- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Return To Normalcy
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 11:35PM
I've had family visiting today, so have been away from the blog, but keeping a close watch on the returns. The only thing I'd have to add at this point is after all the discussion about how chatoic and wide open the presidential race was this year, this may be remembered as the day where things began to resemble a much more typical primary season. In both parties, the two candidates who had a bit of an edge going into the day, started to solidify their grips on the nomination.
On the Republican side, I think John McCain comes out of this in very strong postion. Yeah, he still has his differences with the base, but if he was able to win South Carolina, where immigration was such a strong issue, I think it shows that he can emerge from a flawed field as the default candidate. Rudy Giuliani has staked everything on Florida, but it seems to me that he has lost the electability and national security argument to McCain in voters' minds, and those were the pillars of Rudy's strategy for winning the nomination. At this point, even if Giuliani wins Florida, it seems like it's more likely that such an event would lead to a brokered convention than it would a Giuliani nomination. It's pretty clear that Mike Huckabee doesn't have much appeal beyond evangelical voters, which doesn't bode well for him as the primaries go national. As for Mitt Romney, his defenders will say he has the most delegates, but that will be very short lived. Despite his early exit from South Carolina, he poured a lot of resources into the state, and his fourth place showing suggests that he'll have a lot of problems with Southern evangelicals. The terrain on Feb. 5 doesn't look too good for Romney. Okay, so he'll win Utah, and let's give him Massachusetts (although that's by no means a lock). Beyond that, things are rough. Those Massachusetts/Utah victories would be partially offset by a McCain win in Arizona. There are the winner take all states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, which will almost certianly either go for Rudy if he can pull out Florida, or McCain should Rudy lose Florida and get behind the Arizona Senator. There are the Southern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee where Romney would have to be considered a longshot, given his showing in South Carolina, where he campaigned heavily. That only covers about half of the states to vote that day, but it's hard to see how Romney would have any inherent edge in any other states such as Illinois, California, Colorado, and Minnesota. So, the bottom line is that by default, McCain is in the best position right now.
As for the Democrats, I think Hillary Clinton delivered a huge blow to Barack Obama's chances of capturing the nomination. Just like New Hampshire, Obama's narrow defeat was a better showing than what he may have hoped for a month or two back, but expectations changed since then, and this was a state where he really needed to win. Obama is no doubt giving Clinton a run for her money, but what we're seeing is the advantage of Clinton having started out with a massive lead nationally and in most states. That is, Obama may do well enough to get close to her, but she started with such a margin for error, such a big cushion, that he'll have trouble getting over the top. It's sort of like a baseball team that is 15 games behind in early August, goes on an incredible winning streak, but at the end of the season comes two or three games short of the division title.
Mac is Back
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 10:54PM
At the McCain appearance I dropped by today, I walked alongside Bob Novak and Phil Gramm as they were chatting about McCain's comeback. (Gramm is one of McCain's "General Co-Chairmen.") "Boy, I'll tell you," said Novak, "Who would have thought, a year ago, that number one, McCain would be in there, and his biggest problem would be Huckabee? Who would have thought that?"
"Well, it tells you you never know," said Gramm. Gramm recalled the low period of McCain's campaign last year: "The odds of him winning the nomination on the betting market in London -- you could bet four and a half cents, you'd get a dollar if he wins." Novak chuckled. "If he makes this it's gonna be one the great political comebacks in the history of this nation," Gramm continued. "Nobody else could have done it, because nobody would have had the ego." I was a bit surprised to hear Gramm put it that way, but it's true: There was a time a few months ago when McCain's campaign was broke, his poll numbers were weak, and some of his advisers (including Gramm himself, if I heard correctly) were telling him to get out of the race, just as Sam Brownback did under similar circumstances. McCain was too proud to quit, and at this point he's got a good shot at winning the nomination. Pretty remarkable.
On To Florida
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 10:52PM
McCain Speech
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 10:20PM
First, Cindy McCain looked gorgeous. Is this petty? No, it says they are painting a picture of the First Couple and are reading to assume a ceremonial as well as political role. Second, McCain clearly wants to be the leader of the party and gather in the base-- assuring them he is devoted to GOP values and their issues of a strong defense, low taxes, the rule of law, etc. He will have the wind at his sails. We'll find out if it is enough.
Huckabee
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 10:01PM
He gives an unexceptional speech sounding a bit like he was running for McCain's VP. He sounds determined to fight on and he will but if he can't win SC where can he?
Turnout on a Shoestring? Nope.
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 9:38PM
Remember those Spartanburg-area precincts where Team Huck was pointing to high turnout? Here are the numbers for Spartanburg county:
Huckabee 34%
McCain 27%
Thompson 20%
Romney 13%
Paul 4%
Giuliani 2%
Hunter 0%
Thompson played a spoiler role, obviously, attracting enough of the non-McCain vote to hold Huck's numbers down.
The results
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 9:32PM
McCain did well enough with conservatives and evangelicals to add to his base of veterans, moderates and Independents. Romney will try to make believe that this is not a loss for him but clearly it is. He spent $4M at least and did over 50 events there. Huckabee? He has yet to show that he has any appeal beyond his core base. Rudy? He's got his shot.
Room in the Rooms
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 9:18PM
COLUMBIA, SC -- I popped my head into Thompson's election night event before going over to Huckabee's, where I am now. There wasn't an especially big crowd for Thompson, and it's not especially crowded here, either (though Huckabee's event is in a bigger room, so it probably has more people). There are a lot more reporters covering Huckabee, though.
Thompson
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 8:18PM
Gives a gracious speech saying everything but "I'm outta here." If indeed he's a distant third or fourth that's understandable. Who does this help? You can argue it's a wash and his vote gets divided up but given that he focused attacks on Huckabee it is likely that they share the voter pool and Thompson's departure minimally aides Huckabee. That could be critical in the long list of February 5 Red states. UPDATE: McCain seems to be holding on. If Thompson comes in third and leaves the race what does it say about the guy who came in behind him?
Re: Bits and Pieces
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 7:54PM
Jennifer that's an astonishingly low figure if accurate. Though perhaps not shocking. In New Hampshire and Michigan, Mike Huckabee finished behind Ron Paul among non-evangelicals.
Bits and Pieces
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 7:51PM
Re: Carolina in My Mind
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 7:50PM
Actually, it's hard to say whether 53 percent is historically high or low for South Carolina because evangelicals are now defined somewhat differently than in some older exit polls, making direct comparisons difficult. Past exit polls have shown "conservative Christians" ranging from a third to 40-odd percent.
Where's The Outrage?
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 7:42PM
Re: Carolina on My Mind
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 7:04PM
Everything in politics is relative. 53% of voters were evangelcials according to the exit polls. However, I believe this is historically NOT very high for SC. Mason-Dixon for example which had McCain up 2 pts. had the evangelicals at over 60% of the electorate. We'll see but I suspect Thompson will have some hard(or maybe easy) choices to make in the next few days. My philosophy: stay in and grab some delegates to horse trade at the convention.
No Extended Polling Hours
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 7:03PM
Polls will not be kept open past 7 p.m. in Horry County, a McCain 2000 stronghold. The McCain campaign had attempted to keep them open longer due to malfunctioning voting machines.
I'm off to the Citadel.
Duncan Hunter Drops Out
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 6:54PM
CNN is reporting. But he did get a delegate from Wyoming!
Carolina in My Mind
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 6:49PM
I'm hearing that turnout was high among groups that would be likely to favor Huckabee but exit polls are floating around that look good for McCain. So did Fred Thompson (or even Mitt Romney) eat into Huckabee's churchgoing base? Polls soon to close.
Rudy in Florida
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 6:39PM
Giuliani is on CNN right now contrasting his tax-cutting record with John McCain and Mitt Romney's position on the 2003 Bush tax cuts. He laughed off Wolf Blitzer when the CNN broadcaster described Giuliani as pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay rights. Giuliani said Blitzer was overstating his differences with the Republican base. Right now he is defending his tax cut plan from hostile questioning by Blitzer. He's also making the case for permanent tax relief in the economic stimulus plan.
Giuliani seems confident in his Florida and onward strategy: "We believe Florida is Rudy country." We'll see.
For Whatever It's Worth
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 6:07PM
There's also a tight race for fourth place in Nevada between Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.
Polling Place Snafus in McCain Territory
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 5:28PM
The McCain camp released this statement by State Director Buzz Jacobs earlier this afternoon:
We have received reports from Horry County that voters are being turned away from the polls, because electronic voting machines are not working and paper ballots are not available. Some voters say they are being instructed to return at a later time. We are disturbed by these reports and hope that this issue is resolved immediately. We encourage any voters who were turned away from the polls to return again to their polling place this afternoon to exercise their constitutional right to vote.You know, it would be nice if lawmakers spent less time trying to figure out how to regulate campaigns and more time trying to figure out how to count the votes properly.
Another Nevada Thought
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 5:27PM
If the present Nevada numbers hold, with John McCain in third place, Mitt Romney will be able to make another claim for himself: the only Republican candidate who has never finished behind Ron Paul.
When It Rains, It Pours
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 5:11PM
CHARLESTON, SC -- It seems that the rain here hasn't dampened turnout, which could make for an interesting contest between John McCain and Mike Huckabee. The McCain camp is looking to expand polling hours in a coastal county where voting machines had earlier malfunctioned. Myrtle Beach and the coastal areas are McCain country and the Arizona senator needs a strong showing there to beat Huckabee.
South Carolina polls are to close at 7 p.m.
Huckabee Turning Out His Base on a Shoestring?
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 5:02PM
It's easy to forget, when you see his poll numbers, just how underfunded Mike Huckabee's campaign is. I talked to Ed Rollins earlier today, and asked what their internal polling was telling them. They don't have any internal polling, because they can't afford it. I asked if they were meeting their get-out-the-vote targets. They don't have precinct-by-precinct GOTV lists, because they can't afford them.
With the polls essentially tied, that should give McCain, who does have a GOTV operation, a huge advantage. But a Huckabee campaign insider called me up a few hours after I talked to Rollins to tell me that three Spartanburg-area precincts that they consider strongholds are showing huge turnout -- precincts where 750, 375, and 775 voters turned out in 2000, 1000, 272, and 609 had turned out by noon today. Can this really neutralize McCain's organizational advantage? We'll know in a few hours.
Hillary Wins Nevada
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 4:41PM
She wins by five or so and John Edwards is in single digits. Will Edwards finally depart or is there some hidden reason (other than the usual self-delusion which grips candidates who have fought hard and lost everything) for him to stay in? The thought did cross my mind on January 8 that if Obama couldn't seize the frenzy of excitement following Iowa and bump her off in NH then he'd never do it. She now could lose SC (perhaps even concede it Romney style) and still grind out her wins on Super Tuesday.
Nevada Numbers
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 4:38PM
The entrance polls for the Nevada GOP caucuses contain some interesting numbers. Mitt Romney won an eye-popping 94 percent of Mormons, a bigger percentage than Mike Huckabee has ever gotten among evangelicals. Romney also won every other category of caucus-goer, except for independents who voted heavily (58 percent) for Ron Paul. The "other Christian" bloc was also close, with Romney edging Paul by two points. Romney also narrowly led Paul in the "Says What He Believes" category, 34 percent to 30 percent.
Nevada
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 3:27PM
Re: Getting Out the Irish Vote
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 1:15PM
Do the exit polls break down the Irish-American vote? Will McCain's ceaseless tributes to the O'Reilly twins drive whatever dry counties there are South Carolina into Mike Huckabee's arms?
Re: Getting Out The Irish Vote
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 12:48PM
McCain told the same joke at a townhall meeting I attended in Peterborough, NH earlier this month, and there were also "Irish for McCain" signs present.
Re: Getting Out the Irish Vote
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 11:46AM
Funny you should mention that, Jim. I'm waiting outside a polling place in Charleston where McCain is scheduled to make an appearance, and amongst the crowd waiting for him to show up are a couple of people with what look like homemade signs that read "IRISH for McCain."
UPDATE: The signs must not actually be homemade, even though they looked cheap -- they were exactly like these.
Getting Out the Irish Vote
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 11:10AM
John McCain told the following joke on the stump yesterday. It's an old one, and I'm not sure what it had to do with anything, but it's worth retelling (I'm paraphrasing):
"Two guys are sitting in a bar in Massachusetts.One guy offers
to buy the other a drink. He refuses, offers to buy it himself.
They go back and forth until one gives in. 'Thank you,' he says.
'Where you from?' 'Ireland,' says the other. 'Really?' he says 'I'm
from Ireland, too. I can't believe it. Where you from in Ireland?'
The other guy says, 'I'm from Dublin.' 'Oh! I'm from Dublin, too.
Where'd you go to high school?' 'St. Mary's' says the one. 'Me
too!' says the other. A guy walks into the bar, sees all the
commotion and says to the bartender, 'What's going on down there?'
Bartender says, 'It's just the O'Reilly twins getting drunk
again.'"
A Tale of Two McCains
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 10:11AM
While John McCain's positions haven't changed much -- with a few exceptions like the Bush tax cuts -- his emphasis is much different than when he lost South Carolina in 2000. With Phil Gramm at his side, McCain emphasizes the need to cut spending as well as taxes. He uses his standard drunken sailor analogy and then, Gramm-like, asks whether taxpayers would rather have pork barrel spending or an expanded child tax credit. He describes Gramm and himself as "foot soldiers in the Reagan Revolution."
McCain also emphasizes his military credentials in a state with many veterans and current troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He touts his "No Surrender Tour," arguing that it helped defeat a Democratic push for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq six months ago. He argues that his early no-confidence vote in Donald Rumsfeld and support for the surge helped pave the way to a winning strategy, pointing to yesterday's USA Today story reporting that the number of secure neighborhoods in Baghdad has risen from 8 percent to 75 percent. He repeats his promise to follow bin Laden to "the gates of hell."
McCain also talks about the need to improve health care for veterans. He would remove bureaucratic hurdles where people "stand in line to stand in line" and allow veterans to use vouchers to visit a health care provider of their choice.
Again, none of these positions are any different from those McCain might have taken in 2000 (other than they we were in the pre-Iraq war days). But talking about these issues puts him in a better position than arguing about the Confederate flag, tax cuts, and the religious right. We'll see if it pays dividends here today.
UPDATE: Eve Fairbank contends that McCain has changed the substance of his immigration position, at least for the duration of the campaign. I think that's a fair charge even if McCain's new position doesn't necessarily mean what Fairbanks thinks it means. She claims "'go to the back of the line' is code for deporting or otherwise getting the 12+ undocumenteds here to leave."
Under the situtation we have right now, we are neither amnestying illegal immigrants or being particuarly aggressive about getting them to leave the country (although enforcement has been stepped up). Some of the "comprehensive" immigration bills would have allowed illegals to stay in the country but would have made them "go to the back of the line" when applying for citizenship. Some Republican candidates are running on attrition through enforcement, which is an aproach to getting at least some subset of the "12+ undocumenteds here to leave," but isn't a program of mass deportation. And as far as I can tell, McCain hasn't come out for a policy that would go even this far.
The Way The Cookie Crumbles
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 9:55AM
Turnout Factors
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 9:51AM
It's raining here in the Charleston area this morning. And they are also showing reruns of "Full House."
Nice to get some confirmation
Posted by on 1.19.08 @ 9:05AM
This morning's headlines in Lucianne.com include this one from the Weekly Standard, over an essay by William Kristol: Waiting for Reagan: You Fight an Election with the Politicians You Have.
Ahem. I was interviewed on Wisconsin Public Radio for an hour by Kathleen Dunn last week, and I said that. Probably should have put it in my "Creative Destruction" column.
Amen, Mr. Kristol.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Is It The Candidate, Or Just the Show?
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 11:03PM
COLUMBIA, SC -- I stopped in for the tail end of an event on the USC campus this evening just in time to see Mike Huckabee rocking the bass on "Sweet Home Alabama." From a scan of the student-heavy crowd, I'm guessing there were at least as many people there just to check out the spectacle as there were to see someone they're actually going to, you know, vote for.
On the other hand, Huckabee certainly has the vote of the guy I saw driving off in a minivan tricked out with roof-mounted megaphones and large signs reading "VOTE THE BIBLE!!!," "JESUS SAVES," and "MIKE HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT."
Meanwhile, Nevada
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 10:13PM
Speaking of the Paulites, they have filed a complaint against inconsistencies in Nevada's GOP caucus process, describing it as a "caucus in chaos." The Nevada state party dissmissed the complaint and blamed the Paul campaign for a "lack of organizing."
As nice as South Carolina is, I really should be in Vegas getting to the bottom of this.
Re: Moneyed Mitt
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 10:07PM
I and others disagree that it's just a matter of money. Romney has vastly outspent his rivals in Iowa, NH, Michigan and SC and will win only one. (Yes, I'm not counting uncontested caucuses in Nevada and Wyoming.) Money didn't buy him evangelical support in Iowa nor convince voters in his own backyard of his bona fides. The better argument is that if he had no money he would be in the worst position of any of the remaining contenders. Coming in third in SC (at best) leaves a fundamental problem: where is he going to win on February 5? The Red states of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas don't seem any more accessible. Is he going to best McCain and Rudy in NJ, NY, California and Illinois? It seems unlikely. More importantly, he simply has never caught a surge, a bump of national excitement like any of the other candidates and remains mired in third place in national polls (which are the closest approximation to the landscape of February 5 out there). Could he win? Yes, but money is not the key or he'd be the undisputed frontrunner already.
Carolina Dreamin'
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 10:03PM
CHARLESTON, S.C. -- My Internet connection has been spotty, but the word on the street is remarkably similar to the polls suggesting a McCain-Huckabee race with Mitt Romey and Fred Thompson looking for a respectable finish. John McCain held a large, spirited rally aboard on the deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier in the Port of Charleston. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) made the case that McCain was uniquely qualified to lead the troops to victory.
"Who is ready to lead them on day one?" he asked. The crowd's response: "John McCain!" The call and response continued, culminating in "Who's going to lead [our troops] to victory?" "John McCain!"
Elsewhere in Charleston this evening, there was a Veterans for Paul Ron Paul for a Stronger America rally. I missed the candidate's speech but spoke to some of his supporters. The Paulites are undiminished in their enthusiasm, undeterred by their fifth place showing in New Hampshire, and encouraged by their fourth place showing in Michigan. To the extent that they are in the hunt in South Carolina, they are hoping to place ahead of Rudy Giuliani for the third time.
The Last Small-Government Candidate
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 7:28PM
Fred Thompson's chances tomorrow aren't looking too good. Over at Reason today, I explain why libertarians should be depressed about that.
Moneyed Mitt
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 5:03PM
"If someone asks you: 'Can Mitt Romney win the GOP nomination?' ask them: 'Is he willing to write the check?'" That's from John Prescott Ellis's latest RealClearPolitics column. Worth a read.
Fred Hits Huck On "Living Constitution" Remark
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 4:23PM
Fred Thompson fires back at Huckabee's comments on the constitution:
"This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document."
Frankly, I assumed this came from Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. It is identical to what Al Gore said when he was running for President in 2000, when he said he would look for judges "who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."
Politico Strikes Gold
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 4:20PM
I have been extremely critical of Politico for its report on the
day of the Iowa caucuses that Fred Thompson would be withdrawing
from the race by that weekend unless he met certain results (that
he did not end up meeting). So far, to my knowledge, the paper
still has not acknowledged error.
Now, though, they have done the next best thing: They have moved on
from that horrendously bad journalism by hiring the single best
reporter I have ever known. David Rogers, for many years the top
Capitol Hill reporter for the Wall Street Journal, will now start
working for the Politico. Rogers knows EVERYTHING that goes on in
Congress, it seems. Sometimes he seemed to know more about certain
developments, and know about them earlier, than did the very
congressmen who were supposed to be working on those developments.
His reports are always balanced, fair, thorough -- utterly
unimpeachable.
And he is, personally, one of the most admirable characters I know
in this business.
Good luck to Rogers at his new post, and congrats to Politico for
landing him!
Come For the Caucus, Stay for the...
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 3:10PM
This is funny. My pal Dan Tuohy asks the Nevada State Archivist to show him around the state and he ends up seeing Harry Reid and the Moonlight Bunny Ranch. Reminds me a bit of the famous Reagan line: "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."
Obama and Reagan
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 1:48PM
Barack Obama has been generating a lot of buzz for noting that Ronald Reagan was a transformational president (video here).
A point I've been making for over a year, and one that I emphasized in my cover story on Obama for our July/August issue, is that conservatives should be worried about Obama because he has the potential to advance liberalism in a way that Reagan advanced conservatism, given his charisma and optimism. Hillary Clinton, as much of a nightmare as she would be, would be too polarizing to win over any people who weren't already on her side.
Yesterday, Dave Weigel noted that there is no appetite on the angry left for winning converts. The mere act of Obama making an historical point that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America" was enought to get the liberal rage machine pumping.
And right out of the gate came the pugilistic populist himself, John Edwards, who issued the following statement yesterday:
"Senator Obama was wrong -- frightfully so -- in using Ronald Reagan as an example of voters reaching for change. The breadth of change Ronald Reagan brought was crippling for millions of Americans with the two worst recessions since the Depression, a complete disregard for the rights of American labor, and tax cuts that lined the pockets of the richest Americans at the expense of fiscal sanity and the well-being of the most vulnerable in our society."
Today, I got an email that the Clinton campaign is hosting a conference call feauturing Barney Frank to counter Obama's other comments that the Republican Party was the party of ideas for 10 to 15 years.
This is utter sillyness. As a conservative, I can acknowledge the fact that FDR was an historically significant president who changed the nation dramatically, even though I think that those changes had disasterous implications for our nation (see here).
But if liberals cannot understand the fact that to change the nation, they'll have to sell Americans on their vision for government, that's great news for conservatives. Let them nominate Clinton, because even if she wins the presidency, 50 percent of the country will automatically be against anything she tries to accomplish.
UPDATE: Weigel was on the Clinton conference call.
King Gets Rooked
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 1:32PM
Chess legend Bobby Fischer died in Iceland yesterday. Colby Cosh wrote two pieces for the Spectator about Fischer -- a book review about his win versus Boris Spassky, and a piece about his later legal troubles.
Re: McCain Combats Huckabee
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 1:19PM
It is clever on multiple levels. It obivously defends McCain against Huckabee but it also undermines Huckabee with dyed in the wool conservatives who don't like McCain. "Hey, if he likes McCain he can't be all that conservative." Pushing down Huckabee who is in the number two spot is the name of the game for McCain, and tossing some votes to Thompson (who is asserting he is the one true conservative) is fine and actually the least he can do in exchange for the Thompson attacks on Huckabee. Politics and bedfellows and all that...
It Tastes Like Chicken
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 1:13PM
Could there be a backlash against the "fried squirrel" Huckabee approach? The latest Fox poll shows McCain still in the lead.
McCain Combats Huckabee With Velvet Glove
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 1:09PM
John McCain just released a new web ad responding to supporters of Huckabee who are attacking him by running clips of Huckabee himself praising McCain. It's a clever way to respond to the Huckabee challenge in South Carolina, without going negative on somebody he likes, and also avoiding the type of blowback from atatck ads that hurt Romney in Iowa:
Maybe He's At Wendy's?
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 12:59PM
The Edwards campaign just sent out a missive entitled, "Where is John?" Hopefully it's a mass email because, if not, I had no idea it was my week to keep track of him.
Huck Calls Constitution "Living, Breathing"
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 12:59PM
More from the Harriet Miers of presidential candidates here.
Just because he's an evangelical, it doesn't mean he thinks like a conservative.
Bush Tax Plan
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 12:48PM
UPDATE: From McCain Spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker: "We share the President's concern over the slow pace of growth in the overall economy and clear pockets of distress and applaud his stance that the government cannot spend its way to prosperity.Tax cuts that improve business competitiveness and investment incentives are clearly desirable. The current debate is over temporary changes -- these would be even more powerful if they changed the basic flaws in our tax code - cut the corporate rate, expense equipment investment, and permanent R&D credit. We need to create more jobs; jobs that won't go away. Keeping money in the hands of middle-class Americans will help those families and support economic growth. But let's do it now and forever."
UPDATE : Romney was restrained but approving here. Larry Kudlow explains it here with some kind words for the McCain plan.
Re: ATR On Presidential Candidates and Tax Reform
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 12:31PM
One note of caution with the chart is that it only takes into account the candidates' current positions, rather than their past records. Obviously, for Giuliani, his rhetoric is backed up by his record of accomplishing tax cuts in the hostile environment of New York City.
But the chart also gives an equal number of check marks to Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, and Huckabee gets credit for signing the "no taxes" pledge, which Thompson didn't. But in reality, nobody can seriously believe that Huckabee would be better on taxes than Thompson, given that Huckabee was a net tax hiker in Arkansas, and Thompson has a stellar voting record on taxes.
ATR On Presidential Candidates and Tax Reform
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 12:23PM
UPDATE: Rudy spokeswoman Maria Comella comments: "Unlike some other candidates, Rudy Giuliani doesn't have to resort to pandering when it comes to the issue of cutting taxes. Rudy's the only fiscal conservative in the race with a record of cutting taxes and a plan that calls for the largest tax cut in American history."
Re: Pander Watch
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 12:09PM
If Ron Paul has successfully converted Hillary to the libertarian cause I would be delighted. However, I think the gal who wants government to tell us how to raise kids, censor nasty video games and absolve allegedly dim borrowers of their mortgage obligations is not about to give up her authoritarian impulses quite yet. But I can hope. On gambling, I'm agnostic but I generally agree with Jack Kemp that there are "no bad jobs."
Huck Says Constitution Lives and Breathes
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 12:06PM
I kid you not. This morning on CNN, Mike Huckabee told John Roberts (the reporter, not the chief justice) that The United States has "a living, breathing Constitution." This, from the same man who said his idea of a good future Supreme Court pick would be Lavenski Smith...who, according to the Minnesota Bar Association, is generally regarded as slightly left of the center of the Eigth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Inveterate Loser Versus Master Genius of All Time
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 12:00PM
Okay, so Romney, who has actually won or seriously competed in each contest so far, is the inveterate loser, while Rudy, who has failed to meet even the low expectations his campaign, the polls and the chattering classes had for him in the early contests, should be preparing all-night parties to celebrate Florida: The State that Changes It All. Just so long as I understand.
There's been a lot of criticism on this blog of Romney for abandoning South Carolina as if that is somehow tantamount to writing off all southern contests throughout the race. I may not agree, but fine. Rudy, the moderate Republican, has not been able to sway moderates or any other faction in the party so far to any respectable degree, yet we're now supposed to believe side-stepping all those voters up until Florida was a brilliant decision? We'll see, I guess. I'm wrong more than I'm right in handicapping these sort of things.
Oh, and I happen to recall Rudy's very powerful New Hampshire ad with a very explicit 9-11 reference running virtually non-stop in the days leading up to the primary there. How did that work out for him again?
Fun and Games at Re-education Camp
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 11:33AM
Ophelia Benson rips apart the absurd, politically correct loyalty oath students at some dump called Bergen Community College must swear to in order to learn that respect comes cheap.
Pander Watch: Vegas Hillary Edition
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 11:25AM
I have a couple of thoughts on the Vegas Hillary pander. First, is Hillary's pander really any worse than Saint Obama, who the quoted article tells us is now “courting union workers at casinos and has calibrated his criticisms to declare
Second, this is a pander in the right direction. I worked in a Caesar's Palace casino for a spell and lived in the thriving immigrant community that had sprung up around it. Imagine duplexes filled to the brim with relentlessly cheerful, hard-working men and women, many of the homes decorated hilariously with gauche rugs and bucket chairs--flotsam and jetsam of casino renovations of yore. Also, sadly, picture privileged/spoiled middle-class twenty-somethings Americans complaining about Mexicans “stealing” their jobs, creating scapegoats to explain away the inconvenient fact that they couldn’t pass the requisite casino drug test. Sure, I recall some ugliness. But mostly what I saw was a lot of beauty and grace, people rising to their full potential. Some of them were, no doubt, the kind of people Mike Huckabee now would like to throw out of the country for setting such a very bad example.
I have no doubt whatsoever gambling is a net positive. None. I personally was sustained by the industry straight off a Greyhound with less than $100 to my name, picked up and put to work. I watched entire families who came to this country to escape abject poverty lifted swiftly into the American lower middle-class simply by virtue of their willingness to work hard and take opportunities as they arose. I watched casinos provide those opportunities, pay better than they had to and treat employees in a exceedingly fair manner. And I saw people far too stupid to have as much money as they did efficiently relieved of it. For most, I think the chastening did them good.
Oh, and I had a great time and met people I never would have met anywhere else in the world. Free Dr. Pepper, free popcorn and some longhaired guy in a wheelchair endlessly crooning Barry White at an empty 4:00 a.m. karaoke is a pleasure approaching the sublime.
Hillary Clinton, like most modern American politicians, is a resolute enemy of individual freedom. If she’s on-board with the casinos, though, pander or not, I’m not going to criticize. I can only hope her claim that she now accepts "any human activity" has some social cost that does not necessarily override someone's right to engage in it to heart. I would love to see some of that logic creep into the village she's building for us.
Re: Bad Sign
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 10:48AM
I think Rudy is going to have a tough fight but so will everyone else. In 48 hours the GOP race shifts to Florida. SC and Nevada will be in the rear view mirror but this time there will be 10 full days to contemplate the results and run a full blown campaign for the next state.
Romney takes cheap shot, gets one back
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 10:46AM
Mitt Romney got the better of an argumentative reporter during a testy exchange in South Carolina because the reporter didn't ask the right question.
"I don't have lobbyists running my campaign," Romney said.
AP Reporter Glen Johnson interrupted him. "That's not true, governor! That is not true. Ron Kaufman is a lobbyist," Johnson said. Ron Kaufman is an old friend of Romney's and a senior adviser to the campaign.
Johnson and Romney then got into an argument over what "running my campaign" means. I have to say, Romney is exactly right. Senior advisers aren't running campaigns. Johnson complained that Romney was engaging in "semantics," but semantics is about what words mean, and Romney used exactly the right words. He was right, Johnson was wrong.
While Johnson was trying to play gotcha, he missed a chance to make Romney clarify his position on lobbyist influence. Romney brought up lobbyists because McCain campaign manager Rick Davis is a former lobbyist. Romney was trying to portray himself as pure and McCain as corrupt. Johnson should have asked Romney if he was implying that McCain has been corrupted by lobbyists, and if he, Romney, would state that it is always wrong to be so close to lobbyists and pledge never to have them involved in managing any future campaign or making decisions in the White House. He should have made Romney explain why it is bad to have a former lobbyist running a campaign but OK to have a current lobbyist as a senior adviser.
Candidates too often get away with cheap shots because reporters don't press them to explain their positions more fully.
Bad Sign For Rudy In Florida
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 10:12AM
Despite having the state to himself for over a week, Giuliani is actually moving in the wrong direction in the Sunshine State in the latest Insider Advantage poll, with Mitt Romney actually seeing a big jump 7-point jump over last week.
In the poll, Giuliani is at 21 percent, statistically tied with McCain and Romney, who are both at 20 percent each. In the same poll taken last week, Giuliani was at 24 percent, McCain was at 19 percent, and Romney was at just 13 percent.
Interestingly, Huckabee dropped 6 points, to 13 percent from 19 percent, so he and Romney essentially traded places.
Cheerful, Energetic, And Generally Happy
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 10:02AM
The Mitt debate continues in the comment section of this Alarming News thread, which kindly mentions me. Karol, the site's wily and clever administrator, has endorsed Rudy.
By the by, my March 2006 TAS profile of Romney lives here.
No Equality of Outcome Here, Kinsley
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 9:19AM
Brian Doherty offers an eloquent defense of libertarianism in the Los Angeles Times today, responding to a kind-hearted, but somewhat patronizing bit by Michael Kinsley a short time ago.
Crucial Barfly Vote
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 7:55AM
Jeremy, supporters of John McCain, Fred Thompson, and -- believe it or not -- teetotaling Mitt Romney were thick on the, uh, ground.
In less liquified settings, I've talked to a few people who would like to vote for Thompson or Romney but have grown skeptical of their chances. Whether such voters will be a problem for either candidate or will cancel each other out is another story.
Republicans Don't Hold A Candle To Hillary
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 7:30AM
I don't like any of the GOP pandering and I don't think we need to guess which example Reagan would have thought worse. But you have look in awe at the real pander professional. The latest: Hillary abandons her nanny state impulses to argue that gambling doesn't impact poor people and that Vegas is helping residents obtain the American dream.
Re: Mitt Goes Missing
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 7:07AM
What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 1:30AM
Remember conservative complaints that Romney's pledges in Michigan amounted to a "Khrushchev-style five year plan for Detroit"? John Berlau says there was a lot more to Mitt's Mitten massacre than that, and most of it would make Ronald Reagan smile. The Gipper might frown, however, at how the candidates for his Party are promising to bail out subprime mortgage gamblers while giving short shrift to eminent domain problems of the responsible little guys.
Re: A Possibly Meaningless Anecdotal Observation
Posted by on 1.18.08 @ 1:04AM
But will the barfly vote go for the twelve-stepping John McCain or for Thompson, who looks like he could knock back a few adult beverages after dinner (or lunch, for that matter)?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A Possibly Meaningless Anecdotal Observation
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 10:39PM
Assuming my sample is representative, hotel bar patrons will not be one of Mike Huckabee's major voting blocs.
Big Green Lady With a Torch
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 9:17PM
Just spitballing here, but I'm guessing that if this Shawn Macomber piece had appeared in the Spectator rather than in Reason, it would have been titled "Statue of Limitations."
In More Current News
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 8:10PM
Stay tuned for updates from South Carolina, where I'll be studying whether these Southerners want to form a more perfect union with Republican frontrunners John McCain and Mitt Romney or rebel in favor of Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee.
Re: Refighting the Civil War
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 8:06PM
Phil, I don't really disagree with much that either you or James have said. I think the Civil War revisionists have a case when it comes to critiquing the Union but less so when it comes to defending the Confederacy.
That said, many Southerners still have appreciation for the sacrifices of their ancestors for reasons having nothing to do with slavery, just as many fought for the Confederate cause for reasons having nothing to do with slavery (even though I myself believe that cause is tainted by the leading role the slave power played). But if we are going to disown everyone who has ever uttered an unorthodox thought on this subject, we'd have to get rid of many of the conservative movement's founding fathers (including Frank Meyer), Walter Williams, and, if the last few Reader Mail debates on the subject are at all representative, about half our readers. I'd rather not do that.
Re: MItt Goes Missing
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 7:54PM
The AP reporter writes his account, unsurprisingly listing the lobbyists in high positions in the Romney camp. Does Romney get points for arguing with the press or does the media always get the last word and the story becomes "despite a list of Washington power brokers working for him Romney insisted that ..."
Thompson is getting great local press and is in a battle with Romney for third. After tonight's 60 second ad with a wide airing he may get a further bump. He certainly has made the most pointed criticisms of Huckabee (and his team is keeping track of voters who have flipped from Huckabee to Thompson) so if he makes further progress it could narrow the ground to get to second place. Would he stay in the race without a win in SC? Why not-- in a brokered convention anyone can win!
And of course it wouldn't be SC without the Confederate flag becoming a rallying cry. Do you really have to ask who raised it? The flag is to SC as the auto industry is to Michigan so pander away...
Can You Feel the Love?
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 7:45PM
New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt led the Bill Kristol welcome wagon last Sunday with a piece graciously entitled, "He May Be Unwelcome, But We'll Survive." First Hoyt laid out New York Times readers' reasoned reaction to the hire:
Of the nearly 700 messages I have received since Kristol's selection was announced-more than half of them before he ever wrote a word for The Times-exactly one praised the choice.
Rosenthal's mail has been particularly rough. "That rotten, traiterous [sic] piece of filth should be hung by the ankles from a lamp post and beaten by the mob rather than gaining a pulpit at ANY self-respecting news organization," said one message. "You should be ashamed. Apparently you are only out for money and therefore an equally traiterous [sic] whore deserving the same treatment."
As for Hoyt? "This is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation," he sniffs. No false modesty over at the Times, apparently. And I'm sure Times readers would ultimately come to the same conclusion, both that they are elite--naturally, dahling--as exemplified by their willingness to hang rotten, traitorous pieces of filth from lamp posts for mob beatings...provided they're Republicans, of course.
And I Thought It Was Bad...
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 7:11PM
...when Bush looked into Putin's soul...
But that's nothing compared to what Sarkozy saw when he looked at Saudi society:
In Riyadh on Monday, he hailed Islam as "one of the greatest and most beautiful civilisations the world has known" and described his Saudi hosts as rulers who "appeal to the basic values of Islam to combat the fundamentalism that negates them".
Yes, that's just what I've always admired about the Saudis: Their heartfelt efforts to combat fundamentalism.
Re-refighting the Civil War
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 6:56PM
The two cents I always toss in at a time like this is this:
'The South' didn't secede. Two waves of southern states did. The first wave left quite precipitously. The second wave -- composed mostly of states that voted for the Constitutional Union ticket, a party established for no other reason than to save the union -- departed only after it had become clear that Lincoln intended to overturn secession in the Deep South by force.
States like Virginia and North Carolina had a practical interest in at least taking their chances if they were destined to host the battlefields on which Union and Sesesh troops clashed. But beyond that, one must not pretend that the exit of the Upper South transpired for anything like the 'reasons' that provoked the Cotton States. Yes, there were slaves in all the slave states. But the whole storyline was different...radically different.
It's quite simple, from where I'm pondering, to agree that the Deep South was rather reckless and quite racist, whereas the Upper South was significantly less so, and significantly better off in the sympathy department. In fact, I think the distinction -- which usually goes completely ignored -- is a vital one to a sound understanding of American history.
Down from the soapbox I go.
More Questionable Huck Finances!!
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 5:40PM
My former colleague Jon Weil, one of the best shoe-leather reporters I have ever known, came out with this story yesterday at Bloomberg. It seems as if Huck got a sweetheart deal almost as nice as Hillary's infamous cattle futures. To me, this looks very suspicious, as do all of his finances. Why the major news organizations with plenty of staff at their disposal haven't done the legwork on his finances yet, I just don't understand. But if Huck is the nominee, stories like this one from Weil will surely become commonplace, and the Democrats will turn Huck's campaign into road kill. (By the way, there is a timeline I am trying to work up that explains just how suspicious Huck's behavior is in this. I hope I find the time to do something with it.)
Just Like Old Times: Rudy vs. Romney
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 5:17PM
SC
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 5:06PM
Some polls are showing a close race at the top and some are not. Take your pick. Thompson is in a fight, but for third with Romney. Does third or fourth make any difference for Romney? Fourth is embarrassing and hard to explain why he came in behind a guy who may leave the race. Third just raises questions about where in the South on Feb. 5 he could realistically win. So yes, third is better which is why I suspect he is upping his media buy.
But There Is No Joy In Timesville...
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 4:53PM
...mighty Stacy has struck out. Occasional Spectator contributor Robert Stacy McCain has taken leave of the Washington Times to "travel to a Very Dangerous Foreign Country (no, not Canada)" in dogged pursuit of material for his next book. I wish him the best and hope he returns safely to D.C. with plenty of stories to yell.
Refighting The Civil War
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 3:28PM
Below, Jim linked to this Daniel Larison post defending his sympathy for the Confederacy, and said that those who share such paleo-ish views shouldn't be driven out of "polite society."
No doubt, the historical narrative portraying Abraham Lincoln as this Great Emancipator who fought to free the slaves from the South, which was fighting purely to promote slavery, is flawed. The legacy of Lincoln's expansion of executive power and the role of the central government, combined with his disregard for civil liberties, deserves criticism. And yes, Southerners weren't just fighting to advance slavery, but also to defend their sovereignty and constitutional rights.
With that said, I think Larison goes overboard in the opposite direction, and provides an overly-romanticized view of the South. While Southerners were fighting for sovereignty, the main impetus for their drive for sovereignty was their desire to preserve the institution of slavery. Had the inciting issue been Lincoln wanting to impose a federal income tax and the Southern states choosing to secede rather than pay it, I would share Larison's sympathy for the Confederacy. But the reality is that the Southern states ultimately seceded over the issue of slavery, and had they gotten their way, slavery would have persisted longer. Indeed, at first, the dispute wasn't even about abolition of slavery in the Southern states, but over the expansion of slavery into new territories. So the Southern states didn't merely want to preserve their own sovereign rights to own slaves, but they wanted slavery to be allowed to spread into new states.
Larison quotes Sen. Jim Webb approvingly, who said, "In 1860 fewer than five percent of the people in the South owned slaves, and fewer than twenty percent were involved with slavery in any capacity." And Larison himself adds that, "I remain convinced that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were fighting for constitutional liberty, including one of my own ancestors, and I think that was, is, something worth defending."
However, even if a vast majority of Southerners weren't involved with slavery, that majority certainly did not lift a finger to peacefully end the human tragedy occurring within its own lands. If most Southerners were truly as concerned with constitutional liberty as Larison believes, then they should not have stood by idly and allowed the institution of slavery to exist-- an institution that was quite indisputably the greatest affront to liberty in the history of the United States and a tradition that undermined the founding principles of our nation.
Re: Mitt Goes Missing
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 2:52PM
Huckabee Gets A Boost, I Guess
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 1:31PM
Hordes for Huckabee
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 1:05PM
FLORENCE, SC -- I'm at a Huckabee appearance that's about to begin in a hanger at a small airport. It's the middle of the day, and there are noticeably more people here than there were at the Thompson event yesterday evening in Orangeburg. I don't think the much-discussed Thompson boomlet is an illusion, but this does put things in perspective.
UPDATE: Chuck Norris and Ric Flair just showed up. And the crowd goes wild.
Beyond the Paleo
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 1:01PM
James Kirchick broke a big story on the Ron Paul newsletters. I don't think he is going to succeed in driving all paleo-ish conservatives out of polite society, however.
Frum Comes Back
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 12:31PM
David Frum has posted a response to the reviews of his latest book by Ramesh Ponnuru (in National Review's print edition) and yours truly. I have just a few extra thoughts.
Frum argues that if he "urged a big federal abstinence-promotion program to deal with" teen pregnancy rather than a public campaign against obesity his "conservative credentials would go unquestioned." The programs might not have been "big," but the Bush administration has used federal dollars to promote abstinence and marriage. Empirically, it is not clear that these programs have worked. Understanding as we do the limits of government, conservatives ought to be automatically skeptical of such an approach. Frum would have to offer more evidence than he does that a Washington war on obesity would actually work. Identifying a problem is not a sufficient justification for a government solution.
On abortion, Frum argues the pro-life position could become a political liability if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Of course, a Republican would have to win in 2008 for there to be any chance of that happening in the near future. And there is no guarantee that the next Republican president will be able to win confirmation of a justice who will overturn Roe -- or, for that matter, that President Bush's justices would vote to reverse rather than nibble away at the decision.
That said, if Roe falls a lot will depend on the pro-life movement's response. If they react by trying to pass South Dakota-style no-exceptions bans in all 50 states, Frum is probably right. If they stick to their current incremental strategy, there is more politically feasible progress that could be made toward pro-life goals. Pro-lifers haven't yet gotten everything they can get, and they showed that they can adapt to changing political circumstances back in the 1990s. Steve Forbes is best known for his flat tax but he had some good advice for pro-lifers: "Where there is consensus, codify. Where there is no consensus, persuade."
Overall, I think Frum has started a valuable discussion that most major Republicans don't seem to want to have. But I worry that slighting Reaganism will lead either to conservative failure or a worse conservatism. Ronald Reagan succeded by applying conservative principles to the electorate's real problems. The next successful conservatism will find free-market solutions to health care and rising energy costs, traditionalist answers to the challenges of family breakdown and assimilation, a response to terrorism rooted in a strong national defense. Those ideological principles aren't adequate by themselves, but we shouldn't start a rethinking by conceding that conservatism doesn't have much to offer the American people. If we believe that, we should consider becoming liberals.
Problems and specific solutions change, but our principles don't have to.
Pat Leahy Endorses Obama
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 12:28PM
Just the latest seasoned Senator to snub Hillary
Clinton:
Chairman Leahy said, "Barack Obama is the best candidate to reintroduce America to the world -- and restore hope in our country. Barack Obama represents the America we once were and want to be again. When Barack Obama is President we will lead with hope, opening the doors of opportunity to all, realizing the potential of our great nation for its citizens and as a leader of the free world. Barack Obama will be a President who once again believes, 'Yes, we can.' That is why I am endorsing Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States."
Taxes
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 12:23PM
McCain and the Base
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 11:30AM
Ramesh Ponnuru argues that John McCain would be in "pretty good shape" in the fall to motivate the base of the Republican Party were he to win the nomination, becuase most of his deviations from conservatism--such as campaign finance reform and global warming--are not issues that conservatives typically vote on. "The question then becomes," Ponnuru writes, "how many conservatives would stay home out of disgust at his position on immigration. I haven't seen any data that make me think the answer to that question is 'a lot of them.'"
He's probably right, but at the same time, I'm not sure that it would take a lot of conservatives to abandon the party on immigration in order to cause problems for the GOP candidate. The question is not only how many, but where such disgruntled conservatives are located. In a story I wrote for last February's issue, I explored the possibility that if even a small percentage of immigration hawks in Western swing states such as New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado defect to a third party or stay home, it could be enough to change the outcome of a close election, as Nader's showing in Florida did in 2000.
Of course, it's pretty clear that all other Republican candidates would face obstacles in the general election as well.
New Romney Ad
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 11:09AM
I think Romney's new Florida ad is great. The pacing is excellent, it plays to his strengths and it sidesteps his previous tough immigration rhetoric which may be problematic in Flordia by just listing it as one of the problems Washington politicians haven't solved. It doesn't mention "conservative" or "Republican" or "family" or "pro-life" or "Reagan" or have anything to do with how he ran his campaign for a year. But it's a great ad.
Re: Mitt Goes Missing
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 10:30AM
I think one has to distinguish between a token effort and an unsuccessful one. Romney has spent more money than anyone else, has held 50 events and had his co-chair work the state for months. He couldn't get above Huckabee or McCain. Realizing this about a week ago he pulled his ads and luckily found Nevada on the calendar to provide an escape avenue. The explanation is simple: his constituency is squeezed and perhaps nonexistent in the South. Huckabee and Thompson have the social conservatives and McCain the military and moderates. There are just not enough people left over for him. Now if Thompson or Huckabee drop out his prospects may change but otherwise it is hard to see how he would do any better in other southern states including ones on the February 5 calendar (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Arkansas). I don't think a Republican can win the nomination let alone the presidency without the South. But again, the stars may realign if others drop out or fade. UPDATE: Romney very well could come in behind Thompson. Thompson moved ahead of him in Zogby and is in a statistical tie with him in this entirely post-Michigan poll.
Mitt Goes Missing
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 9:45AM
PAULINE, SC -- I came out here for a Mitt Romney event, but it
was canceled. I doubt there would have been much of an audience if
it hadn't been -- this area got a dusting of snow last night, which
terrifies South Carolina drivers, and it's raining this morning. I
heard that some of Romney's events yesterday were canceled, too. It
hardly matters. Romney is making only a token effort here --
he has no ads running* -- focusing instead on the
more fertile ground in Nevada. It's a smart move; with McCain,
Huckabee, and Thompson duking it out, and Giuliani putting all his
chips on Florida, it's likely that Romney will win the Nevada
caucuses, and the polls show it. (Whether
victories in Michigan and Nevada will lead to victories elsewhere,
of course, is an open question.)
*Correction: Romney went back on the air Tuesday and is upping his ad buy. A Thompson spokesman was telling me yesterday that Romney wasn't running ads, but obviously his information was out of date.
Morning Look
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 8:16AM
In Defense of Silly Hats
Posted by on 1.17.08 @ 12:31AM
Today, two Spectator authors, sick of readers having all the fun, take to our Reader Mail to mix it up. Robert VerBruggen explains to our gun-ho readers why the Supreme court would be right to rule that pistols and uzis are different and political archeologist Deroy Murdock continues his pain-causing excavation of the real Romney record. He has discovered the perfect candidate and it's...Rudy Giuliani. Speaking of "his Rudyness," Larry Thornberry files this amusing dispatch from the Sunshine State, where the former mayor makes 'em wait. Speaking of sunshine, RiShawn Biddle chronicles some darker attempts of school districts to escape the shiny scrutinty that would come with honest reporting of graduation statistics. Plus, editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., says, bring back the silly hats!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
FDT on the Stump
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 9:23PM
COLUMBIA, SC -- I landed in the Palmetto State this afternoon and stopped at a Thompson event this evening in Orangeburg. Thompson is a notably uneven speaker. He'll go for a few minutes at a time saying "uh" way too much, then he'll get rolling and you'll be watching Arthur Branch, then he'll fall off his game again. But he did fill the room (I'd say there were around 100 people there), and from eavesdropping I got the impression that he won some votes. Thompson spokesman Jeff Sadosky, chatting with reporters afterwards, said that fire marshalls have closed several of their events due to overcrowding. Of course, at least so far, Thompson's bounce seems to have come only at Huckabee's expense, thus widening McCain's lead. If he can't also convert some McCain supporters, it's hard to see how Thompson can win or come in a strong second, which I think he needs to do to remain viable.
Re: Willard Mitt Edwards
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 8:11PM
This reminds me of healthcare. When Romney adopts liberals' goals --universal healthcare or saving dying industries -- two things happen. One, the arguments of free market conservatives are undermined. ("Well RomneyCare was such a good idea, what's wrong with HillaryCare?") Republicans who disagree are then tagged as mean and backward looking, with progressive Romney thrown in our faces. Second, once you throw in the towel on the goals what follows is the adoption of liberal means to those ends -- mandates, government bailouts, and government-industrial "cooperative committees." This should tell his supporters and GOP voters something about his mindset and his willingness to hold out for unpopular but ultimately meritorious free market principles.
Re: McCain
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 7:40PM
I would add one more point to what Phil said about the calls. McCain actually answers the questions, or what he thinks the question is, and if not (or if the questioner wants to follow up and press for further information) there is never a " we need to move on." Sometimes the back and forth can go on for awhile. Why is this important? When you get more material you actually do learn more about a candidate's position and if he is good, he gets the chance to persuade. His opponents complain he gets kinder treatment and perhaps the MSM "likes" him better but it may be just a function of the amount of material he provides. Second, I find it reassuring that a potential president does not look at new media like a deer staring into oncoming trafffic --as a potential danger or annoyance to be avoided. Ultimately the President will have to communicate with the country and using new media to do it is smart and will in the long run provide conservatives with more comprehensive, unfiltered news.
Willard Mitt Edwards
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 5:47PM
The panderfest moves South, where Romney pledges to "fight for every job":
BLUFFTON, S.C. - Mitt Romney on Wednesday swapped talk of resurrecting the auto industry that helped him in Michigan with a pledge to pay attention to textile and other industrial job losses that have punished the South.
"You've seen it here, in furniture. You've seen the textile industry, where Washington watched, saw the jobs go and go," the Republican presidential contender told a group of senior citizens at the Sun City Hilton Head Retirement Center.
"I'm not willing to declare defeat on any industry where we can be competitive. I'm going to fight for every job," Romney said.
Should Romney go on to win the nomination with his new populist tone, I wonder how long it will take for Democrats to run ads along these lines.
Re: Re: McCain
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 5:28PM
Darn it, Phil, there you go insisting on being fair again when
it is so much more fun just to pile on. You killjoy, you!
Seriously, you make a good point. And it is ironic, considering
the McCain is going into not-tremendously-friendly territory in
doing so, whereas Thompson has enjoyed widespread blog support but
hasn't regularly given them much to work with. Chalk up a definite
point for McCain. Grudgingly, but definitely.
Re: McCain
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 5:16PM
McCain was no doubt overly defensive, as I noted, probably because he thought I was questioning his support for Israel. With that said, I will at least give McCain credit for holding near-weekly blogger calls where I can ask him questions such as that, which is more than I can say for the other campaigns. As far as I can recall, Rudy and Fred have only had one blogger call each, and Romney hasn't had any that I'm aware of (unless I just wasn't invited).
McDonald's Sandwiches
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 4:59PM
Yes, James, in McCainville the Happy Meal has gone out of style. It's been replaced with something that Big Mc calls the "Straight Talk," although if you ask me, the claim of straight talk -- ("I never engaged in class warfare while opposing the Bush tax cuts! I never endorsed amnesty! I don't engage in negative campaigning!) -- from this source makes his whole campaign more akin to the Home of the Whopper.
McAngry and McSaint
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 4:45PM
Are those sandwiches at McDonalds? The McAngry could counteract the Happy Meal.
Re: McCain's Full Comments
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 4:19PM
Philip: At least McCain didn't call your highly reasonable
question "chicken$h**" and then yell: "[Expletive] you! I know more
about this than anyone else in the room." That's what he yelled at
Texas' U.S. Sen. John Cornyn last year when Cornyn had the temerity
to raise questions about the details of the immigration bill.
But really, McCain's answer to you amounted to the same message,
minus the profanity. In short, he was saying, "How DARE you
question ME?" You see, John McAngry is above being questioned. He's
John McSaint. He's always right. Just in case you didn't
know.....
Next time, just lob a question at him like Chris Wallace did in
two debates, along the lines of, "Sen. McCain, is it a really
difficult thing to always provide straight talk when your opponents
like Gov. Romney are constantly running negative ads against
you?"
I guarantee, you'll get a much less defensive answer from him if
you take that approach! ;)
SC Poll
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 4:18PM
McCain's Full Comments On James Baker
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 4:07PM
Here is a transcript of my exchange with John McCain regarding James Baker. I think McCain was overly defensive, because it must have come across to him that I was questioning his support for Israel, when in reality, I was questioning how Baker could be considered somebody capable of helping implement the kind of pro-Israel foreign policy that McCain supports. Anyway, I'll let you be the judge:
PK: Hi Senator McCain, I just wanted to clarify something. I know that you've always been a strong supporter of
SEN. MCCAIN: Well, in all do respect, I have a very clear record of 24 years of support of
PK: No, I'm not questioning your record on
SEN MCCAIN: I respect James Baker, and I respect him a great deal. And so all I have to tell you is that I will stand on my record of support for the state of
McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 3:54PM
It's Jake Tapper's Media, We're Just Watching It
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 3:30PM
Gloatingly the ABC Correspondent refuses to gloat.
McCain on James Baker
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 3:28PM
I just asked John McCain on a blogger call about his comments in a 2006 interview that he would consider sending James Baker over to Israel to help "micromanage" U.S. policy, which I found disappointing. McCain started by saying he has been a strong supporter of Israel for 24 years--something I didn't dispute--but that he "respects" Baker. I'll have his full comments up when I get a chance to transcribe them after the call, but suffice it to say, McCain didn't seem all too pleased with the question. Perhaps my tone was too coarse. I tend to get that way when talking about Baker.
Conspiracy-monger From Hope
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 2:56PM
What IS it in the water in Arkansas? Michelle Malkin says this is Huck's "tinfoil hat" moment; I say it just shows again how much like the Clintons he is. Either way, take a look at this latest bit of garbage from the Huckster. Now there is a conspiracy against him, he says. Hint to every two-bit dingbat out there who continues to misuse the word: The word "conspiracy" by definition (quoting Webster's) involves "acting together SECRETLY, esp. for AN UNLAWFUL or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason."
If something is done out in the open, and it is legal and aboveboard, then it by definition cannot be a conspiracy. And a conspiracy also involves a conscious and deliberate collaboration; i.e., it means that the people who are part of it are deliberately communicating with each other.
The fact is, there are no secrets and no deliberate collaborations or communications among all the prominent conservatives who quite openly explain WHY they oppose Mike Huckabee. I know I have never spoken to Mark Levin about it, or to Rush Limbaugh, or to George Will, or Phyllis Schlafly, Michael Reagan..... all of whom have made their objections to the Huckster quite clear. Then there are Jed Babbin, Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Kathryn Lopez, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter, Bob Novak, Bob Dole, Laura Ingraham, David Limbaugh, Donald Lambro, the Club for Growth, Dick Armey, Thomas Sowell, John Fund, the Wall Street Journal, Pete Wehner, David Frum, Deroy Murdock, Paul Mirengoff, John Hinderaker, Frank Gaffney, and so many others who have strongly criticized Huckabee. This isn't a conspiracy; it's a consensus.
Paleolibertarianism
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 1:43PM
It's worth clearing something up about the strategy that led to the Paul newsletters. Paleolibertarianism began as a way to get libertarian politics back in touch with the normal customs, habits, and mores of most people while keeping the focus on antistatism. The idea was that libertarian hostility to religion and to the nation-state was hurting the cause of more freedom and less government. Most people are to some extent religious. They don't reject all forms of social authority. When they hear that a country is just a bunch of people who happen live in the same geopraphic location, and that there is no reason to feel more loyalty to an American than someone else, it doesn't quite ring true to them.
Unfortunately, as evidenced by the types of people these newsletters were marketed to, some prominent paleolibertarians took these insights and then veered off into rather ugly directions with them. Ironically, by doing so they have probably strengthened the very tendencies in libertarianism they once sought to mitigate.
Re: Romney and South Carolina
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 1:33PM
Re: Those Ron Paul Letters
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 1:32PM
Jacob Sullum's take on it is the best I've seen, neither dismissing the newsletters as "old news" nor engaging in more-cosmopolitan-than-thou posturing. His advice for Paul strikes me as spot on.
Re: Panderfest
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 1:29PM
We should have known we were in trouble when the top-tier Republican candidates all gave basically socialistic answers on farming in a debate last year, droning on about securing our national food supply.
Re: Romney and South Carolina
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 12:50PM
Interesting that Romney is more or less conceding the state, which is probably better than campaigning hard there and ending up in third place or worse. I wonder if Thompson can benefit from his early withdrawal, by picking up votes of those who were swayed by Romney's three legged stool argument.
The Expectations Game
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 12:20PM
Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom explains that Romney will be in SC through Thursday morning and then head to Nevada. Why not capitalize on his new momentum and stand and fight against McCain while trying to knock out Thompson? Fehrnstrom tells me: "We've had four contests so far and Mitt Romney has won half of them. We lead in wins. We lead in delegates. We lead in votes cast.South Carolina is John McCain country. We hope to do well here, but we're under no illusions about the uphill climb we face. At the same time, we haven't overlooked Nevada, where there are actually more delegates at stake than in South Carolina." Well, he did spend a lot of money and time there and says he has the momentum but if he can't win in the South, he can't win in the South. It'll narrow the options for Super Tuesday but it may be the best he can do given the competition.
Romney's Nevada Stronghold
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 12:15PM
While Mitt campaigns in South Carolina, his wife Ann and son Josh are traveling in Nevada, where the caucuses will take place on Saturday. Given that the state has a Mormon population of 169, 714, turnout is expected to be low, and it's not being contested, one has to consider this a virtual lock for Romney. Look for his campaign to use a win here to bolster any strong performance he has in South Carolina, or blunt a poor showing there.
Rudy Panderfest In The Sunshine State
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 11:53AM
Since this blog has been hard on Mitt Romney for his shameless portrayal of Washington as the potential savior of the Michigan economy, it is only fair that we should hold Rudy Giuliani to account for his disheartening call for a national catastrophe fund "to spread insurance risks associated with hurricanes and other natural disasters." In a new ad, he boasts to Floridians that he is the only candidate to support the proposal, which he promises will "reduce insurance rates." All this from a candidate who is trying to pitch himself as a fiscal conservative.
Insurance rates are high in Florida for a reason, and to artificially lower them through government intervention would be a moral hazard. That is, if homeowners do not have to bear the full risk of living in areas prone to natural disasters, it will only encourage more people to move into those areas, which will create ever more costly natural disasters. This is a textbook example of why conservatives believe that government should keep its hands off of the economy.
A truly sad moment for a candidate who prides himself on not being a panderer. And another dispiriting turn in the campaign for those of us who still support the concept of limited government.
Via Campaign Spot.
Somebody Stop the Fight! It's A Massacre!
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 11:47AM
The incomparable Kelly Jane Torrance takes on both Lee Siegel and the The New York Times Book Review--and walks out the undisputed victor.
And if that's not enough Torrance for you--and it shouldn't be--check out her recent Washington Times Best of 2007 list.
Bring Out Your Dead
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 11:40AM
For my money--or, perhaps more accurately, money borrowed from my wife--the always brilliant Todd Seavey has written the best Ron Paul post-mortem around--incisive, funny and more than a little heartbroken. The whole thing is a must-read, but I found this bit toward the end particularly engaging:
Just this week, I had the confusing experience of talking to a Ron Paul delegate from New York who sees himself as basically a subversive liberal infiltrating the Republican convention and undermining it, not by supporting a candidate he truly likes but by supporting the candidate he thinks is craziest (due to beliefs like the gold standard, not the more recent racist revelations), the candidate who would be most embarrassing to the GOP. The delegate at first assumed, when I said I was no longer gung-ho about Paul, that I was also liberal (as many liberal New Yorkers are prone to do upon meeting anyone without horns and a pitchfork). Thus, it took several back-and-forth comments for each of us to figure out what the other actually believed ("supporting…but not really…would still love to see…sort of sad…" etc.). The guy is expecting to get some juicy interviews once he's "on the inside," apparently not understanding that convention-attending Republicans-Paul-supporters and otherwise-are more than happy to talk your ear off about what they believe without any need for subterfuge.
(Psst, c'mere man, let me tell you what I really think: we ought to get rid of the whole government, privatize every useful function and abolish the non-useful ones, make everything nice n' voluntary n' efficient, about 300 million times more responsive to people's individual needs than any majority vote could ever be - yeah, you know what I'm sayin'. Now do the secret handshake. Don't tell anybody I used to read comic books.)
Coburn on McCain
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 11:27AM
Here is what Sen. Coburn wrote about John McCain in National Review Online after last year's immigration bill train wreck:
The rest of the piece is worth reading. It's similar to the arguments we at the New Hampshire Union Leader made in endorsing McCain despite, not because of, his positions that irritate conservatives, including us.
I think our endorsement helped him win New Hampshire
because it gave him a sort of conservative seal off approval here.
Coburn's endorsement might have a similar effect, as far as
endorsements from U.S. senators go. Coburn has a lifetime ACU
rating of 97.8 and he is no friend of the Washington establishment.
That he picked McCain over Romney says a lot, I think.
A Clash, Finally On the Merits
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 11:25AM
And this: "It's not about employer versus employee or rich versus poor -- That's Democratic talk. I hope our people can avoid going down that road. What we're talking about is freedom, fairness, and a marketplace that allows for innovation.. . I think it's important to not just tailor your message to a particular audience, you know, because you're going to have a lot of audiences when you're running for president."
Re: Advice
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 11:19AM
Jennifer, I agree with every word in your post. I just add that at one point in the not-too-distant past, that Uncommitted guy often was very strong all across the country. Indeed, at the first caucus I ever attended, back when I was 12 years old in 1976, Uncommitted sent an entire slate of 15 delegates from our congressional district caucus to the Louisiana state convention, at which convention Ronald Reagan won most of the delegates but Uncommitted did manage to elect several delegates to go to the national convention in Kansas City. At that convention, they joined a significant number of delegates pledged to Uncommitted from across the country. The shame of it was that almost all of Uncommitted's delegates turned out to be double-crossers eager to leave Uncommitted behind in favor or President Ford. Result: Ford defeated Reagan narrowly, and then went on to proclaim that Eastern Europe was free of Soviet domination and thus hand the White House to Jimmy Carter. Further result: I have looked with strong suspicion at Mr. Uncommitted and all of his supporters ever since. :)
Rudy's Economic Answer
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 11:11AM
Those Ron Paul Letters, Continued
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 11:03AM
In Reason, Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez make the case that Lew Rockwell was Ron Paul's ghostwriter. They also argue, correctly I think, that Paul owes it to his young supporters, who signed up for the 2008 campaign for reasons quite distinct from the paleolibertarian strategy of the late 1980s and early '90s, to take more direct "moral responsibility" for the newsletters by addressing them more frankly. John Zmirak urges fellow paleos to do some soul searching as well. John Derbyshire takes a different view of the controversy.
Elections, the Old Fashioned Way
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 10:29AM
As unusual as it seems for three major contests to be split between three Republican presidential candidates, it's actually the pattern of having one dominant candidate every four years with only one or two serious challengers that is relatively new. On the Republican side, the pattern of a clear frontrunner slapping down an insurgent candidate in, say, South Carolina only developed in 1980. For the Democrats, it was 2000. (Although Bill Clinton was the "Comback Kid" in New Hampshire in 1992, he didn't actually come in first anywhere until Georgia weeks into the voting and he faced competitive primaries as late as when he faced off against Jerry Brown in California.)
If we end up with a brokered Republican convention too, then things will really be done the old fashioned way. Of course, we'll see what happens after South Carolina and Florida. There's still time for a candidate to pick up momentum going into Feb. 5th.
Advice
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 10:18AM
Quin, I agree with your sentiments that the GOP field needs to get its act together so I offer a few thoughts: 1) Rather than flit from theme to theme depending on the day and the state, the candidates would do well to come up with two or three big ideas/plans (one needs to be the economy) and explain why the conservative base should choose you. 2) Don't belittle, trick, insult, or taunt your opponents.Voters do form an impression based on how candidates run their campaigns and being petty or small minded or bored is not the way to ingratiate yourself with the electorate. 3) Let's hope that Uncommitted guy doesn't win-- he/she/it (?) is going to be tough to beat and can apparently turn out the vote in the snow without spending any money on ads.
Bad Post-Result Performances
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 10:04AM
Even after a night's sleep, I am amazed at how badly all the GOP candidates did last night in their appearances after the results were clear. First, Mitt Romney's trick of knocking John McCain off the air was utterly reprehensible, a cheap schoolyard trick that reflects very very poorly on his character. His own speech was pretty good (bordering, but no crossing into demagoguery), but not great; but meanwhile, the one-upsmanship was cringe-inducing.
McCain, meanwhile, may have made some nice remarks, but we didn't see them. He actually cut into Huckabee's speech, which wasn't terribly nice, and he also looked like one of those spry old men who everybody sort of likes but who aren't really taken seriously. Not that McCain isn't taken seriously, but he just didn't look presidential, somehow.
In various appearances I saw, Mike Huckabee was seriously losing his nice-guy image. His barbs keep getting more pointed and nasty-sounding, which means they do more to counteract his carefully built image than the same barbs would from a guy whose image all along is that of a tough guy. He seems a little desperate -- and no matter how he spins it, the results last night were particularly poor for him, because just a week ago there were polls showing him in a virtual three-way tie in Michigan. He faltered badly there, and the bloom may be off his rose.
Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, ran ads on Fox. Something about the ads is just too grim. I don't think they struck the right tone.
Fred Thompson, for his part, was surly with Sean Hannity. It was bizarre, because there is nobody in America who has given Thompson more positive air time in the past year than Hannity has. Yes, Hannity's questions were off topic, annoying and repetitive (how many times can somebody ask whether the interviewee is going to "go negative" against John McCain?!? -- and frankly, why does that matter?), but Thompson had a perfect chance to smile and talk to Hannity like a friend and then at least attempt to change the subject to his own positive attributes. Instead, Thompson got grouchy awfully quickly and kept trying to DEFEND himself by saying that, well, yes, he WAS drawing distinctions with everybody in the field. He did not come across as a guy riding a wave of late momentum. And I wonder if his dull TV ad is proving not to have the desired effect.
If this is the best all the GOP candidates can do, get ready for President Clinton II (or, still less likely, President Obama).
Re: McCain gets Coburn Nod
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 9:44AM
Two additional points. First, Coburn is an exceptionally forceful social conservative. To the extent McCain needs to keep some of those voters out of Huckabee's camp this will help. Second, getting the endorsement tells me the McCain camp has woken up. I sensed that they had not much of a game plan in Michigan other than "we won NH!" and this may be an indication they see the need for a forceful, message intensified few days to hold down SC. He's ahead in recent polls ( the polls generally got Michigan right by the way) but three days is now evidentally a lifetime in politics so we'll have to see if his advantage holds up.
Re: McCain Gets Coburn Nod
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 9:20AM
This is a huge endorsement for McCain. More important than any boost it may give McCain in South Carolina, is that Coburn is a man of unquestionable conservative credentials who can be a forceful spokesman for McCain on the Right at a time when many are trying to run him out of the movement. Over the summer, even though Coburn disagreed with McCain on immigration, he commended his collegue for having the courage to stand up for what he felt was best for the country. There is simply nobody more credible than Coburn to argue that even if you don't agree with McCain on everything, you should respect his candor, and trust him in a perilous time for the nation.
NRO, Romney, And The Royal 'We'
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 8:57AM
For awhile, Romney-booster Kathryn Jean Lopez seemed to be striking a more neutral tone with regard to her favored candidate, and I give her credit for that, in stark contrast to Hugh Hewitt. But as the primary season has gotten into full swing, she has drifted back into her totally smitten with Mitt mode, and I forgot how off-putting it was.
Particularly annoying to me is her posts that equate a Romney victory with a victory for conservatives in general. Just because NR has endorsed Romney, it doesn't mean that everybody on the right is in universal agreement that he is the candidate of conservatives, and that what's good for him is good for all of us.
This morning, for instance, she writes:
Winning sounds good.
Listening to Romney people this morning -- on the phone, over e-mail, on the radio (Vin Weber just now on Bennett's radio show), they sound like people I haven't talked to, frankly, in months. They sound reenergized and determined. (Have you ever seen the governor himself that revved up?)
They also have that lucky-to-be-here and in-love-with-America tone I heard in Jeri Thompson's voice on Mark Levin's show last night, too.
I have no real point here, other than they're encouraging sounds from the Right. That and maybe we have encouraging days to come in this primary season.
Now obviously, commentators should be given more leeway than straight news reporters when it comes to supporting a given candidate, but I think it's a bit presumptuous for her to assume she speaks for all conservatives.
Re: South Carolina Bellwether
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 8:33AM
Phil, I think the only thing that South Carolina can do is knock out Thompson who has made it his must win or seriously damage Huckabee's prospects (if he can't win there where will he?). Otherwise it is just the opening act for Florida.
McCain Gets Coburn Nod
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 8:29AM
McCain has picked up the endorsement of Tom Coburn. This will help with Oklahoma which is a February 5 state but more importantly in strengthening McCain's argument that he really is a conservative who will do battle with the inside the Beltway crowd. Certainly, as I and others have written, there are few Senators more conservative and who have irritated Washington insiders more than Coburn. If Lieberman is the surrogate ideally suited for NH, Coburn may be the one who best fits South Carolina.
South Carolina May Not Be 2008 Bellwether
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 8:08AM
Heading into the South Carolina primary, there will be a lot of talk about how the state has chosen the Republican nominee in every election since 1980 by rallying around the establishment candidates and quashing the insurgents. What's lost in this analysis, however, is the fact that in that in all five of the contested primaries since 1980, the establishment candidate won decisively and garnered a large percentage of the overall vote. This trend is unlikely to continue this year, given the fractured nature of the GOP field.
Here's a list of the South Carolina winners since 1980, with their percentage of the vote. Notice that the lowest total was in 1996, when Bob Dole captured 45 percent (he still trounced Pat Buchanan, who received just 29 percent):
1980 Ronald Reagan 55%
1984 Uncontested
1988 George Bush 49%
1992 George Bush 67%
1996 Bob Dole 45%
2000 George W. Bush 53%
2004 Uncontested
It is unlikely that any GOP candidate in 2008 will get anywhere near Dole's 45 percent, and a double-digit victory seems unlikely. In the pre-Michigan RCP average, John McCain has a narrow edge over Mike Huckabee, 25.8 to 23.3.
This doesn't mean that South Carolina won't prove very important. A win there could cement McCain as the frontrunner, boost a Romney comeback narrative, make Huckabee viable heading into Feb. 5, and determine whether Fred rejoins the top tier. But we should caution against assuming that the past will be prologue as far as the predictive value of South Carolina, because no candidate is likely to emerge with anything close to a decisive victory.
Uncommitted to Hillary
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 6:02AM
Now With Warning Labels!
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 1:02AM
The lineup over at the Spectator main page is a cornucopia of awesomeness, but let's start with you, the reader. Today's Reader Mail is named "McCain Migraine" after that sharp, throbbing headache that many came down with when they read John Samples's article on the perils of a McPresidency. In the future, we may have to adopt warning labels to avoid lawsuits. Also, a member of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee takes sharp exception to Deroy Murdock's anti-Romney rocket of a piece. Elsewhere, new National Review hand Robert VerBruggen takes aim at a not-brief-enough brief filed by the Bush administration in the D.C. handgun case, Shawn Macomber jousts with the Kennedys about Camelot, and "Gorgeous" George Neumayr laments the low down, dirty, no good tactics of the Clinton crowd to tackle Obama. And that's not all. Stay tuned for the latest on the Michigan mash-up from our night owl or early bird, depending on your time zone, Phil Klein.
The Case for Uncommitted
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 12:54AM
If only uncommitted could actually serve as president, leaving the office vacant, we'd be in great shape.
At least the Romney win keeps it interesting -- I think he could benefit from a brokered convention. And if Giuliani can come back from a series of single-digit performances, having finished ahead of Ron Paul only once so far, it will be unprecedented.
Re: Will The Final Pander Hurt
Posted by on 1.16.08 @ 12:08AM
Others wonder as well about the ripples from Michigan: "Mitt Romney's victory in Michigan is a testament to his remarkable elasticity. Having spent two years running as a social conservative, which he is not, he decided a week ago to run as a businessman reformer. It didn't carry him over the threshold there, but it evidently has in Michigan - where, among other things, the Republican candidate seems to have made wildly un-Republican promises to use the powers of the federal government to restore, through some mystical spell, automotive-industry jobs to the suffering state." With the exception of Huckabee all the others now have fodder to claim they are to the right of Romney on the economy and that MittCare plus AutoCare are not where the party or country should head. But some think it was a good idea that he did what he had to do -- you know, make whatever promises you have to.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Well Another View
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 10:51PM
Some think it was a great idea for Romney to con his opponent and bump him off the air. Well, it's not like he has a likeability or credibility problem so I guess it's ok. (More seriously, no other candidate will make and keep to a deal with Romney on speeches in the future so it better have been worth it.)
Obama on Absentee Fathers
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 10:46PM
In the debate, Obama just noted that to improve education, it will take the cooperation of parents, and particularly criticized black fathers who were absent and neglected their responsibilities. He tied it into his own experience, saying that he understands what it's like to grow up without a father.
Clinton responds with a rather banal nanny-state comment, saying it's not just about families, but "communities."
Hillary vs. Uncommitted
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 10:40PM
With none of the other major Democratic candidates on the ballot, Hillary Clinton was only able to garner 58 percent of the Michigan vote as of this writing, while "uncommitted" won 37 percent. More troubling for Clinton heading into South Carolina are exit polls showing that a staggering 70 percent of black voters took the time to go to the polls to vote for "uncommitted" over Hillary. "Uncommitted" also won among voters in the 18-29 and 30-44 age ranges, and among independents.
If only "uncommitted" had the money to take out TV ads, it just might have beaten Hillary.
Will Romney's Final Pander Hurt?
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 10:16PM
McCain Pivots
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 9:46PM
Edwards: "I literally Had To Fight To Survive"
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 9:35PM
That's him speaking about growing up in mill towns.
More of his pugilistic populism.
Re: Brokered Convention
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 9:32PM
I agree Phil a brokered convention is a real possibility. These theories usually never work out because SOMEONE has to gain momentum and then everyone else drops out. Not this time. But Romney has an overall favorability/credibilty issue which wins in or even a few states will not erase (if anything the shameless pandering at the end of the Michigan race cemented it). So maybe McCain on the electability and the "compromise to keep the party together" basis would benefit. But you know, I can't even tell what will happen Saturday, so don't take my word for it.
Dem Debate: Obama, Hillary Blame Supporters
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 9:30PM
Switching gears to the Democratic side, the candidates at the Las Vegas debate were asked about the recent identity war that has broken out.
"Neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign," Clinton said, despite the fact that she has made her gender a central part of her candidacy.
She also blamed some of the recent controversies on "exuberant and sometimes uncontrollable supporters," and Obama followed up by saying supporters were "overzealous."
Clinton was also asked about Robert Johnson's comments--Tim Russert brought up Obama's drug use in the context of asking the question, about whether she would prevent him from speaking at events in the future. She stuck by Johnson's absurd defense of his statements, that he was talking about Obama's days as a community organizer.
Obama also was asked about his "You're likable enough" comment, and said it was misinterpreted, that he actually meant that she was "plenty likable."
A Brokered Convention
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 9:21PM
Keeps looking more likely.
Let's say Thompson or Huckabee takes South Carolina and Rudy takes Florida. Suddenly you have a situation on Feb. 5 where Rudy can win the winner take all states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut; Thompson or Huckabee takes the South; Romney wins Massachusetts and Utah; McCain wins Arizona and the rest of the states get divided up.
Perhaps, at this point, Romney is hoping for a brokered convention. The more cerebral, Beltway logic that prompted the National Review to endorse him--that he is the best one to preserve the Reagan coalition--may resonate more among delegates to the convention than among actual voters.
Romney Wins
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 9:11PM
Re: Romney Camp
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 9:10PM
Yes, except does anyone really give a damn about Rudy Giuliani anymore? The great weakness in his wait-for-it strategy was that if all the other guys, by choice or necessity, wound up waiting for it too, his essential superfluity would come roaring back into glaring focus. This is exactly what's happening. Outside of Rudy's campaign, whose needs and desires are disappointed by the other guys yet satisfied by Rudy? Even if there's some hard core of support that can answer that question, it's got to muster some kind of challenge to the hearty enthusiasm that still powers the other guys. And that's all the Giuliani campaign's got to work with. Can they? Will they? Should they bother?
Re: Romney Camp
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 8:58PM
This was part of the early state strategy that everyone has now abandoned. (Are they all DuHaime-ites now?) He spent a lot of time and money and cultivated people like Bob Jones III on the theory that with the early wins in NH and Iowa and improved standing with evangelicals he could win there too. None of this panned out and we're all in the long game now. As for SC it could potentially eliminate figuratively or literally either Huckabee or Thompson( or both if McCain wins) but it won't decide the winner. Rudy seems to be in the right place after all.
Re: Romney Camp
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 8:51PM
It's fair to ask: did Romney ever have a shot at winning SC?
Re: Romney Lowering Expectations
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 8:49PM
Romney faces a bit of a dilemma. If as it appears he leaves SC for Nevada his rivals and critics will claim he's "abandoned the South" and the idea of a Republican who can't carry the South is as goofy as a Democrat who can't carry the Northeast. On the other hand, if he plays to win in SC and comes in third or fourth( a real possibility) he's lost the momentum of Michigan and perhaps given up a shot at Nevada which is worth 34 delegates. It seems he has chosen the former but will get grief from his rivals no doubt. He did after all spend millions in SC on ads and held almost 50 events there.
Romney Camp Already Lowering SC Expectations
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 8:44PM
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden just said on FoxNews that the campaign would be happy with a second or third place finish in South Carolina, saying the state was much more important for McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson. Madden cited the advantage other candidates have as southerners, that McCain has because of the war veteran vote, and also the high concentration of evangelicals.
Michigan
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 6:43PM
I think while polls are open it is just not right to leak the exits. What you know, you know and you don't need to print everything you know at the moment you know it. Besides, John is right-- they can and have been wrong. All that said if Romney were to win nicely, SC becomes the knock out drag out, key state Thompson hoped it would be. Can McCain come back if he loses tonight? Sure and his leadership/foreign policy message plays better there perhaps than Michigan. The big loser tonight may be Huckabee. Other than Iowa and other than with the religious right where has he shown strength? Romney will get a bit of a bump but perhaps not enough to step over Thompson and McCain. Anyone of them can win. And who must be delighted by the "not so fast do we want the race to be over" mentality once again displayed by GOP voters? Rudy of course. Hey, he's made Romney a believer in the long term delegate strategy.
UPDATE: Reports are circulating that Romney will head for Nevada on Thursday, perhaps trying to cement a win in a state he thinks he can win and downplay the importance of SC where he may have difficulty getting to first. Spokesman Kevin Madden says officially no decision has been made yet. I imagine they will assess the results tonight, do a quick SC poll( but the impact of Michigan won't of course be known for a day or two) and make their choices. Everyone is now playing the odds ( no Vegas pun intended).
Michigan Exit Poll Leak
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 6:31PM
I'm surprised no one else has put this up yet. I'm hearing the first round of exit polls have Romney 35, McCain 29, Huckabee 15, Ron Paul 10, Giuliani 4. This doesn't count absentee ballots.Early exit polls aren't necessarily worth a whole lot, of course.
Partial Birth Goes Glam?
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 5:03PM
When someone expresses shock at what appears in a girlie mag, it's almost kind of cute. As it happens, Vogue ran a column on a woman's decision to get a partial-birth abortion when her doctors told her that her child would never survive birth. From what I know about the subject, such diagnoses are rare. Pro-life advocates were tweaked all the same, considering that the almost mother was portrayed in a stylish outfit, claiming that, "the gruesome procedure of partial birth abortion has been given a style makeover by the world's most influential fashion magazine."
But I think I'll betray the same naivete when I run across the
in-depth response by the magazine: "The response from both sides
demonstrates that this is an important and sensitive subject that
matters to people."
Thank you, Vogue, for getting into the
thick of it and hashing it out. We knew we could rely on ya.
If McCain Wins,And Romney Drops Out Of The Race...
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 3:57PM
I anticipate the following post from Hugh Hewitt:
In dropping out of the Republican race today, Mitt Romney displayed the type of bold leadership that made him the leading businessman in America, enabled him to rescue the Olympics, and cemented his reputation as the greatest governor in the history of the free world. Anybody can spend tens of millions of dollars on a losing presidential election bid, but only a true visionary like Romney would decide to leave the race when he realizes he has no chance of winning. This is a man who knows when to jump from a sinking ship, and with the nomination of John McCain sure to shatter the Reagan coalition with the force of a nuclear bomb and cause the GOP to go down in flames in the general election, Romney, turnaround artist that he is, will be there to pick up the pieces, and return the party to its glory. It's official--Mitt Romney has established himself as the clear frontrunner for the 2012 Republican nomination. Anybody who doesn't see it clearly is woefully ignorant of the Bain way. This precise scenario was outlined in Chapter 3 of my book.
Democrats Debate In Nevada Tonight
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 1:53PM
Lost in all of the coverage of the Michigan primary is the fact that the Democrats will be debating in Las Vegas tonight from 9-11 p.m. eastern time, just after the polls close in Michigan. Plenty to keep political junkies busy tonight.
Attack On U.S. Embassy Vehicle in Beirut
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 11:24AM
Four people killed, the AP reports.
Obama and Farrakhan
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 11:08AM
In his column today, Richard Cohen raises an issue that Barack Obama will no doubt have to confront:
As somebody who lived and worked as a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago, Obama couldn't help but cross paths with members of the Nation of Islam, and in his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, he wrestles to understand the sentiment that lead blacks to embrace a leader such as Farrakhan, while making it clear that he doesn't share their contempt for whites.
This passage from his book provides a good idea of where Obama was coming from:
In his book, Obama also mentioned with sarcasm that he sometimes picked up the Nation of Islam's newspaper, The Final Call:
I don't think that Obama in any way harbors the hatred of whites and Jews that Farrakhan does, but like Cohen, I think that Obama needs to publicly condemn Farrakhan's message in the strongest possible terms, distancing himself from his own spiritual advisor, Rev. White.
The biggest fear I would have with an Obama presidency is not that he won't be true to his call for inclusiveness, but that his magnanimity will quickly descend into moral relativism, something especially dangerous in an age of Islamic terrorism.
SC Ads
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 10:53AM
Without Remorse, But WITH Regard for The Law
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 10:44AM
So say you're a potential graduate student with no real direction, struggling to find that one elusive thing that will fulfill you throughout the span of a--gasp!--career. You've heard something about this whole waterboarding trend, and it sounds pretty cool, and, whatever John McCain says, you love 24. But what respectable school caters to those interests?
I mean, besides the School of the Americas and...Georgetown?
From the "Law of 24" syllabus:
The award winning Fox Television drama series 24 explores America’s fictional response to international terrorism through the eyes of Jack Bauer, a U.S. counter-terrorism agent. Oftentimes, without remorse or regard for the law, Agent Bauer is willing to do what has to be done when faced with the threat of kidnappings, assassinations, nuclear detonations, and bioterrorism on
What? A term paper but no hands-on terrorist interrogations or fighting?
Forget the Snow, Think Florida Sun
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 10:19AM
Keynes Lives!
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 9:27AM
The Wall Street Journal editorial page takes note of Rubinomics' replacement with old-fashioned demand-side economics. Meet the new Democratic economic consensus, same as the old economic consensus.
I'm deeply sympathetic to the argument that conservatives need new ideas. But really, how new do they need to be if the Democrats are trying to win elections with economic ideas from the 1930s?
Michigan Picks
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 8:35AM
Before I make my predictions, caveat emptor: As I did in my Iowa picks, I offer thes more for fun than anything else, because there are way too many variables here to feel confident. (I got the winners in Iowa right anyway, but not the sizes of their wins. In New Hampshire, on the other hand, I offered no caveats, because I felt quite confident of what was going on, and I was closer to being right than almost anybody. This pick is more like Iowa's than New Hampshire's.)
Without further ado: Romney 33. McCain 29.9. Huckabee 29.8. Which sets up a real four-way dogfight in South Carolina among those three and Fred Thompson.
Again, don't take that pick to the bank. In addition to the variables, it might be the wish being father to the thought: If I were in Michigan today, I would probably vote for Romney....
No Predictions But ...
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 8:28AM
Two Items
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 6:19AM
From the things you never thought you'd see department:
That'll Get the Mormons Writing
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 6:09AM
"Or maybe Pastor Bill Keller is right after all. Maybe Mitt Romney is the Devil." That's from today's Reader Mail. Before the letters start pouring in, I'll point out that the point was made in jest, in response to Deroy Murdoch's entirely earnest exhumation of Romney's record as governor of the Kennedy State. Elsewhere in the same batch of letters, we have some sympathy for the devil, or at least for UC Santa Cruz economist Alan Spearot's favorable contrast of Romney to he whose name campaign finance laws compel us to leave out.
Random Blot
Posted by on 1.15.08 @ 5:50AM
February is a lame name for a month. We should change it to Feptember.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Romney Photo Op
Posted by on 1.14.08 @ 10:53PM
Staged with a staffer's mom. Shades of Ben Cardin's ads?
Clinton Tries To Withdraw From Race War
Posted by on 1.14.08 @ 7:17PM
When Hillary Clinton calls for common ground, you know that her racial tactics have back-fired among the Democratic electorate.
Her campaign just released the following statement from her:
“Over this past week, there has been a lot of discussion and back and forth - much of which I know does not reflect what is in our hearts.
“And at this moment, I believe we must seek common ground.
“Our party and our nation is bigger than this. Our party has been on the front line of every civil rights movement, women's rights movement, workers' rights movement, and other movements for justice in
America. “We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side.
“And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”
McGovern and the Democratic Race/Gender War
Posted by on 1.14.08 @ 5:47PM
Given the developments in the Democratic race over the past week, this George McGovern quote from when he endorsed Hillary Clinton in Iowa in October takes on a whole new meaning:
"I hope to live long enough to see a black president in the White House," McGovern said in reference to Clinton's Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama. "But we have an old rule and courtesy in the United States: 'ladies first.'"
Will It All Change On Wednesday?
Posted by on 1.14.08 @ 5:37PM
Thompson's Ad
Posted by on 1.14.08 @ 5:15PM
This Fred
Thompson ad in South Carolina isn't exactly the ad I would do,
but it's not bad. I think he needs to have other people
enthusiastically saying "I'm for Fred!," or something like it, in
order to build a bandwagon effect. And I think he needs to do
something more dramatic overall. This ad is just too low-key and
too predictable for my tastes. And it sounds a little too cliched,
without enough of a selling point. I also think he needs to appeal
to South Carolinians' parochial pride somewhere along the line. He
needs to make the case that it is long past time for South Carolina
to stop letting itself be limited by choices given them by Iowa and
New Hampshire -- that it should not let those two states limit the
field, but rather should put its own stamp on the race by choosing
its own candidate irrespective of the results of previous
contests.
Finally, if I were Thompson, I would try to float an exciting new
issue with which to rally people.
All that said, Thompson does come across fairly well in the ad --
trustworthy, solid, somebody you would be comfortable with in the
Oval Office. Even if it is not what I would do, it may just sell in
South Carolina. We'll see....