. And then we get the attacks on cocaine use from a top official on her campaign. Each new poll showing her losing ground just prompted another absurd attack, which then lead to a further drop in the polls, which caused another attack, and so on. The only thing that Clinton has done by pursuing these negative tactics is to make Obama's case for him. It reminds voters why they are fed up with politics as usual and want a genuine change candidate like Obama in the first place. This is the political equivelent of kicking goals in your own net. Absolutely staggering.
Hillabust?
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 11:09AM
Howard Fineman isn't bullish on Hillary's early-state prospects.
Re: Why I Love the Wall Street Journal
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 10:50AM
Jennifer, that is a nice Kimberly Strassel piece on Ron Paul, though I chuckled at her reference to "violent antiwar talk." Coverage of Paul's domestic-policy views and emphasis on a much smaller federal government has been lacking. The only top-tier candidate who comes close to hoisting the limited-government banner on a consistent basis is Fred Thompson. Dr. No and Sen. No Hand Shows.
What A Good News Day in D.C.
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 9:55AM
Why I Love The Wall St. Journal
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 9:43AM
Well the reasons are too numerous to list but "The Delta House Congress" and "The Gospel of Paul" (James, I am beginning to see your point) are just two.
What He Said
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 7:32AM
Charles Krauthammer says it exactly right. Huckabee and Romney to varying degrees both have gotten it wrong and have set up the GOP for a heap of trouble down the road. Who's the GOP candidate to come forward and offer a wiser formulation of the balance between religion and politics or do we need to write in Krauthammer ? Now that I think of it...
NH Poll
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 7:15AM
From Research 2000:
Giuliani 18
Thompson 3
NR's Lowry Destroys Huck
Posted by on 12.14.07 @ 7:01AM
Wow. In one of the most effective take-downs I have seen from a columnist in quite a while, National Review Editor Rich Lowry just blows Mike Huckabee to smithereens. The column is particularly devastating for two reasons: because it is superbly well written, and because every word of it is wise and on target. Really well done.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
South Carolina
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 10:19PM
Mike Huckabee 24%
Fred Thompson 17%
Rudy Giuliani 16%
Mitt Romney 16%
John McCain 13%
Ron Paul 11%
Say No To Universal Coverage
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 7:46PM
Civics 101
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 5:17PM
Ted Kennedy gave us this pearl of wisdom today: "The NLRB 'is supposed to protect the voice of American workers, but the board is no longer fulfilling that responsibility.'" No, no , no. That is like saying the Supreme Court is there to represent stockholders against corporations. Oh, yes, they say that too. Where do they get the notion that impartial adjudicators are supposed to be on the side of Democratic interest groups? The NLRB is there to interpret labor law not to declare "union wins again, next case." This is why the Bush Administration is accused of "politicizing" government agencies. If the normal state of things is that Democrat constituencies always win, any deviation is obviously the work of evil Republicans. Sigh.
Be Iowa Polite
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 3:51PM
Typically I try not to overplay the hokey let’s-fawn-over-the-good-rural-stock stories that come out of Iowa and New Hampshire every four years, particularly since I grew up in the Granite State and, while fully recognizing we have a fundamentally better state government than most other states (no sales or income tax, no seatbelt laws), as people our day to day lives are not that different. (You’ll not hear any joyous four a.m. cow milking stories from me.) When that maniac recently took over Hillary Clinton’s office in my hometown, I couldn’t believe the baloney the national media wrote about the place. The coverage was seriously like a script synopsis for Funny Farm. I love the insane place, but Mayberry North it ain’t.
That said, I really appreciated an editorial I read in one of northeastern
And more:
So when the phone rings, take a deep breath. If the caller on the other end wants to know whom you support, what issues are important to you, whether you plan to attend a caucus, tell the caller. Be
Maybe this is just one goody-two-shoes editorial writer going off here, but it’s nice to see, with all the contention over which state should go first and why, someone from one of those states acknowledge the privileged place in American political life they currently hold.
Steroid Scandal: Naming Names
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 3:46PM
Smoking Gun has the report.
Here are the major names:
DECEMBER 13--Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Miguel Tejada, Gary Sheffield, Andy Pettitte, and Paul Lo Duca top the list of baseball stars fingered today as users of performance-enhancing drugs in the bombshell investigative report issued by George Mitchell, who has spent the past 20 months probing the widespread use of steroids and other banned substances in the sport.
Included among the dozens of other current and former ballplayers identified in the Mitchell Report as users of either steroids, human growth hormone, or other banned substances are John Rocker, Lenny Dykstra, Mike Stanton, Denny Neagle, Chuck Knoblauch, Eric Gagne, Mo Vaughn, Benito Santiago, Jason Giambi, Matt Williams, Rondell White, and Kevin Brown.
I count nine players who were on the Yankees at one point in time.
Beauchamp Denouement
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 3:33PM
Ellie Reeve is mad that Frank Foer didn't stand by her husband forever. Jon Chait chimes in:
"The basis [for the retraction] was just that Scott is maddening," he said. "He's just flaky, he's irresponsible, he doesn't do things that are in his own obvious interest to do. … Scott was the guy who lives in the group house and is supposed to pay the electric bill and just doesn't, and the lights get shut off. Frank was the guy who had the lights shut out on him."And then Frank was the guy who blamed the Army for the lack of electricity.
ARG Poll
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 3:25PM
Ending on New Year's Resolutions, Again
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 3:22PM
At least Washburn's asking the candidates to make resolutions for themselves, realizing that the "make a resolution for someone else" question yesterday didn't really work.
UPDATE: Good lord, that wasn't her last question. She's giving them each a moment to suck up to Iowans. As if we haven't heard enough of that.
He Ain't Racist, He's My Copartisan
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 3:19PM
Washburn asks about Biden's racial sensitivity in light of his race gaffes (remember those?). Obama pipes up to testify to Biden's goodhearted nature, taking an easy opportunity to bolster his nice-guy image.
Not This Gal
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 3:13PM
I couldn't bear to watch today but am grateful to those who are. So happy to hear Hillary is being candid on raising taxes ( and if you can afford a computer to read this -- or have a job with a computer at your desk -- you fit her definition of "rich" I am certain).
Public Relations 101
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 2:59PM
I just got an email from the folks launching the Ron Paul blimp. It reads, in part:
A firm decision will be made this afternoon after meeting with the pilots. We have been told that if too much snow falls on top of the blimp it can become top heavy and tip over. We have also been told this is bad for PR.
Mitchell's Steroid Report
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 2:55PM
Choosing to skip the Democratic debate, I caught some of George Mitchell's press conference on steroid use in baseball. Unsurprisingly, Mitchell found that use of steroids was "widespread," and that MLB was slow to react, but that after it instituted random testing in 2002, steroid use dropped. The problem is, players then shifted to human growth harmone, which is undetectable in urine tests. He said that all 30 baseball teams had players who used steroids or other performance enhancing drugs at some point. He didn't name names in the part of the press conference that I saw, but did in the report, and they're already starting to trickle out.
Mitchell advised against disciplining the players unless their actions were very serious and doing nothing would hurt the integrity of the game. His reasoning was that many of the infractions detailed in the report are old news--from 2 to 9 years ago. Getting caught up in high-profile battles over disciplanary actions would complicate efforts to forge an agreement between players and owners to reform baseball's steroid policy going forward. His recomendations have three parts: 1) Create a "Department of Investigations" that would look into allegations of use, especially because some substances remain undetectable. 2) Improve education as to the harmful effects of steroid use. 3) Extend the drug testing agreement, which gets trickier because it requires the approval of the Player's Association.
All in all, a sad day for baseball, but hopefully it will create an oppourtunity to address this alarming problem.
Hillary Attempts to Be Funny
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 2:49PM
She asks Washburn if she wants a show of hands about global warming, because she didn't get a good response from the Republicans. "We all believe in it, we all think it's a problem," says Hill.
How about a show of hands about who believes you can improve the economy by raising taxes and trading less with other countries?
The DMR Editor and the Dems
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 2:39PM
Carolyn Washburn is soooo transparently less hostile to the Democrats than she was to the Republicans yesterday. What a joke.
It's Quiet In Here
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 2:35PM
My cobloggers seem to be wisely sitting this snore-fest out. Weigel, Geraghty, and the Cornerites are liveblogging, though.
The Virtual Keyes Campaign
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 2:32PM
Byron York reports on Alan Keyes's mysterious campaign and an even more mysterious encounter with the candidate himself.
In the Des Moines Register's extremely limited defense, the paper had at least some reason to assume that the 2 percent Keyes polled in October might be valid even though he apparently didn't register in the last poll. Keyes drew 7 percent in Iowa in 1996, more than enough to affect the outcome, and was the third-place finisher with 14 percent in 2000. He won delegates both times.
Somehow, I'm guessing this year will be different.
The Dems Debate
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 2:14PM
Carolyn Washburn starts out with a dull budget question. When Obama speaks, Frank Luntz's panel on Fox News pushes the dials off the charts on the positive end -- even though Obama says absolutely nothing of note.
It goes off the chart again when Edwards starts talking about "corporate greed." No one else gets that kind of love from the panel.
UPDATE: Bill Richardson gets a spike, too, talking about helping the children. Was the Republican panel this enthusiastic? I watched the first half on CNN and was only watching Fox for the second half yesterday.
Federal Spending Transparency Site Launches
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 1:59PM
Sen. Tom Coburn and the Office of Management and Budget this morning announced the launch of a new government website that will provide Americans with easier access to federal spending data.
"This is a website that will ensure our liberty, because it will give us more transparency," Coburn said at a press conference to announce the launch of the site, which he fought for in the Senate along with Barack Obama. "An informed public is a free public, and a public that can hold us all accountable."
Coburn said that bloggers were the "key group" who helped spearhead this effort, and he said he hopes now that it is operational they will use the site (http://www.usaspending.gov/) to expose Congress. "I think this is going to be a wildfire," he said.
The site itself is still a "work in progress," according to an OMB official who also spoke at the press conference. He said that they will be updating the site with more data and more features, but they wanted to launch it ahead of schedule so they could begin to get feedback.
I just did some quick experimentation, and found it easy to use. I clicked on a tab for "contracts" and did a search for Jack Murtha's baby, Concurrent Technologies, and found they received over $176 million in contracts in FY 2006, $87 million of which went directly to Murtha's district.
So, what are you wating for? Get to work!
Sorry Again
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 1:36PM
First Huckabee and then Hillary. It is rather to clever to apologize so publically. You get "credit" for being so gracious and the bad thing you said gets repeated.
Devastating Anti-Huckabee Ad
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 1:31PM
Created by an outside group, this ad features the mother of the young girl who was raped and murdered by Wayne Dumond after he was released from an Arkansas prision with Huckabee's help. Though Huckabee may dispute that he played a role in Dumond's release, it cannot help him to have the victim's mother say, "If not for Mike Huckabee, Wayne Dumond would have been in prison and Carol Sue would've been with us this year for Christmas." And as I wrote yesterday, there's plenty of more material out there.
The Children Are Fighting Again
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 1:21PM
"It's going to be a rough day in the Bronx"
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 1:06PM
That's according to a source quoted in a Bergen Record story on the baseball steroid report due out this afternoon.
And if this ESPN item is accurate, it will be rough indeed:
A former New York Yankees strength trainer says information he provided to the George Mitchell investigation regarding supplying Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte with steroids is included in the Mitchell report scheduled to be released later today, a source close to the trainer told ESPN The Magazine's Shaun Assael.
I always defended Clemens against charges of steroid use, because I knew that he was legendary for his rigorous workouts and he was a pretty big and powerful guy throughout his career. But if it turns out he did use steroids, I can live with it as a Yankee fan, because I always viewed him as a hired gun and never formed a sentimental attachment to him. But Andy Pettitte? That would be absolutely devastating. He was supposed to be one of the good guys, and was the core of the rotation in 1996, when the Yankees ended a 18-year World Series drought, and throughout their run thereafter. If this report turns out to be accurate, it would be absolutely heart-breaking for Yankees fans everywhere.
The Mitchell press conference is expected at 2 pm. Stay tuned.
Re; Luntz Panel
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 12:19PM
Thompson Finds His Political Footing
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 12:12PM
Yesterday I watched a good chunk of the Republican debate with about thirty-five FredHeads at the North End Diner in
Thompson strode in and owned the room. He didn’t hold his own or get by unscathed, he owned it. This is a Thompson who, had he been released earlier would almost certainly be in a much better position to win the nomination than he is today: Charismatic, funny (“I think I’m going to have a cup of ethanol when I get home”), on message and bristling with enough energy to make his in-tow younger wife look like the one struggling to keep up. “We’re going to enjoy ourselves, have some fun, and talk about things that are important to the future of this country,” he said.
Maybe it was the debate. Thompson snickered with obvious relish as he reminded the crowd (who didn’t need reminding) how he had made clear to the debate moderator he wasn’t going to raise his hand “like a trained monkey reaching for a peanut,” adding about the other candidates, “It turns out you show some leadership and other people follow.” He hammered away on issues of consistency with near-as much fervency as a Jennifer Rubin blog post on Romney, labeling himself a “strong, consistent conservative” without any “bridge to be made or alteration to be had” to close the deal with the conservative base. (This is somewhat open to debate, needless to say.) “Where I stand today doesn’t depend on where I’m standing,” he said, briefly invoking Goldwater after the man who introduced him waved a Goldwater for President bumper sticker and told the crowd Thompson had spent time in college working to get the Arizona Senator elected. (Barry Goldwater’s son, incidentally, has recently endorsed Ron Paul.)
The candidate also tried to put a little distance between himself and his acting career. “Law & Order might have gotten a lot more publicity,” he said, but he’d fielded calls from Condi Rice looking for foreign policy advice during that time period as well. He took a tough question from a activist doctor about a boy who died from diabetes-related trauma, striking a good balance between compassion and defending the free-market approach to healthcare such question are typically designed to malign. Thompson also commiserated with politics-weary Iowans, even as he told them he was en route to a series of fundraisers. “I know your greatest wish for Christmas is to see more politicians on television,” he joked. And then signed an autograph for a little girl. Um, aww.
Finally, on his way out the door, Thompson warned the few reporters covering the event not to discount him or abandon his campaign for other candidates. “You watch, in a couple weeks we’re going to be in pretty good shape,” he said. “Be there or be square, ‘cause we’re going to be everywhere.” As much as it flies in the face of what things look like on the ground here now, the contention seemed completely believable coming out of Thompson’s mouth. Perhaps he’s regained his politician footing. Whether it’s already too late is an open question, of course, but Thompson seems to have turned a corner as far as his personal attitude towards the campaign.
Luntz Panel, Again
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 12:05PM
Just to follow-up on the "Romney-inclined types" thing--not that a large group alone necessarily signifies the people in it are right about anything, never mind politics, but I've been following Romney the last couple days in the outer reaches of ice-covered Iowa and he is drawing very large crowds in very small towns, not all of whom are coming out because they have some irrational love for "inconsistency" or who are "hyper political" by any stretch of the imagination. We're talking salt-of-the-earth when you get up into northeastern Iowa. Just because the media-at-large says Huckabee has a lock on "ordinary people" doesn't mean it's true, and Romney's fanbase is not made up solely of Type-A middle-managers at hedge funds.
Re: Luntz Panel
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 10:54AM
Actually, Jennifer, it's wrong to say the Luntz panel was comprised of "Romney inclined types." According to Luntz, a plurality was actually for Giuliani going into the debate, and Romney initially only had a few fans in the room. But he won virtually every one of them over by coming accross to them as well-prepared and presidential.
Morton Blackwell Endorses Fred Thompson
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 10:18AM
Somehow I missed this when it first came out, but Fred Thompson has secured one of the few endorsements that probably carries more weight behind the scenes than it does in the general public. (Most endorsements are the opposite: Some bigwig politician endorses another, makes a big media splash... and it makes very little difference.) Morton Blackwell may not be a household name in middle America, but he is a household name among conservative activists. And for good reason. He carries great organizational muscle both as Republican National Committeeman from Virginia and as head of the Leadership Institute, which has trained many tens of thousands of conservative acvitists through the years. He also carries great weight in the social-conservative community, because he has a justly deserved reputation for being a socio-con stalwart with a real understanding of how to stand for principle and win at practical politics at the same time. Fred-Heads thus have great reason to be happy today, with the Blackwell endorsement coming just as Thompson finally hit a huge home run at one of the cattle-show debates.
Perhaps Not the Best Argument for the Defense...
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 9:13AM
Sharpton's lawyer has an interesting take on his client's organization being raided by IRS and FBI agents.
Lawyer Michael Hardy shrugged off the probe, which sought a vast array of business, political and personal records, as a federal fishing expedition.
"I can't think of a time when the Rev. Sharpton wasn't under investigation," he said.
Re: You Know It Was Bad When
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 6:45AM
I and many, many others just hated it. Luntz's group notwithstanding (Wouldn't they be Romney inclined types? It would seem that articulate, hyper political people who wouldn't hang up or throw Luntz and his meters out their front door would be just the sort Romney would appeal to.), most seem to think Huckabee escaped completely unscathed and Thompson finally won one. Even a Romney fan thinks Thompson cruised but Romney's cheering section is very happy too.
You Know It Was Bad When...
Posted by on 12.13.07 @ 12:49AM
the Des Moines Register's lead political reporter, David Yepsen, knocks the debate that his own newspaper sponsored:
The event would have been more nourishing had the candidates and the format allowed for more back and forth.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Couric Better Than Washburn
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 11:03PM
Having barely recovered from the headache inducing debate, I got caught up on other news and found this interesting series of interviews with candidates of both parties by Katie Couric-- yeah who'd have thunk? The most recent one asks which country each candidate fears most. Other questions in previous rounds include their greatest mistake, what they are afraid of losing and what they think of global warming (no hand raising here). You actually learn something about the candidates. It's a sorry state of affairs when you think Couric would be an improvement, a big one, over the last few debate moderators.
...And Then There Were None
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 9:06PM
Another setback for U.S. Iran policy, post-NIE. First, China – which had previously been edging toward support for a third tranche of UN sanctions against Iran – reversed course and signed a multi-million dollar energy deal with Iran. Now comes news that
Keyes Has Them Right Where He Wants Them
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 5:55PM
Alan Keyes did what he needed to do today. He protected his place as the sole candidate in the tier above John Cox and Hugh Cort but below Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.
Huckabee Apologizes To Romney
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 4:45PM
Via the Campaign Spot, I learn that Mike Huckabee just said on CNN that he apologized to Romney after the debate for the Mormons/Jesus/Lucifer comment. Can we just end this religious war already end get on with more important things?
Focus Pocus
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 4:33PM
I thought Romney was fine -- certainly better than Giuliani, McCain or Huckabee -- but not as good as Fred Thompson. Giuliani was just okay.
Luntz Panel Has Romney As The Winner
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 4:01PM
FWIW.
They also thought, as I did, that Fred's refusal to raise his hand was the key moment of the debate.
Fred Thompson Wins, Hands Down
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:44PM
First, let me say that this was by far the worst debate yet. The questions were not only skewed to the left, not only almost entirely neglected foreign policy, but they were so broad as to allow the candidates to fall back on talking points. Also, there was no room for back and forth between the candidates. Absolutely awful.
With that said, Fred Thompson was the only candidate who stood out. He was funny, charming, and peppy. Here was a guy who wasn't afraid to speak hard truths, and who displayed knowledge of the policy issues--especially on entitlements. But the moment of the debate, the moment that will be talked about should he defy expectations and go on to win the nomination, was when he refused to raise his hand at the behest of the moderator. This demonstrated conviction, showed he was able to stand up for his principles, that he was a man who valued substance, a leader rather than a follower, and somebody who is running a different kind of campaign. In short, today Thompson was everything that conservatives had hoped they'd be getting when he announced his candidacy.
Huckabee was off today, and he is starting to get all of the scrutiny that comes with being a frontrunner. With Thompson promising to spend virtually all of his time in Iowa between now and the caucuses, Thompson stands to be the major beneficiary of any Huckabee fall. This is a wild presidential race, and Fred is not dead yet.
Who Won?
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:37PM
I agree with Jennifer that Thompson did the best. Frank Luntz's panel seems to think Romney won. Make of that what you will.
Not A Horrible Debate
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:33PM
The moderator was terrible, Alan Keyes was Alan Keyes, and the questions could have been much better. But overall, I don't think it was that bad. The candidates showed some spirit and made the best of the situation.
The Fox News Panel...
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:32PM
Is slamming Carolyn Washburn mercilessly for not letting the candidates engage each other. Washburn is the undisputed loser of this debate.
Awards
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:31PM
The Moderator: The worst, worst we have had yet.
The winner: Thompson
Helped Himself: Romney and Rudy.
Didn't Do Any Damage: Huckabee.
Where Was he? McCain
A debate without debate. A lifeless, useless exercise that will change no minds. However, if Thompson had been this good from day one we'd have had a different race.
The Stupidest Question
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:27PM
Asking for resolutions for others? McCain says to raise the level of dialogue. Huckabee says he'll watch what he says and asks others to do the same. Thompson makes resolutions for himself- be better man and father. (Should we ask what their favorite color is?) This is simply inane.
McCain
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:26PM
Defends his ideals but also touts his legislative achievements and getting things done. Makes a pitch for reaching across the aisle.
Romney and Rudy on Abortion
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:16PM
Romney gives as good an explanation as he has about changing to pro-life.
Rudy says he'd favor some limits on abortion and he's not going to change to get elected.
Rudy Asked About NY Information
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:13PM
Says all the information was transparent and everything he did was on view in NYC. She asks further and Rudy explains the information was available and was known. Rudy remains calm and unflustered.
Leadership
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:11PM
Rudy makes his pitch on leadership and being tested in crisis in the past. The next question asks about leadership and then we see candidate video clips (which is helpful because??). I think the univison debate was more enlightening. Seriously.
Speech (a different one)
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:09PM
Romney smartly thanks the people of Iowa. Says he's going to keep American "strong" and do well on the economy. A bit generic but ends by asking for votes which is refreshingly direct.
Fred's First Year
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:08PM
Wants to speak the truth about entitlements and the threat of terrorism. That's pretty standard for him. But I liked his line about telling Congress that he's happy to cooperate with them, but if not, he's going to go over their heads and talk to the American people. That gets to one of the chief criticisms conservatives have with Bush--that he hasn't done a good job of communicating, and selling conservative principles, to the nation.
Romney vs. Thompson
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:05PM
Thompson gives a calm and thoughful answer about re-establishing trust and getting judges out of social policy. Romney races through a list. Huckabee comes right back and says "lots of laundry lists" and does a uniter spiel very effectively.
Rudy's First Year
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:02PM
Gives a strong answer. When he talks about getting stuff done, he's at his best.
What are you going to do?
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:02PM
Rudy: tax cuts, security, border security and energy independence
Hunter: defense and strengthen military and border security( ok we'll take him for secretary state). The Miss Prissy moderator says "that's alot for one year." Good golly.
Romney
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 3:00PM
Says his kids are better than Huckabee's kids and echoes the NEA critique. He talks enthusiastically about education.
Tancredo Slaps Huckabee
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:58PM
He points out the inconsistencies in the former governor's opposition to federal education meddling.
Fred Blasts NEA
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:57PM
In talking about what the biggest obstacle is to improving education. Again, good for him. This was the Fred we were supposed to be getting when he decided to drop out of the race.
Thompson and Paul Nail It
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:56PM
The biggest obstacle to education? Ron Paul says the federal government, Fred Thompson the NEA.
Right on.
Thompson
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:56PM
Says the worst impediment is the Huckabee endorsing NEA! (Well the local branch did.)
Alan Keyes Fights For More Time
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:54PM
Gosh, did he really have to be invited?
Federal Government on Education
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:53PM
Romney says 60 seconds? Says what he did in Massachusetts but didn't answer the question which was about the federal government. She prods him on federal government and he says we need that testing. Huckabee says it's a state issue and shouldn't shift emphasis to the central government. Nice for someone to criticize NCLB. He then goes on to a cliche listing of support for education that doesn't bore students and favors art and music. Now Keyes' turn to be disruptive and stop the moderator from skipping him. (Ok I give her credit for THAT.)
No Bureaucrat Left Behind
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:52PM
Huckabee just managed to sound like more of a small-government guy, or at least a federalist, in his education answer than pro-NCLB Romney.
Romney on No Child Left Behind
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:52PM
Defends it. Ugh! But at least he takes a stand on something that puts him out of step with conservatives.
How Much Do Iowa Republicans Hate the DMR?
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:52PM
As I glance around the blogosphere, I see that we aren't the only ones who rose in unison to cheer when Thompson went after the moderator, Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn. Lots of conservatives love to hate the local liberal daily. Is it like that in Iowa? If so, could that -- the only memorable moment of the debate so far -- move Thompson's numbers a bit?
Romney
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:49PM
By the way did Romney say "it takes one to know one" to Thompson? Apparently so and media and opponents are pointing it out. Ok, not so presidential there.
Huckabee
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:46PM
Channels John Edwards and Bill Clinton on where he came from and representing the little guy. Maybe this is why Iowans like him.
Rudy and McCain on Global Warming
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:44PM
Answering that believing global warming is a man-made phenomenon
cannot help either of them. Giuliani said human activity was a
contributing factor--McCain chimed in with, "more than
contributing, my friend." Romney got to talk about what we could do
to combat it, the business oppourtunities,
and the need for global--not just American--sacrifice, so he
probably came off better.
Political Hot Air
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:43PM
Thompson smacks down Keyes. Also, who said, "Doctor, heal thyself"?
The Moderator
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:42PM
Reminds me of the substitute teacher we always harrassed. Order! Order! If they could get her to cry we'd be in business.
Way To GO!
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:39PM
Thompson refused to play the raise the hand game and disrupted the whole show. McCain and Rudy say that climate change is real and then we get into interruption chaos. Perhaps theye could all walk off the stage in unison and escape now.
Go, Fred, Go!
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:39PM
He just smacked down the idiotic moderator on climate change -- refusing to do the "show of hands" exercise, and refusing to answer the question if she won't give him time to expound. He gets well-deserved applause.
Way To Go, Fred
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:39PM
For putting the smack down on the moderator and refusing to do one of those demeaning hand-raising exercises.
The Candidates' Revolt
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:38PM
Good for them. Thompson, Romney, Paul, and company refuse to play the moderator's global-warming gotcha game.
Free Statements
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:37PM
Ron Paul does Ron Paul. Thompson stakes his claim to national security-- he's not going to outdo McCain but he's fighting with Huckabee here.
McCain on Trade
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:34PM
Just went on a tirade on ag subsidies. Gotta love that. Ok, so he's not going to win Iowa but he gained points in NH and elsewhere. Rudy makes a hearty pitch for free trade and opening markets. Thompson does as well. The debate is not condusive to banter between the candidates so everyone gets in their little spiel and we go on to the next on this set which looks like it was decorated by a funeral home operator.
Red Sea, Red Tape
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:32PM
Huckabee manages to do outreach to social conservatives while giving an economically conservative answer. No protectionism in this answer, though.
Romney
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:30PM
Is talking alot about his business experience which is smart and long overdue.
McCain
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:28PM
Says the overriding issue is national security and he devoted his life to it. You can't really take issue with that. May not win but when he's right, he's right.
This Moderator Is Ridiculous
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:26PM
The liberal bias in these questions is risible. She asks candidates which economic class is treated most unfairly by the tax code. Did John Edwards write these questions?
Huckabee
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:25PM
With the Fair Tax everyone is going to get rich. Romney says he doesn't stay up worrying about rich people's taxes. For better or worse, that's the difference there. Thompson socks Romney on "like to get to Romney" tax position. I think Romney is banking on a lot of mainstreet voters and not very many populists. Rudy makes a list of taxes he'd junk.
Alan Keyes
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:24PM
This time he is reaching out to voters who don't like beards, a major strategic shift from 1996 and 2000.
Thompson
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:23PM
Is best when talking about taking things away from people. His best outing yet.
Iowa Debate
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:21PM
Man, the production values for this thing are awful. It's on par with local access TV, and makes all the candidates look like city council members.
Tom Tancredo Channels Ron Paul
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:21PM
And does it without saying anything that would automatically alienate the party's hawkish majority.
Forgive Us Our Debts
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:19PM
Is it me or does the debt-centric focus of these questions seem off? The unfunded liabilities of our entitlements are at least as big a problem as the national debt.
What Sacrifices?
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:18PM
Rudy says restrain government. And when pressed on how we'd get by with less government he touts his healthcare and disparages nanny government. He's never going to please the NY Times talking like this. He seems very much more settled and "on" than last debate.
UPDATE: Lots of folks are on. Huckabee talks preventitive medicine. Romney was on a roll and then made a off the cuff remark about not much good from programs reducing teen pregnancy. (Huh? I thought we were making progress). But otherwise gives a great businessman like answer about priorities.
Good For Fred...
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:14PM
for explaining how our entitlement crisis is squeezing our military spending and thus poses a long-term threat to our national security.
Jonathan Chait Won't Like This
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:10PM
Rudy Giuliani just said cutting the corporate income tax rate will increase revenues.
Economy
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:10PM
Rudy starts off on the fiscal crisis: reduce spending, not replace government retirees and reduce taxes especially corporate taxes. Says Islamic terrorism is the security threat( he's going get his theme in) and the rest is financial security. Ron Paul sounded down right sane denouncing our spending ways.
UPDATE: Thompson makes a good argument that it is a national security issue because defense spending gets squeezed. Romney says it's not the time to think it's bleak (did someone say that?) -- I think his talking point was optimism today. Huckabee manages to talk about a country being able to feed themselves (we're in Iowa, guys). He is very solid. McCain in somber tones make the argument for fiscal discipline and energy independence. (He's not the sunny guy in the crowd.)
Debate
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:06PM
When the moderator said this is day one of the debate I did flinch. (The Democrats are tomorrow.) She seems annoyed they haven't debated in Iowa since the summer and she isn't going to bother much with Iraq and immigration. Well isn't this off to a lovely start.
Iowa Prep
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 2:04PM
Frank Luntz and his 28 mostly undecided people will get to tell us what ordinary people ( not that ordinary or they wouldn't get roped into this) think of the debate. Fred Barnes on Fox tells us that all the rivals want to help Huckabee undo Romney here. Watch out what you wish for.
Ron Paul Leads in Alaska
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 1:57PM
This poll shows Ron Paul ahead among Alaska Republicans with 29 percent, with Mike Huckabee in second place at 22 percent and Rudy Giuliani in third at 14 percent. It would be interesting to see other polls, but this result doesn't seem entirely implausible. Pat Robertson won the Alaska caucuses in 1988, as did Pat Buchanan in 1996.
Why these same Republican voters keep sending us Ted Stevens and Don Young is less clear.
Polls and a New Ad
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 1:33PM
A slew of new polls. Strategic Vision has Huckbee up by 5 pts in Iowa (more than the last poll but closer than all other recent polling), the Suffolk WHDH NH poll has Romney 2 pts down to 31%, McCain up 6 pts to 19% and Rudy down 3 to 17%. Huckabee is also in first in Georgia now. Rudy leads in Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, Rudy has a new ad in NH which concludes with this: "Rudy will also rein in runaway federal spending. Do away with earmarks. Make agency heads find 5 to 10 percent savings in every budget. And when nearly half of the federal work force retires over the next 8 years, he'll only replace half of them. Rudy Giuliani. He won't just talk about cutting taxes and reducing government. He'll deliver." Not quite a comparitive ad but I think we know who he is suggesting is the talker. (By the way did anyone else notice Rudy hasn't gone up with TV ads in Iowa? Will he?)
Rudy, Do Something
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 1:01PM
Recently, the news on the Republican side has been dominated by Huckabee's surge, Romney's speech, and the battle between the two Iowa frontrunners. When Giuliani has been in the news, it has concerned the unflattering issue of security for Judith and himself. To put it in terms he might use himself, instead of remaining on offense, recently he has been very much on defense. Not surprisingly, he's seen his national lead nearly evaporate. The last time his national standing was threatened was after Fred Thompson's entry into the race in September, and Giuliani was able to reassert himself by seizing on the controversy over the MoveOn "Betray Us" ad and demanding the same discount from the NY Times. Perhaps there are some advantages to laying low for the time being while others duke it out, and mounting a late surge when the moment is right, but that seems risky to me. In about an hour, he'll mix it up with his rivals in Iowa, and he'll need a commanding performance to reestablish himself as the frontrunner.
Obamasaurus Rex Watch
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 12:34PM
This may not end up looking so bad afterall. Dave Weigel notes that Obama is closing in on Clinton in South Carolina and New Hampshire. What happens to those numbers should he get things going with a win in Iowa?
The Limits of Romney's Stool
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 12:17PM
The National Review endorsement of Mitt Romney rests on a calculation by elite conservatives that of all of the alternatives, Romney is the best option to preserve the Reagan coalition of economic, social, and national security conservatives. This is something Romney has referred to as the "three-legged stool." While I can certainly understand the logic behind this, I wonder whether this conclusion will eventually be reached by actual voters, or if it is an inside the Beltway type argument that won't resonate much when push comes to shove. It is striking to me that for all the money and effort Romney has expended, at different points, Thompson and Huckabee have come out of nowhere to shoot past him in national polls, and now Huckabee leads in Iowa, which Romney seemed to have sewn up. Surely, Romney may end up winning in a field of imperfect candidates, but this tells me that there is still severe resistence to him. For whatever reason, voters aren't quite ready to buy the product he's selling. My feeling is that though the NR argument makes some sense on a cerebral level, Romney seems unable to connect with voters on an emotional level. That's the main reason, I think, why Huckabee--despite his own many imperfections--has soared past Romney in Iowa and nationally. Huckabee is making that emotional connection, and voters seem more willing to forgive his flaws.
In 1980, there could have been another candidate who checked all the boxes to run as an economic, social, and national security conservative, but he would have been unlikely to make history. The Reagan coalition formed not because a politician conducted surveys and plotted the results on some issues matrix, but because of Reagan himself. His arguments didn't just make intellectual sense, they rang true to people on a deeper, more spiritual, more emotional, level.
My point is that voters don't typically vote on the basis of filling out a checklist of a candidate's positions on issues, but Romney has been running as if they do. Perhaps that will be good enough this time around. We shall see.
For another take on how Romney's data crunching could affect his presidency, check out Jeffrey Lord's piece from yesterday.
Greetings From Iowa
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 10:47AM
Unfortunately, try as I might, I'm not going to make any of these John Edwards and Tim Robbins events. (I did see the pair together recently in NYC.) But, if my favorite plantation owner or any of his pie-baking minions happens to stop by the AmSpec blog, I do have a message for him:
Dearest John,
A few nights ago on Hardball you chose not to say whether you thought Oprah was a bigger star than Tim Robbins. Hope springs eternal in your heart, John! And, so, please allow me to offer a heartfelt prayer that, should Mr. Robbins somehow draw the same stadium sized crowds as the Big O did last week, that you, Mr. Robbins, the Iowa City Public Library, the Grinnell Eagles Club and the Weeks Middle School Auditorium all survive the deluge in one piece.
Best!
Shawn
GOP Special Election Victories
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 10:42AM
Republicans held onto open House seats in Virginia and Ohio during yesterday's special elections. The Ohio victor, Bob Latta, is the son of Del Latta, who held that seat before the late Paul Gillmor and played a key role in the passage of the Reagan economic program.
Re: Romney and Commutations
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 10:35AM
Re: Romney and Commutations
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 10:11AM
There is another Republican chief executive with a reputation for being stingy with pardons and commutations: George W. Bush.
UPDATE: Though the president did pardon 29 people yesterday. Scooter Libby wasn't one of them.
New Hampshire Poll
Posted by on 12.12.07 @ 7:43AM
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Romney Interview
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 11:03PM
This is worth watching. A few points struck me: 1) Romney never pardoned or commuted ANYONE, saying he wouldn't second guess a jury. However, this is a traditional function of executives and you expect them to act --maybe not as many times as Huckabee-- but once in awhile, right? Were there no miscarriages of justice in Massachusetts in four years? Seems to me this is the type of approach of someone not wanting to create political problems later on. (Is this going to be his position as President also? Would he have refused to pardon or commute the sentence of Scooter Libby?) 2) He criticizes Huckabee for raising taxes $500M. Well that's exactly the amount Romney raised in "fees" (plus another $140M in loophole closing). Do I think Romney had an overall better fiscal record? Yes, but this particular item is not a helpful point of comparison. 3) Again on immigration Romney is dwelling on in-state tuition and scholarships-- not exactly the central issues on immigration. Has Huckabee so outfoxed him on the issue that this is all that's left to fight about? It seems small beans. (Others agree.) UPDATE: A friend reminds me of one such very deserving person denied a pardon: Anthony Circosta.
Swift Support for Romney
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 5:59PM
Alright, one last pedantic Mass-centric post quibbling with Jane Swift and then I'll let it go. Swift writes: "As a Massachusetts state senator, I was one of Mitt's early supporters in his 1994 contested primary for the United States Senate."
It was a contested primary, but not a very competitive one. Mitt Romney dominated at the Massachusetts Republican State Convention, winning the party's endorsement, while only one other candidate did well enough to qualify for the primary. Romney crushed that poor guy, one John Lakian, in the primary, winning more than 80 percent of the vote.
National Review Endorses Romney
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 4:43PM
This doesn't come as a suprise. It's based on the calculation that of all the options, he is the most viable conservative candidate, with the best chance to keep the Reagan coalition together.
Jane Swift Boating Romney
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 4:28PM
Former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift has a column in the Union Leader assailing her successor Mitt Romney (she, like the newspaper publishing her, is for John McCain). Swift makes the familiar arguments against Romney, from flip-flops to the fee hikes that look suspiciously like tax increases, which are valid criticisms and potential dealbreakers.
But, as a Massachusetts resident at the time, I found this bit funny: "As acting governor of Massachusetts in 2002, I ended my own campaign for the Republican nomination to give Romney the best opportunity to beat the Democratic candidate that November."
Please. Swift became very unpopular after succeeding Paul Cellucci as governor. Massachusetts' "long, successful string of GOP governors" would have almost surely been broken if Swift had been the Republican nominee in 2002. State party activists went to Utah to draft Romney to run, fearing that the governorship was at stake. Polls showed Swift losing to every Democratic gubernatorial candidate while Romney was beating all of them in head-to-head matchups.
Swift didn't immediately stand down. As rumors of Romney's entry swirled, she picked a running mate and campaigned. The day Swift dropped out, Bill Weld and Ed Brooke were preparing to endorse her. What may have persuaded her to give up: A Boston Herald poll about three days earlier showing Romney beating Swift in a Republican primary 75 percent to 12 percent. Among those who "definitely" planned to vote in the GOP primary, it was 80-11.
This might have something to do with why Swift isn't a Romney fan. Of course, there are certainly good reasons for Massachusetts Republicans to be miffed at Mitt.
Re: Huckaboom
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 1:27PM
Another poll with a big Iowa lead for Huckabee. With everyone else out of double digits it may be good news for all three of the others-- Rudy, Thompson and McCain-- who can simply say "Huckabee won" and not have their own low standing stick out.
UPDATE: And saying stuff like this which resonates with average voters is probaly worth a few dozen Club for Growth ads.
Re: McCain's Path
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 1:10PM
Races do change your perspective on candidates, in part, because the comparison to others may improve or worsen how you view them. At the start of the race McCain was "too old" or "too grumpy" or "too stubborn" or "too angry." Now, an experienced, no nonsense candidate with no scandals other than Keating Five ( 5 people other than the "Five" in America remember that) who abhors spinning and has little patience with fools seems sort of nice. Same guy, different perspective after seeing the alternatives. That change in how voters view him personally may be an additional plus in his column.
Does This Give Huck Immunity on Immigration?
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 1:02PM
Today, Huckabee was endorsed by Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist.
McCain's Path To The Nomination
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 12:47PM
In the new CNN poll, John McCain is the most competitive among Democrats (and the only candidate who leads Hillary Clinton). He is also rock solid on national security, an opponent of wasteful government spending, and pro-life. He was written off for dead during the summer by many pundits, but has survived, and it's now quite possible that he could rise from the pack in this chaotic field and capture the nomination, a la John Kerry in 2004.
Let's say Mike Huckabee wins
No doubt, McCain will have an uphill battle. His national poll numbers have been weak, he's essentially held steady in
To be sure, I'm not predicting that McCain will be the nominee. All I'm saying is that he's very much in the mix in this wild race.
UPDATE: I see that ABC wrote some similar things.
One Siren Too Many?
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 12:43PM
Romney hamhanded?! Shocked, shocked to see there's gambling going on in there.
Huckaboom
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 12:04PM
If correct, this is further evidence of the Romney/Thompson melt down as Huckabee gathers in the "anyone but Rudy" voters. Well, you can't get more of a contrast than Rudy and Huckabee, huh?
Well, That Didn't Take Long
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 10:50AM
The Associated Press is reporting this morning that the International Atomic Energy Agency has commenced a new round of talks with Iran over traces of weapons-grade uranium that have been found at a university in Tehran. Just to recap, eight days after the U.S. intelligence community certifies "with high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons work no less than four years ago, the UN is in talks with the Iranian regime about why it, in fact, hasn't done anything of the sort. The absurdity boggles the mind.
But He'll Be Good on Judges!
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 10:40AM
A while back, I asked if economic conservatives would be willing to apply the same standards to Mike Huckabee -- hey, forget his record, he is saying some things to the right of Hillary now -- that some of them were urging social conservatives to apply to Rudy Giuliani. It appears, at least in one particular case, that the answer is no.
Nachama Soloveichik of the Club for Growth provides a textbook example. She chides Ramesh Ponnuru for allegedly believing "that economic conservatives should accept Huckabee's Johnny-come-lately assurances, despite an appalling record on economic issues." What if you changed Huckabee to Giuliani and economic to social?
In fact, Soloveichik even recognizes this: "By this logic, social conservatives should be appeased by Giuliani's pledge to appoint conservative judges and the endorsement of Pat Robertson. Ponnuru is entitled to have one set of standards for judging social conservative credentials and another -- much lower -- set for judging economic conservative credentials. But he shouldn't expect economic conservatives to accept his low standards, especially when he wouldn't accept comparable assurances on the social issues that matter to him most."
That sounds familiar. (Ponnuru, who has been one of the few conservative writers to criticize Giuliani on social issues, rejects this characterization of his economic views and political priorities.) Now, it's true that Huckabee has kept up rhetoric offensive to economic conservatives while Giuliani backed off his unconservative social-issues talk following the reaction to his comments on taxpayer funding of abortion and the "okay" Roe decision earlier this year. Huckabee has called the Club for Growth the "Club for Greed," while Giuliani has launched no comparable attack on any social conservatives.
But the Club for Growth was criticizing Huckabee well before he made it into the top tier. It didn't take economic and national-security conservatives as long to go after Huckabee as it did for James Dobson to rattle his saber against Giuliani. I don't think there is anything wrong with criticizing Huckabee -- I agree with most of the criticisms -- but I do think the social issues' place on the Republican agenda has something to do with Huckabee's rise. For those of us who are both economically and socially conservative, it is not the year's most promising political development, to say the least.
I Remember This Guy
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 9:57AM
Room for a Small Government Champion?
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 9:42AM
Re: Romney Camp Consistency
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 6:39AM
McCain is the personification of a "conviction" candidate-- to his own detriment declining to reverse positions. It is fairly obvious that he has contempt for Romney's approach-- you recall his "even numbered years" crack-- in refashioning himself to fit the conservative open niche(open then, not now) in the race. Romney's repudiation of campaign finance reform and immigration -- two favored items for McCain -- has of course been particularly galling to McCain. I do not believe they have converged on immigration, at least not judging from the Univision debate. McCain tactically has accepted a border security first approach but is determined when that is all done to allow those still here to come forward and start a path to citizenship. Romney does not.
As for your suggestion, I think it would be interesting to go back to 2002 and see where everyone was and how far they've come but I have given up predicting whether that or anythig else would impact voters.
Re: Romney Camp Consistency
Posted by on 12.11.07 @ 2:16AM
Why would John McCain be less likely to support Mitt Romney now than in 2002, when the issue shifts put Romney closer to McCain's positions? Romney is now with McCain on abortion, gun rights, gay rights, and Ronald Reagan. McCain and Romney have now even converged on immigration and the Bush tax cuts. They only differ on campaign finance reform.
Maybe all the candidates can return to their 2002 positions and we'll see where we are?
Monday, December 10, 2007
Romney Camp Complains About Consistency??
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 9:09PM
Poll: Bill Most Cited Reason For Hillary Support
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 7:45PM
Another interesting finding in the NY Times/CBS poll came on the Democratic side, where 26 percent of Hillary Clinton supporters cited Bill Clinton as the reason why they supported Hillary, making it the leading reason. This is something I noted when I followed Clinton on the campaign trail. Other reasons given were "right experience" 23 percent (which I would argue overlaps with the Bill justification since the only experience that separates her from her rivals is being First Lady), "she's a woman" at 9 percent, and "she's smart" at 8 percent.
Overall, her over lead over Barack Obama narrowed in this poll from the one taken in October, and now is 44 percent to 27 percent (previously it had been 51-23).
NYT/CBS Poll: Huck Barely Trails Rudy Nationally
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 7:11PM
The poll reinforces what were seeing elsewhere: Huckabee has vaulted into second place, virtually tied with Rudy Giuliani, trailing 22 percent to 21 percent (a jump of 17 points from the prior poll in October).
Also note that in addition to Huckabee's surge Giuliani slipped, McCain and Thompson's numbers have plummeted, while Romney has gained. Details below, with prior results from the October poll in parentheses:
Giuliani 22 (29)
Huckabee 21 (4)
Romney 16 (12)
McCain 7 (18)
Thompson 7 (21)
Romney Ad's Interesting Choice of Title
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 6:46PM
The title of the new Romney ad is "Choice: The Record."
Hmm... Does that remind anyone of anything?
Handing Out the Keyes
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 5:25PM
Jim Geraghty isn't a fan of the Des Moines Register's decision to include Alan Keyes in the next Republican presidential debate. It seems to me that the only reason for Keyes's last-minute presidential bid is to be allowed to hector the other candidates in the debates. Although I've got to say, Keyes did respectably in Iowa in 1996 and finished third there with 14 percent in 2000. Keyes maybe more of a John Cox-style candidate this time around, but don't be surprised if he does at least as well or slightly better in the caucuses than Duncan Hunter.
Romney Attack Ad
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 5:20PM
Well it's about as nice an attack ad as you can get. Starting by calling Huckabee a good family man, the ad obviously wants to avoid offending those "nice" Iowans. The focus is on in-state tuition and scholarships for illegal aliens, although it also mentions that Romney vetoed a measure to grant drivers licenses to illegals. Interesting that there is no mention of their respective plans for the future ( Huckabee came out with a tough one to blunt that line of attack) or the infamous concern about sanctuary cities( that's going to disappear from Romney's vocabulary, I suspect; besides it was a made up issue for Rudy combat and has no utility against Huckabee) nor does he mention his "deputizing" plan which has been fairly well exposed as a last minute gambit that never went into effect. Is the ad so timid as to lack impact? Perhaps but it is a step, maybe the first, in trying to return to non-family issues. Romney (I think correctly) sees family issues which were the core of his Iowa appeal before the Huckaboom will not help him against Huckabee. Time to get back to immigration, taxes and foreign policy? Sounds like a good idea.
Re: Ron Paul's Cognitive Dissonance
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 5:17PM
That may all be true, but there are more reasons "domestic" than "geopolitical" for maintaining the trade embargo against Cuba sixteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and over a dozen years after we lifted the trade embargo against Vietnam. And I don't think "Haiti: the future that works" is a slogan we're likely to hear anytime soon.
New CNN Poll
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 5:03PM
The new CNN national poll shows Rudy and McCain slightly down, Romney up and Huckabee way up since last poll.
Giuliani 24%
Huckabee 22%
Romney 16%
McCain 13%
Thompson 10%
UPDATE: CBS/NYT has a similar result but with McCain and Thompson doing substantially worse:
Giuliani 22
Huckabee 21
Romney 16
McCain 7
Thompson 7
Paul 4
Hunter 3
Tancredo 1
Simply the Best This Year
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 3:05PM
Re: Ron Paul's Cognitive Dissonance
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 2:29PM
Jim: I do think there can be "serious debate" regarding "our efforts against Fidel Castro." They may have "manifestly failed," but mainly for lack of trying. If we could intervene in Haiti in recent years (whether overtly or covertly) both to restore Aristide and later to oust him, surely we could have removed Castro almost as easily. For various reasons both domestic and geopolitical, we chose not to. We didn't create Castro, as Ron Paul lamely contends. We just let him be.
Media
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 1:10PM
Going for Brokered
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 1:00PM
Is a brokered convention really possible? David Freddoso does the math.
Defining public diplomacy down
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 12:35PM
My colleague Robert Reilly, writing for the Claremont Institute, takes a look at why, exactly, we are doing so poorly in the "war of ideas" against radical Islam. Bob's answer? Because we have ceded the moral high ground in the struggle, without even knowing it. A provocative piece, and one worth reading in its entirety.
Re: Huckabee Honeymoon
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 12:30PM
Perhaps, but I think this is a good listing of why it may be hard to up end him. To that list I would add: 1) The argument that his judgement is too tightly bound up with and skewed by his faith is not available to Romney and not one other rivals are willing to make. 2) The holiday week works to his favor when combined with the caucus and primary calendar- freezing others' attacks and giving him a break until Jan. 3. 3) The Speech really did not help, but rather elevated the faith issue. Even if Iowa voters are not anti-Mormon the faith issue is a winner for Huckabee. The more talk the better as far as he is concerned. 4) He is running as a "conviction"( no pun, please) candidate-- against the convictionless Romney and the so far not very engaged Thompson-- which is what the base was looking for. 5) The Club for Growth attacks had the effect of amplifying the David vs. Goliath battle which might not have occured had one of his opponents made the same argument. I make these observations regarding Iowa. Huckabee's appeal elsewhere is still much in doubt.
Regime change, Iranian style
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 11:59AM
From the "Iran is not such a good neighbor" department: a court in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan has just convicted more than a dozen militants for plotting a coup to overthrow the government of president Ilham Aliyev with the help of Iranian security services. The news is actually not all that surprising --
Reviving the Reagan Legacy
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 11:53AM
The Conservative Voice has published an excerpt of a speech AmSpec friend and contributor Robert Stacy McCain recently gave to the Forsyth County Republican Women's Federation. Here's a taste:
Washington is like a big echo chamber. People sit around talking to their friends, and reading their own press releases, and next thing you know, they start thinking they're so smart, and so powerful, and so important that they don't have to pay attention to those microscopic pygmies called the voters...
Huckabee's Honeymoon Is Over
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 11:49AM
It's official. The media is turning on their favorite social
conservative. The Drudge Report runs a banner headline linking to
this Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette story from 1998, highlighting his line,
"take this nation back for Christ." The difficulty of all of
this from Huckabee's standpoint is that it will be more difficult
to convince undecided voters that he'd be a plausible general
election candidate.
Re: Ron Paul's Cognitive Dissonance
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 10:55AM
I'd like to echo the reader's criticisms, Jim. In your post you make a lot more reasonable assertions than Paul did at the debate--essentially, that our belligerence toward Castro and Chavez are ineffective at best, or perhaps even counterproductive. That's a good starting point for an intellegent conversation. But that's not what Paul said. He said. "We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world..." meaning that these men would not have existed in the first place were it not for the United States. That's a horribly overly-simplified way of looking at the world that ignores how these men rose to power, and with regard to Castro, it ignores the involvement of the KGB and decades of subsidies from the Soviet Union. Since I don't think Paul can be so ignorant of such facts, I used the term "cognitive dissonance." And regarding Paul's comments upon the death of Mao, it's great that Paul called him, "perhaps the most oppressive dictator who ever lived." But it's sad that you have to go back more than 30 years to find such a comment. It would be nice if during one of these debates he referred to one of America's current enemies in such a manner. Instead, he seems more interested in being controversial, and couldn't resist the urge to ham it up last night once he started getting booed.
The Episcopalian Crackup
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 9:30AM
Over the weekend, the first diocese voted to secede from the Episcopal Church. The uneasy relationship between the denomination's traditionalists and its dominant liberals seems to be coming apart.
They Always Blame America First
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 9:17AM
A reader e-mails to say I'm missing the boat on Paul's Castro-Chavez answer: "Notice he can't muster a harsher criticism of Chavez than 'hard to deal with' while pinning the blame on our own government. That is always how he answers these questions."
Fair enough. And the idea that we create Castros and Chavezes puts the moral responsibility on us rather than the dictators themselves, which obviously isn't right.
Re: Ron Paul's Cognitive Dissonance
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 2:23AM
Phil, I was prepared to believe from your earlier post that Paul said something nutty. But from your latest post -- and I did not watch the debate so I am judging Paul's remarks only from your post -- I really don't see it.
Our efforts against Fidel Castro, the longest-serving dictator in the world, have manifestly failed. There can be no serious debate about this. I supported the embargo against Cuba during the Cold War. I no longer support it. It has given Castro an excuse for the failure of his own policies, as anticommunist conservatives ranging from Bill Buckley to Pat Buchanan to Jeff Flake have recognized, and trade and travel with Cuba are things I would currently support.
As for Hugo Chavez, he obviously thrives on anti-American sentiment, no matter how unjustified. Our support for the failed coup against Chavez contributed to the conditions that allow him to still be in power today. Do you really believe there is no respectable case to be made for this?
Paul's views of communist dictators can be summed up well in his reaction to the death of Mao Tse-Tung:
It is true that Chinese values are different from those in America and the West, but it is foolish to believe the Chinese people do not have the same yearning for freedom we have. This fact is confirmed by the untold thousands who have risked their lives to escape Communist totalitarianism for the liberty of Hong Kong.We are asked to be "realists" and overlook such unpleasantries because we need the support of Communist China as a balance to the growing military power of the Soviet Union. This is a foolish policy that simply repeats America's past error of treating all of our enemies' enemies as our friends. This policy has probably done more to destroy our credibility as a champion of freedom than any other thing.
Americans pride themselves for having broken with the balance-of-power politics of Europe and establishing a foreign policy that not only upholds American interests, but is moral as well. This is a tradition which is as old as the country itself and which survives today in spite of Henry Kissinger's efforts to destroy it...
America must remain forthright in universal opposition to tyranny. This is why we must recognize Mao Tse-tung for what he was; perhaps the most oppressive dictator who ever lived.
Do I wish Paul was as forthright in his condemnation of our current enemies -- who deserve condemnation irrespective of even our most counterproductive overseas interventions -- today? Yes, absolutely. But the notion that we can't debate the consequences rather than the intentions of our interventions in our own backyard only guarantees more foreign-policy failures.
Ron Paul's Cognitive Dissonance
Posted by on 12.10.07 @ 1:41AM
Here are Ron Paul's remarks from last night's Univision debate on Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro which prompted loud boos and caused me to speculate that the Congressman might be smoking crack. This was a response to a question about how he would handle Chavez if elected president: