- 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, February 2, 2008
Bridge to the 20th Century
Posted by on 2.2.08 @ 4:54PM
President Eisenhower's granddaughter joins the Kennedy clan and endorses Barack Obama. Maybe Obama's "Hillary's the past, I'm the future" narrative should be revised to "Hillary's the past, I'm the still-more-distant past."
This Ought to Rally the Base
Posted by on 2.2.08 @ 3:55PM
Matt Cooper is suggesting a McCain-Powell ticket. As in Colin Powell. I'm not kidding.
Though I guess it would unite the Weekly Standard's favorite presidential candidate of 2000 with their favorite presidential candidate of 1996. The rest of the media wouldn't have been this happy with a possible Republican ticket since the death of Nelson Rockefeller.
As Maine Goes
Posted by on 2.2.08 @ 3:37PM
So goes Nevada. Or vice versa. At least that's what the early voting in the Maine caucuses suggests, because the initial results closely resemble those of the Nevada caucuses: Mitt Romney out far out in front, Ron Paul in second, and John McCain right behind Paul in third. Unlike Nevada, no delegates are awarded.
UPDATE: Or maybe things will be different than in Nevada. Romney has won, but McCain has narrowly passed Paul with about two-thirds of the vote in.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Re: "I'm for Mitt Romney"
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 7:42PM
We're starting to see polling data that shows McCain's lead increasing if Huckabee drops out of the race. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney has some of his own problems that make it difficult for him to be the one going negative on McCain now.
So No Hail Mary Passes This Year?
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 7:33PM
I'll let Sean Higgins describe this one: "The suits who run the National Football League have found a new, innovative way to look like a bunch of greedy bastards. They are cracking down on churches that host Super Bowl parties." Seriously? "Seriously."
Re: 'I'm for Mitt Romney'
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 6:15PM
Color me skeptical, Quin. Anyone who cares what the talk radio crowd thinks is probably already listening; anyone who isn't listening probably doesn't care (or, for that matter, recognize the names of most of the people you listed). As for ordinary people saying they're for the candidate, that's a very old campaign ad trope. It's a cliche that wouldn't resonate.
McCain and the South
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 6:01PM
Jim Geraghty is really surprised to see John McCain leading in the polls in Southern states. But stop to think for a minute. McCain appeals to military veterans. The Southern GOP primary electorate is loaded with vets. Is it really such a shock that McCain would show some Dixieland strength? As in South Carolina, Huckabee is dividing the anti-McCain vote, but he's not consolidating it -- and given his financial disadvantage, he seems unlikely to do so.
'I'm For Mitt Romney'
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 5:33PM
Among the several things Romney could do to change the narrative of this campaign--a narrative he desperately needs to change--one of the easiest to do would be to try to generate a sense of momentum, a sense that people are flocking TO him now rather than throwing in the towel. And the way to do that is with a one-minute ad that makes use of endorsements and support-announcements that have come in the past few days. Just quick video shots of certain people: "I'm Rush Limbaugh, and I'm voting for Mitt Romney." "I'm Sean Hannity, and I'm for Mitt Romney." "I'm Laura Ingraham, and I'm for Mitt Romney." Mark Levin. Michael Reagan. Rick Santorum. Jim Talent. Rich Lowry. Michelle Malkin.... and then an UNKNOWN mother getting a baby out of a car seat: "I'm Jane Johnson, and I'm for Mitt." A father at a child's soccer game: "I'm John Jones, and I'm for Mitt." That sort of thing. All with some sort of very subtle but upbeat music in the background.
As I noted, there are other tacks Romney could and should take as well. But with fast work tomorrow, something like that should be able to get up on the air by late Sunday....
The View From Paris
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 3:50PM
It's never a good sign when France takes a more robust stance on a particular foreign policy issue than we do. But that, apparently, is exactly the state of affairs when it comes to Iran. French Defense Minister Herve Morin, who is currently visiting Washington, has told reporters in no uncertain terms that his government still considers Iran to be a serious threat -- even if the U.S. intelligence community does not. "Coordinated information from a number of intelligence services leads us to believe that Iran has not given up its wish to pursue its (nuclear) program," and is "continuing to develop" it, Morin has said. If only our own policymakers were that sure-footed.
Still More McCain
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 3:32PM
In the LA Times, Matt Welch asks why antiwar independents keep voting for John McCain of No Surrender Tour fame.
Speaking of McCain and Paul
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 3:18PM
My former employers endorsed Ron Paul and published an anti-McCain package. I took the shot on illegal immigration.
Playing Devil's Advocate
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 2:52PM
I'm actually closer to Quin than to Phil on the subject of John McCain. But I'll play devil's advocate a little bit here. Quin says it is inconsistent for McCain to tout an endorsement by Sam Brownback, who opposed the surge, while criticizing Mitt Romney's tepid support for the surge. But when a candidate accepts an endorsement, they are not accepting all of the views of the person doing the endorsing. McCain is touting the Brownback endorsement as evidence of his pro-life position and acceptability to social conservatives, not his national-security credentials.
And while it's true that Huckabee is still in the race, I'm not sure it is inconsistent for McCain to focus his attacks on the candidate who is actually directly competing with him in the most states. By that logic, it is inconsistent for McCain not to also be attacking Ron Paul. McCain is attacking the candidate he sees as the biggest threat to his nomination, for the same reason Romney spent time on today's blogger conference call criticizing McCain but not the other candidates.
Rick Santorum
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 2:40PM
I appreciate his leadership on the life issues while he was in the Senate. Nevertheless, I'd take Santorum's criticisms of McCain more seriously if he hadn't been so eager to have McCain campaign for him in 2006. And while I understand the political logic of the Santorum-Specter pact, his role in the defeat of Pat Toomey stings a bit too.
Re: The Dean-ification of Obama
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 2:36PM
Is it worse than Ann Coulter's "endorsement" of Hillary Clinton?
The Dean-ification of Obama
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 2:24PM
The man who wants to bring people together, overcome partisan bickering, and reach across party lines, gets the endorsement of Moveon.org--a group that is more responsible than any other organization for the poisionous atmosphere in modern politics. This may give Obama a boost in the primary, but it will be a liability in the general election.
Re: McCain -- as Alcibiades!
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 1:53PM
Philip,
The problem is that McCain is RIGHT NOW embracing Brownback and
touting his support, and is still in a race against Huckabee
(except, of course, that he is tag-teaming WITH Huck against
Romney). And there is no way whatsoever to read Romney's remarks
the way McCain is reading them. None. I stand by my charges of lies
and hypocrisy on his part. What gets my goat so much is that McCain
has made a career for eight years now of claiming to put forth
nothing but straight talk, and the media has let him get away with
it, but he is one of the most vicious prevaricators around. (Again,
ask should-be-Judge Jim Haynes.)
As for the robo calls, I hate to say it, but I don't believe the
Politico these days. (Unless it is a story by new hire David
Rogers, the best in the business.)
Now, on to a far more temperate, thoughtful, well-reasoned analysis
of McCain's problems: The Examiner's editorial page editor, Mark
Tapscott, a Reagan man who worked under legendary Reaganite Lyn
Nofziger, has a
brilliant post on his blog this morning.
Finally, for what it is worth, my two favorite non-home-state
senators in the whole country during the mid-part of this decade
(until they lost) were Rick Santorum and Jim Talent. Smart,
principled, solid conservatives. Both of them are with Romney. I
trust their judgment.
Romney On The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 12:28PM
First, some background. The Politico's Jonathan Martin had reported that in Flordia, the Romney campaign launched robo-calls against John McCain, attacking him for voting against the "AARP-backed prescription drug program." Martin cited confirmation by "an aide to the former governor." I've criticized Romney heavily for this on the blog, so I wanted to give him an opportunity to respond. I asked him how he could say in debates that we need to tackle entitlement spending, and then run calls attacking McCain for opposing legislation that added trillions to our entitlement deficit.
Here was Romney's full response:
Mitt Among the Bloggers
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 12:08PM
Mitt Romney just held a conference call for bloggers. I'll let Phil, who was also on the call, tackle the Medicare discussion, but here is a quick synopsis. Romney pounded away at John McCain for a good bit of the call, ticking off McCain-Feingold (he'd repeal as president if he could), McCain-Kennedy, and McCain-Lieberman (which he used as an example of McCain's lack of knowledge of economics). He argued that he was a Washington outsider who has "brought change to everything" he "touched" while McCain was a 25-year Washington insider.
Romney characterized McCain's debate comments about punishing Wall Street as a "rambling discourse" that showed a lack of economic literacy: "He says he doesn't know much about economics, his comment prove he doesn't know much about economics." Romney also touted his conservative endorsements and, in a rare reference to his underdog status, argued that the people coming out to support him now didn't have anything to gain by endorsing him.
He wouldn't reveal which states he thought were his best shots on Super Tuesday, other than to say that there were states where he thought he'd win, states he knew he had no chance, and states that are up for grabs. Romney did mention California's proportional system as a way of picking up some additional delegates, showing a certain amount of optimism there despite the Schwarzenegger endorsement of McCain.
Romney Blogger Conference Call
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 12:04PM
Mitt Romney, holding a call with bloggers, just noted that the Democratic race is seen as wide open even though the contests so far went 4-2, and on Republican side they went 3-3 for him and McCain. Yesterday, Dave Weigel explained why the GOP race is more rigged to the frontrunner.
Romney acknowledged that McCain's victory in Florida gives the Arizona Senator a "slight edge," and said McCain's "false charge" cost Romney votes in Florida.
He described this as a "two man race" for the "heart and soul of the Republican party." He made the historical analogy to the 1976 race where Republicans went for the establishment Gerald Ford over the conservative Ronald Reagan and ended up stuck with Jimmy Carter.
Romney blasted McCain as the "quintessential Washington insider," attacking him on campaign finance reform, immigration, drilling in ANWR, and his opposition to the Bush tax cuts.
He touted the endorsements of Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, as well as the fact that Rush Limbaugh is "going after McCain."
"The world of conservatism is considerably behind my effort," Romney said.
He also criticized McCain's comment in the debate the other day about punishing Wall Street. He "just doesn't understand how the economy works."
I asked Romney about the calls that his campaign made attacking McCain for voting against the prescription drug plan, he denied knowledge of them and said he'd "look into it." He said he would have voted the same way as McCain on the legislation. I will transcribe his full response and post as soon as I can.
Santorum Endorses Romney
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 11:38AM
Here's the case he makes:
Re: McCain
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 11:32AM
Quin, this story came out back in March, we debated it then, and it's only becoming a story again because Drudge--who's known for his pro-Romney sympathies--decided to link to it. For people that are suspicious of McCain to begin with, it will reinforce their suspicions. Others will dismiss it as DC gossip. Since I have no insider information, there's nothing really more for me to say.
On Iraq, as I said, I think McCain went overboard with his comments, but there is no doubt that Romney wanted to have wiggle room on Iraq last year. That's why we were talking about how McCain was going to lose anti-war independents in New Hampshire. As for why McCain didn't attack Brownback or Huckabee on the surge, clearly, he went after Romney because Romney was his chief rival. I mean, it's like saying why didn't Romney go after Duncan Hunter for being protectionist on trade.
Look, I feel like you've turned me into a full-time defender of McCain here just because I feel the need to add some sense of balance to the blog. There are plenty of legitimate gripes to have with McCain, but what frustrates me is the hatred for McCain is so intense that many conservatives are trying to argue that we should all rally around Romney, overlooking his many deviations from conservatism--not just in the past, but now.
Right now, Romney is defending government mandated health insurance as a conservative position. Right now, Romney is supporting a $20 billion bailout for the auto industry. Right now, Romney is touting the basic idea that government infastructure projects are a way to create jobs--only objecting on the basis of the fact that they don't offer short-term stimulus. Right now, Romney is attacking McCain for voting against "the AARP-backed Medicare prescription drug program" --a multi-trillion dollar piece of legislation that conservatives have been complaining about for years.
That's just in the last few weeks--not in a 1994 Senate race or 2002 race for governor. Had McCain taken any one of the positions mentioned above, conservatives would be frothing at the mouth in rage, citing it as further evidence of his liberal, RINO tendencies. Yet because of the animosity they have toward McCain, conservatives are being blinded as to Romney's severe faults as a conservative.
Fear Not
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 11:25AM
Shawn, I don't practice the politics of personal destruction.
First They Came For The Liberal Fascists...
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 11:19AM
Jim: Should I be concerned that you're going after teetotaling libertarian vegetarians this a.m.?
Last Romney Push?
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 11:19AM
From Laura Ingraham to Rick Santorum, it sounds like prominent conservatives are making a big push to promote Mitt Romney and stop John McCain. I think they may have waited too long, but we'll see.
Re: Final Frontier
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 11:15AM
Shawn, all is not lost. After a few beers last night, I decided I would be a better fit for the Prohibition Party ticket.
Ron Paul's Q4 Fundraising
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 11:02AM
He may have underperformed in the New Hampshire primary, but the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Ron Paul won the fourth quarter Republican money primary. Paul has more cash on hand than either the frontrunner John McCain or the largely self-financing Mitt Romney.
Now what to do with this money? On to Maine?
Jed Babbin Speaks
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 10:55AM
Human Events Editor Jed Babbin is a longtime friend of The American Spectator. His column this morning is worth a read. Meanwhile, Mona Charen today ends her column on McCain thusly: "His own flip-flops leave him with a huge H (for hypocrite) on his forehead when he singes Romney for opportunism. McCain's phosphorescent patriotism is his most appealing trait. But in the past few weeks, as he has been winning, his love of country has been riding in tandem with a signally unattractive love of self."
Re: McCain
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 10:54AM
Hmm. I thought John McCain was so bipartisan that he already belonged to both parties, and was also toying with becoming a Libertarian and Vegetarian.
Re: McCain
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 10:46AM
Philip,
How is what Romney said any different from what McCain himself said
last January when he, too, spoke of benchmarks, etc.? And when the
entire context is that Romney supported the surge consistently from
the very day Bush announced it, how is it not just plain dishonest
to twist his words around in such a way?
Now here is the REAL way that McCain adds utter hypocrisy to his
lie. Suddenly, McCain is angry, just three days before Florida,
about Romney's position way back last April -- but he has yet to
criticize his pathetic little buddy Mike Huckabee's far more open
skepticism about the surge for several weeks AFTER Bush announced
it, following by another couple of weeks of dodging and weaving.
Meanwhile, McCain touts the support of Sen. Brownback, who pulled
the Fonda-like move of announcing outright opposition to the surge,
WHILE IN IRAQ, on the very day Bush announced it (even before Bush
had had a chance to make his case in his national speech on the
issue) -- the same day on which Romney was offering strong support
for the surge. You will, of course, remember my vociferous
criticism of Brownback at the time.
So how is McCain content with Huck, and embracing Brownback, and
ignoring his own remarks a year ago about benchmarks, etc., yet
still able, with a straight face, to continue making the attack on
Romney and even ratcheting up the attack to compare Romney to
Hillary on the issue and to say that Romney owes an "apology" to
all our soldiers and Marines because of that one, random,
out-of-context snippet from a longer answer Romney gave?
And wait -- I am not finished. Now it's on to the question of who
to believe, McCain or Daschle. You say the Dems aren't believable
because the charge is supposedly just now being leveled at a
politically convenient time. You must not have read the full
article. The fact is that Daschle put it in his book that came out
many months ago, and it just went unnoticed. And the fact is that
Daschle's own meeting logs support the story, as did
contemporaneous reporting at the time.
Andrew Sullivan Becomes Hewitt-ized
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 10:43AM
On Obama, following last night's debate, Sullivan writes:
The Once and Still Final Frontier
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 10:40AM
After a string of debate victories, our own W. James Antle III apparently bowed out of the race last night. It's too bad. I thought we were going to make history--the first conservative pundit to win the Democratic nomination! I suppose they'll have to figure out some other way of "making history." It's going to be tough. I mean, neither Hillary or Obama has been trumpeting any aspect of themselves that might make this election historic, have they? If either of them mentioned something along those lines, say every fifteen seconds or so in last night's debate, I somehow missed it. Remarkable.
Alas, this is one glass ceiling that's going to stay in place--for now. God bless you anyway, Mr. Antle.
Re: McCain
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 10:28AM
Quin, I have no insider knowledge as to whether this happened, but I think there are a few reasons to view this story with a grain of salt. Whether or not conservatives agree, it's no secret that Democrats generally view John McCain as their most formidable GOP opponent, and they see Mitt Romney as quite beatable. So clearly, there is an incentive for Tom Daschle and the other Democrats quoted to want to weaken McCain before Super Tuesday. And the fact that this story that happened seven years ago is coming out just days before the big day should give us pause. Furthermore, like with the Kerry VP talk, the proof is in the pudding. It never happened, McCain stayed a Republican.
Meanwhile, as for the other lie that you pin on McCain--with regard to his comments about Mitt Romney on Iraq--Charles Krauthammer had a take on FoxNews last night that I think is worth considering. It's generally my view, although characteristically better stated by Krauthammer. The short version is that McCain was right to say that Romney favored a secret timetable, but McCain went overboard when he tried to put him in the same category as Hillary Clinton.
Anyway, here is his full take:
FOX NEWS' BRIT HUME: "Which is one of the big arguments against a timetable."
KRAUTHAMMER: "That's the argument against, he says, against the
public declaration of it. But he's implying that you don't want to
say it publicly, but if you are saying that a public announcement
will alert Al-Qaeda about your leaving, it means that the private
discussion was about your leaving. So in fact, McCain is right. And
look, this was in response to a question about withdrawal. It's not
to say that somehow Romney is a traitor or he's calling for an
immediate exit. He was hedging. He hedged in April, and it was not
unreasonable. Nobody had any idea that the success -- that the
surge would be such a success. A policymaker would actually have to
think, what do you do if it doesn't succeed? And we're now having
discussions with Maliki about a long-term agreement in which we
will have timetables of withdrawal ultimately. But in April of last
year, and then in December of the year before, obviously Romney
hedged on support of the surge and McCain is right, that he staked
everything on the surge, because he believed that it's better to
lose an election than to lose a war.
McCain, Sore Loser, Almost Took His Ball Home
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 9:46AM
So John McCain really cares about judges, he tells us, yet he came very very close to leaving the GOP in 2001 before Sen. Jeffords did, a move that would have (and did, when Jeffords did it) given the Dems control of the Judiciary Committee. In the story, he denies it, even though numerous other witnesses say it is true and even though Daschle's meeting logs seem to confirm it. By now, McCain's honesty in general has been brought very much in question, so I actually find myself, based on the weight of the evidence, believing Daschle and company rather than McCain. In other words, again, in all likelihood, McCain lied. And not about a minor matter, but about something absolutely crucial to conservative governance, something on which McCain's actual near-actions would have hobbled conservatives. He lost the race to Bush in 2000, so like the sore loser at the neighborhood playground, he almost took his ball and went home. It appears that the main thing that stopped him was the Jeffords did it first.
Here's a Shocker
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 8:58AM
The Washington Post reports today about how most churches are canceling or foregoing big Super Bowl parties because they don't have "expressed written consent" from the NFL to show the game on a big screen. This is a bummer for a lot of churches since they liked to use the opportunity to attract visitors, which they believe can do so like no other special event, as reporter Jacqueline Salmon clumsily notes:
Really? I wonder why that would be?
Peanut Prophet
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 1:07AM
Over on the Spectator main page today, Shawn Macomber shrinks the latest brainstorm from our genius 39th president. I usually avoid longish excerpts, but this time it can't be helped:
Jimmy Carter can't understand why the Southern Baptist Convention turned down an invitation to participate in his Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant gala in Atlanta this week. At a Sunday school class I attended in Plains, Georgia last month, Carter described the gathering as merely an effort to "bind" Baptists together "in the spirit of serving Christ without recrimination and without animosity and without criticizing each other."
Who could be opposed to that? More to the point, who doesn't want to meet John Grisham? [more...]
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Sudan?
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 12:49AM
"There's going to be other wars," said John McCain when he was campaigning in Florida recently. Father of two Army wives, G. Tracy Mehan, III, would like to know what he meant by that.
I Confess
Posted by on 2.1.08 @ 12:42AM
I just don't have what it takes to watch a Democratic debate all the way through. The Republican debates remind me of Daily Kossites in nicer suits. When I try to listen to the Democrats, I feel like I've been kidnapped by the Politburo. I want to stand up on a tank outside the debate and demand that Mr(s). Clinton tear down this wall.
What choices democracy affords us: Which party do we want to raise taxes, increase spending, and otherwise grow government? I just can't wait.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Re: Hillary Wins
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 10:37PM
Can't disagree with you, Phil. But she did cackle extra hard at a few points, and was clearly unnerved by Obama's remarks on her shifting positions on illegals and driver's licenses. Problem is, he wasn't skilled enough to make sharper points. On issue after pointless issue, she was more articulate. Plus the Hollywood crowd seemed more in her corner. Except maybe Rob Reiner, who appeared clearly depressed.
Sum-Up
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 10:33PM
If you want fair and balanced, my bottom line's not it. If you think, however, that Hillary's the worst, click away.
Hillary Wins
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 10:20PM
I say this not on the merits of what was said--it was all pretty awful--but because I think she still has the edge in the polls, and the friendly and cheerful tone of the debate, as well as the policy focus, helped cover her rough edges that were apparent in recent weeks. I think that a lot of Democrats will conclude that they like Obama, they want him to be president some day, but that day hasn't arrived yet. I just didn't get a changing of the guard vibe.
Re: Short List
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 10:07PM
Wlady: I have a feeling the questioner's nerves about asking whether Hillary could "control" Bill were mostly a fear of running afoul of CNN's Standards & Practices department...
Short List
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 10:03PM
I suppose Obama got the best line in when he said Hillary's on everybody's short list. As if to drive home the point, he stood tall as he in gentlemanly style helped pull back her chair so she could stand up at debate's end.
Romney Donated $18 Million To His Campaign in Q4
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:54PM
That's according to his campaign. On top of the $17.35 million he spent the rest of the year, it means he spent $35.35 million of his own money in 2007. That doesn't include whatever money he spent in the past month.
Romney also raised $9 million in other contributions during the fourth quarter.
For the full year, he raised a total of $90 million, including his personal loans, and had 119,000 contributors.
UPDATE: Romney ended 2007 with just $2.43 million cash on hand, which means he spent about $88 million last year. I'd bet that once we learn about the January numbers, we're talking about a campaign that will have cost more than $100 million.
THE CACKLE RETURNS!
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:53PM
On the Bill Question. What else? Her name's on the ballot, but he'll be in the White House, and if it's a "lonely job," well, I'll try to stop my innuendo at the water's edge.
ANOTHER cackle on "dream ticket." DOUBLE cackle at "big difference between those two." Maybe that's actually her real laugh after all? <Shudder>
Don't Be Evil
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:51PM
Obama attack torture chic -- [Yes, I duck out on these things from time to time.] -- very nicely done. Censorship isn't gonna do it. People need to make less evil movies.
More After the Break
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:49PM
At this time last night, the Republican debate was over -- and they had twice as many candidates. I take it what's holding them up is the commercials. This is playing (in the Eastern and Central time zones) against the two-hour Lost premier, and yet CNN was able to sell more ads for the Dem contest. Could it be that advertisers just don't think Republicans watch CNN?
Speaking of ads, Comcast house ads seem to keep cutting off the beginnings of questions. Is this just a local problem, or is the same thing happening elsewhere?
Crikey! Did I Just See Louis Gossett, Jr.!
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:48PM
I didn't know he was a Dem. Maybe he should reluctantly take Obama under his wing and teach him how to go to war, even if Obama needs 80s hair metal blaring on his walkman on to shoot straight.
I think I just stumbled on the plot for Iron Eagle V!
The Iraq Exchange
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:46PM
Look, it's hard for me to put myself in the mind of a Democratic voter, but it seems to me that Obama got the better of that exchange. Her insistence that her vote to authorize the use of military force wasn't the same as a vote to go to war was always ridiculous, and Obama did a good job noting that that's what everybody thought at the time.
She Doesn't
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:42PM
She doesn't answer the questions. She doesn't own up to her votes. She doesn't say a word about Bill. She doesn't say a word about Iran. She doesn't make unforced errors. She doesn't deviate from the program. And she doesn't have the ammunition to shut down Obama.
Coercive Diplomacy With Bad Actors
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:38PM
Now we know how Bill Clinton wound up on the campaign trail.
Too Clever by Half
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:34PM
Phil, a brilliant Hillary response on the dynasty question, but don't you think she leaves herself wide open now, given what George W. had to clean up after he moved into the White House?
You May Recall...
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:25PM
How can we forget Hillary's two day epic battle with the Pentagon? She mentions it at EVERY debate and nearly every campaign event I've attended...This episode must run like Braveheart in her head, I'm starting to believe.
And how pathetic is it that Obama still gets applause with his well worn "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in" line?
Baa, sheep, baa!
The Squish Face
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:21PM
You know the one -- the chin presses down against the throat in triple folds, the cheeks become hard as crabapples; the eyebrows, barometers of bile, rise toward the gel-encrusted hairline; the eyes go round but the pupils narrow to pinpricks, and she's smiling, full of good cheer, on the outside, but on the inside she just wants to die.
One thing you can say about Romney and Obama, they ain't repressed.
Hillary Nails The Dynasty Question
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:21PM
To be clear, from my perspective, the answer was preposterous--especially her statement that she didn't start out with an advantage because of her husband. But to Democratic voters who like the Clintons, her closing line--which I've heard on the trail before--that it took a Clinton to clean up for the first Bush, and it will take another Clinton to clean up after the second Bush, was a home run with the crowd. There are a lot of Democratic voters that would happily vote for a third Clinton term.
Hillary's Horrendous Kennedy Answer
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:15PM
Shamelessly reminds us that she is, in fact, a woman running for President. Ruthlessly ignores the question.
Obama pretty potent on the Romney question. But trouble lurks for McCain too.
It's not a gripping debate, but when it comes to Hillary's vacuousness and banality and craven manipulation, what you see is what you get. A droning Obama can step outside and thrill. A droning Clinton? For the rest of your long lives, boys and girls.
"Work the levers of power"
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:14PM
Is a phrase that makes me a bit nervous. But at least Obama is
going to inspire me before he bends me to his will. With
levers.
Hillary:Having A Woman President Would Be A Change
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:10PM
Of course, she's not running on her gender or anything.
Hollywood Squares
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:10PM
The guy from The West Wing likes Hillary's answer. That must count for something. Even if he's not, you know, a Kennedy.
"I Was Proud to be Appointed by President Carter"
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:09PM
What a fun factoid from Hillary's 35 year resume...
Re: For So Many Years...
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:08PM
Also, I've been to the Statue of Liberty, and if she thinks that kind of ordeal is inspiring....
Obama Saying He's Qualified To Be President...
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:06PM
because he was a community organizer, is about as convincing as me arguing that my experience at the American Spectator makes me more qualified to be Poverty Czar than John Edwards.
UPDATE: Hillary's "35 years of experience" is no more pursausive.
So Far...
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:02PM
The debate is really boring, which I think benefits Hillary. Obama's greatest advantage is when he's inspiring and she's grating. If they're both boring the audience to tears trying to debate policy when they are on the same page 99 percent of the time, it's a coup for Hillary.
Perhaps if I eat a grapefruit, the second segment will be more enjoyable.
Obama Lets Hillary Off Of The Hook
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:58PM
By allowing her to get away with her flip flop on driver's liscences for illegal immigrants by saying it was a "complicated" issue.
For So Many Years
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:56PM
she's stood with farm workers. So Many Years!
What was that about New York being the home...land of the....Statue of Liberty?
Back to the 1990s Utopia!
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:51PM
Hillary meets people pushed out of meatpacking plants. And she hears voices from another universe.
This is turning out to be more interesting than I anticipated.
Outcome-Based English Ed
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:50PM
Illegal immigrants looking to be naturalized, she says, must "try" to learn English.
You've Been Warned
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:49PM
If there's anything more soporific than Gov. Sebelius's speaking to the nation it's Hillary and Obama talking about health care -- until Hillary turns it into a nightmarish call for redistributionism and then promises costs will be contained thanks to government-imposed "efficiencies."
Hill on Immigration
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:48PM
We need an answer...an answer that restates the question.
Fuzzy Math
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:45PM
Hillary wants to underscore that the tax hikes she and Obama are proposing will merely bring us back to the pre-Bush rates. But we didn't have these massive new health care entitlements in the 90s. So is she comfortable with abandoning Clintonite Rubinomics and blowing a huge hole in the deficit? Or is she just lying?
Obama "Not Bashful" About Wanting To Raise Taxes
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:43PM
Glad we cleared that up.
Hillary on Employer Mandates
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:42PM
She said she doesn't think they're realistic, but while her plan doesn't mandate all employers provide health insurance, it does say "large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage..." That's what she means by "shared responsibility."
Re: Obama vs. McCain Preview
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:42PM
Yup: Romney doesn't have to be the nominee for the flip-flopping charges to fly.
The Wheels Come Off The Straight Talk Express
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:40PM
Well, that was bound to come down the pike eventually.
When are Democrats going to find someone other than Warren Buffett who wants to be taxed to the max?
And who is John McCain going to be running against? Barack Obama or some poor kid in East Los Angeles? It's hard to tell sometimes...
Obama vs. McCain Preview
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:38PM
Says the "Straight Talk lost some wheels" because McCain learned to love the Bush tax cuts. Look for Team Romney to send around that clip to argue that McCain won't be able to credibly defend making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Re: Tackled
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:37PM
Thank God Hillary didn't say "I have the scars to show for it..." again, or I would have had to cut myself to feel something real again.
Democratic Debate Drinking Game
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:32PM
Take a drink every time John Edwards is mentioned. You'll be on the floor in no time -- Barry & Hill are scrambling for the voters Edwards left on the table, and they seem to be mentioning his name in just about every response.
"I Tackled It During My Husband's Administration"
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:31PM
That's Hillary's euphemism for the colossal failure of her health care proposal in 1994--the one time in her life she actually tried to get something tangible accomplished.
Our Number One Concern? The Zionist Entity!
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:28PM
Speaking of Obama's
willingness to use diplomacy...:
PARIS (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told a French magazine in an interview that if he wins office, he will hold a summit with Muslim countries to better the United States' image in the world.
"Once I'm elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West," Thursday's edition of Paris Match quoted Obama as saying,
"I want to ask them to join our fight against terrorism. We must also listen to their concerns," Obama said in the French-language transcript.
Bill Would Never Put It This Way
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:26PM
"...the passionate cause of my public service."
Gang of 14 -- So What?
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:25PM
Over at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin has more interesting news to convey -- Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada have endorsed John McCain. Now back to universal health care and the usual Democrat preexisting conditions.
The Question
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:21PM
Who needs to land punches most? Clinton's still leading, but Obama's got the mo, and if he keeps it Presidential while being himself, and she keeps it Presidential while being herself, then that's a win for O, and Clinton probably shouldn't be willing to settle for that at this point in the race. She may be on top, but the burden of proof is shifting her way. Si?
Re: I Agree With Obama
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:21PM
Maybe he could make John Edwards the Poverty Czar in an Obama Administration?
Three Cheers For Identity Politics!
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:20PM
Hillary: Republicans debated last night. They're more of the same. Just looking at us you can tell we're not the same. We're going to change our country.
Whoa! Did Obama really just come out against asthma?! I'm stunned. What will Republicans say to that?
!!!
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:19PM
No blogger working today uses the exclamation mark quite like Shawn Macomber. Hope you're sticking around all night, Shawn. I'm thinking: lots of balloons to pop with those things.
Dem Lovefest
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:19PM
Both candidates, it seems, want to come off as presidential, and are trying to avoid the nasty tone of the last debate (Obama says he expects to be friends with Hillary when the race is over, Hillary says their differences pale in comparison to "more of the same" Republicans.) They are playing it safe so far. Could make for a boring night.
I Agree With Obama!
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:12PM
John Edwards elevated the issue of poverty--poverty of votes!
And he thinks he and Hillary will still be pals after the race. That's the audacity of hope in action. She looks at him like she can't wait to bury him.
Blitzer Begins
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:07PM
Paraphrase: Thank God the white guy is gone so we can make history!
Also: Can you believe Obama and Hillary are both applauding the audience?! They're just like us! We support each other! Yes we can! Yes we can!
Dem Debate
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 7:41PM
Getting ready for the Democratic debate. Given that it's down to two candidates, a tight race, and 22 states are voting on Tuesday, it has a general election vibe.
Leadership in Practice
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 6:32PM
The McCain campaign has announced its "Virginia Leadership." It's headed by co-chair John Warner but what's more interesting is who's on the committee doing its steering: none other than Virginia delegate Davd Albo, author of Virginia's draconian abusive driver law. Seems McCain has found an enforcer for McCain-Feingold.
Sneering at Delegates
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 4:37PM
The Romney camp announces that Oklahoma's National Committeewoman has endorsed him. The National Committeewoman goes to the national convention as an unpledged delegate, so this is hardly meaningless. It's also a good indicator that she thinks that most of Oklahoma's delegates -- 23 are statewide-winner-take-all, 15 are congressional-district-winner-take-3 -- are headed Romney's way. So it's either ignorant or unfair to respond to this announcement by saying "Poor Mitt. This is getting very sad," as McCain confidant Mike Murphy does.
Did I say McCain confidant Mike Murphy? I of course meant Weekly Standard blogger Richelieu. I'm not sure what confused me...
You've Lost Me
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 2:26PM
Sometimes Spectator contributor Peter "Not So Stimulating" Suderman is clued in to today's Brian Doherty's Lost piece. Suderman confidently predicts that "by the time I'm, I dunno, old, you'll be able to get a major in Lost studies at at least one accredited American university." Hey, they already offer a course in it at Tufts, so I wouldn't bet against it.
Inefficient Evil
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 1:21PM
Arnold Kling of the CATO Institute is hands-down one of
the best authorities to go to when you want a dissection of how
government intervention has only and will continue to worsen
healthcare in the United States. (I highly recommend
Crisis of Abundance.) Now,
unfortunately, he's getting an even more up-close-and-personal look
at this monster:
Over the past eight weeks, I have been spending a lot of time with my father, who has developed some acute medical problems. For the most part, my focus is day-to-day (or hour-to-hour) on the issues and stresses that arise. But I have also come around to some different points of view about our health care system. I no longer think of Medicare and health care regulation as inefficient. I now think of them as pure evil.
Read the rest. Thanks to Paul Sands for the link.Conservative Elites & '08
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 12:52PM
To follow up on Phil's post earlier, I think there are several important reasons that conservative "elites" haven't had much influence on the Republican primaries so far.
First, John McCain's political near-death experience this summer ironically ended up helping him. Because he seemed to have no hope of winning the nomination, conservatives wrote him off. Even after he started gaining in New Hampshire, he was still behind in most other states and had little money. Conservatives were slow to react to McCain's recovery. If, say, Rush Limbaugh had been pounding on McCain for months rather than just the last few weeks, it would have probably had more impact.
Second, many of the conservative elites attacking McCain and Mike Huckabee had been promoting either Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. Romney became a real social conservative just two to three years before running for the nomination, making his views on these questions somewhat suspect. And even now his economic message remains a bit muddled, embracing individual mandates on health care, endorsing the spending increases of No Child Left Behind, and hitting McCain from the left on the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Giuliani had a stronger conservative record on the issues that mattered to him, but he was perhaps the most socially liberal candidate ever to make a credible run for the GOP nomination. He favored legal partial-birth abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion until early 2007; he remains avowedly pro-choice. It was tough to argue that Romney was the most consistent conservative in the race purely on the basis of his 2007-08 platform; it was equally difficult to beat down Huckabee while telling evangelicals to ignore their doubts about Giuliani.
Third, and most importantly, when conservatives wanted to stop McCain or Huckabee, who did we have to turn to? The conservative bench is weak, partly because movement conservatives too often have supported establishment Republicans over people within their own ranks (see Bush, George H.W.) and partly because conservative standouts have often suffered from the Tommy Thompson syndrome.
In the 2008 field, who were the broadly consistent conservatives? There were two former governors from the 1990s. There was a boring senator from Kansas who never seemed able to elevate his own issues at debates. There was a former senator from Tennessee who had sensible opinions and a commanding presence but didn't really have a standout record of accomplishment in government. And there were three members of the House, a body that hasn't sent someone directly to the presidency since James Garfield.
Well, Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, and Sam Brownback ran horrible campaigns and had to drop out before the first votes were cast. Fred Thompson blew it. Neither Duncan Hunter nor Tom Tancredo ran particularly serious campaigns. And Ron Paul's foreign-policy views diverge radically from those of the Republican base. So conservatives could complain about the tax-hiker from Arkansas, the pro-choice supporter of gay rights and gun control, and the senator behind McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, and McCain-Lieberman, but they had no alternative of their own.
That is the longer-term political problem for conservatives beyond this election. Where is the conservative bench? You can't beat somebody with nobody, no matter how many bloggers and talk show hosts you have on your side.
Really? Only Eight?
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 11:20AM
The Massachusetts GOP has a merciless new website devoted to the eight reasons why John Kerry should get the boot. Hint: It's not "8 Goofy Costumes."
Novak and Fund
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:52AM
Bob Novak confirms Fund's earlier report that John McCain expressed
hesitation with Alito. According to two of his own sources:
"Wouldn't it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?" one lawyer commented. McCain replied, "Well, certainly Roberts." Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.Novak further reports that McCain could even go squishy on taxes, according to other sources. His suggestion? Make a no-tax pledge at CPAC and set the record straight on Alito.
But the problem with McCain is that, a few years down the line, I doubt he would have any problem saying, "Well, that was then, but now we have a higher deficit."
Get Ready for the Spending!
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 9:49AM
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation has crunched the numbers to put a price tag on all those lovely campaign promises the leading presidential candidates are making. The upshot: Hold on to your wallets.
Not suprisingly, the only remaining candidate who would actually cut spending is Ron Paul: his campaign promises would lower annual outlays by more than $150 billion. Recently departed Rudy Giuliani was also a net spending cutter, to the tune of $1.4 billion. Frontrunner John McCain, on the other hand, would increase spending by $6.9 billion. And the main "conservative" alternatives are even worse: Mitt Romney boosts spending by $19.5 billion annually and Mike Huckabee would do so by $54.2 billion.
Unfortunately, there's more than a dime's worth of difference between the two big spending parties. Hillary Clinton would increase annual outlays by over $218 billion; Barack Obama by an eye-popping $287 billion. And while the Republicans mostly want to increase spending on the military, which is at least a legitimate function of the federal government, the Democrats want to lavish money on health care and transportation boondoggles (though some of the infrastructure spending is constitutionally kosher).
Even though many of these campaign promises will never see the light of day, the price tags tend to rise over time. I remember seeing estimates in 2000 that George W. Bush was "only" proposing a net spending increase of $80 billion. If only.
Ken Starr: Pro-Immigration, Anti-Death Penalty?
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 8:11AM
If you read The News & Observer of Raleigh's account of the former independent counsel's speech at Campbell University, you would think so, unequivocally. But if you read the Fayetteville Observer's report, you'll get a fuller picture of his views.
Shea Culpa
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 1:43AM
Jennifer Rubin chows down on a big hunk of humble pie over her misfired primary predictions.
Butch Otter for President
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 1:36AM
Over on the Spectator main page, Quin Hillyer has a unique idea for how to get to a brokered Republican convention: Rick, Mike, John, and Butch, "It's time for you gentlemen to run for president."
Responding To Readers
Posted by on 1.31.08 @ 12:41AM
In Reader Mail today, I draw a lot of heat from readers for my column in which I argued that John McCain, and to a lesser extent Mike Huckabee, have succeeded despite strong opposition from conservative leaders and opinion makers. The complaints seem to hinge on several misunderstandings that I should clarify.
Readers objected to my use of the term "elite conservatives," which gave the impression that I meant that rank and file conservatives didn't have legitimate gripes with McCain or Huckabee, but I don't think that. I just mentioned "elites" because they are the ones who used thier platforms--be it TV, radio, blogs, email lists, etc.--to blast away at these two candidates.
Also, readers concluded that I was arguing that this was a positive development, but that really wasn't my point. I was just making the objective observation that influencial conservatives threw everything but the kitchen sink at these guys, and yet they were able to succeed anyway, so I wonder whether future Republican candidate will decide that rather than trying to curry favor with all of these conservative groups, they should just take their case to the voters. I happen to think it's a good thing for candidates to appeal to the Club for Growth or Americans for Tax Reform, because I tend to agree with those organizations.
Nonetheless, the hostility in the repsonse to my article reinforces the fact that even if he wins the nomination with pluralities, McCain will have a lot of work to do to win over disgruntled conservatives who can't stand him. And there are some he just will never win over.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Where's Lincoln?
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 10:21PM
Now the Termintaor plans to join Team McCain. This is an impressive addition to the list of dodgy RINOs who've already endorsed McCain over the past week. They inlcude populist Florida governor Charlie Crist, former New Yawk mayor Rudy Giuliani, and W's point man on for the "We Don't Need No Stinking Borders Act of 2007," Florida Senator Mel Martinez. Anybody heard from Lincoln Chafee?
Wrap-Up
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 10:21PM
While I don't think it will matter a great deal, I think Romney won this debate in a walk. We saw flashes of McCain at his nastiest, and he even faltered on his strongest issue -- McCain really was full-throatedly supporting the surge when Romney was leaving wiggle room, and instead of making that point straightforwardly he got bogged down on a petty tangent where he was clearly in the wrong. Romney held his own, and he hit McCain on his record without seeming rude.
Now, Romney needed more than a win, and I agree with Phil: I doubt that this debate changed the dynamics of the race.
Closing Thoughts
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:55PM
I don't think there was a big enough moment to change the race, but I agree that McCain should have bit his lip and kept his personal attacks on Romney's wealth to himself. He's the frontrunner, totally unnecessary. This was an opportunity for him to be above the fray and convince skeptics that he could be the leader of the party, but he had a hard time containing his animosity. With that said, I don't think Romney accomplished enough to change the dynamics of the race.
The Mac-anator
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:43PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger is set to endorse McCain tomorrow, CNN now confirms. Will that provide a Crist-like boost in California, or has Schwarzenegger angered so many conservatives that his endorsement comes with baggage?
McCain Unappealing?
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:43PM
John, you're being polite. I wasn't able to watch much of the debate, but when I caught McCain mock-praising Romney as someone who's been a very successful businessman who's cost many people their jobs it became as clear as never before that this seemingly charming fellow IS A NASTY PIECE OF WORK. How fitting that he demonstrated this quality at the Reagan Library, thereby driving home the one fundamental difference between himself and Reagan: No class.
Issues vs. Character
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:41PM
That's the choice that Romney and McCain just outlined in their answers on why Reagan would endorse them. Romney gives a list of issues that he says Reagan would agree with him on, while McCain talks about strength of conviction. This pretty much sums up the race between the two of them so far. McCain supporters may not agree with him on everything, but believe he is a man who says what he believes rather than what people want to hear. Romney supporters like him because they think he is the candidate who lines up with them the most on the issues.
"We Only Have About Four Minutes Left"
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:35PM
When Cooper said that, a few audience members clapped. Heh.
McCain's Missed Oppourtunity
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:30PM
He's asked what qualifies him to "manage the economy." The right answer would have been "Presidents don't manage the economy, they work to get government off of people's backs so that individuals can prosper in a free market."
UPDATE: Ron Paul makes this point. Good for him.
Re: The "Timetable" Exchange
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:26PM
There's no doubt that last year Romney was trying to give himself wiggle room on Iraq while McCain was fully embracing the surge-- that's why there was all the talk of him losing anti-war independents in New Hampshire. But with that said, McCain clearly owned the surge issue, so there was really no reason for him to open this line of attack and allow Romney to gain the moral high ground.
The 'Timetable' Exchange
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:12PM
The smug little smirk that comes across McCain's face every time Romney says something critical is really, really unappealing. They're talking about the Romney-was-for-timetables smear. Romney reiterates, truthfully, that he was never for explicit timetables. McCain responds by continuing to lie about Romney's record, and gets heated. When Cooper reads the whole quote out loud, McCain is hoist on his own petard. This could be the defining exchange of the debate, and I think Romney's winning it.
Yes, You Are That Stupid
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:56PM
Huckabee refuses to comment on the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor because he doesn't want to criticize Reagan in the Reagan library, he's "not that stupid." Huh? Isn't retrospective criticism of O'Connor kind of a no-brainer for the guy who's running as the genuine pro-life article? All I can think is that maybe Huckabee's just too ignorant to comment intelligently on O'Connor's record.
McCain on Illegal Immigration
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:53PM
Not very convincing in his reasoning for why he wouldn't want a vote on legislation he defended to the death last summer. Just sounded like Senatespeak.
Back In September, Who Would Have Thunk...
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:51PM
that Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul would be in the race longer than Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.
Mitt Says Entitlements are Growing Like Crazy
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:46PM
Then why did he launch robocalls attacking McCain for voting against the "AARP-backed Medicare prescription drug program," which added $16.2 trillion to our long-term entitlement deficit?
Are We All Keynesians Again?
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:39PM
Romney says that government spending on infastructure creates jobs, but just not quickly enough to stimulate the economy now.
Huckanomics
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:38PM
Okay, I'm no fan of the rebates, but Huckabee just said giving money to individuals who may purchase shoes with them does not help the economy because the money will go to China, but government spending on roads does. So now he's not only a Keynesian, but a mercantilist.
Mitt Defends Mandates As Conservative
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:33PM
Okay if conservatives have many problems with McCain, but seriously, are economic conservatives ready to rally around a candidate who believes that it is conservative to force individuals to purchase health insurance or face fines?
Mitt Defends His Mass Record
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:29PM
For voters who aren't going to go back and check every detail, I think Romney did a good job of deflecting McCain's criticisms of his Massachusetts record. But his defense of his health care plan was ludicrous. He blames the fact that it is now over budget on his Democratic successors, but that is precisely the problem with government initiated universal healthcare--one its law, it's going to become more costly and intrusive. Furthermore, Romney signed the healthcare plan months after he announced he wasn't going to seek reelection--so he knew that he'd be handing the state over to a Democrat, and it didn't stop him.
Romney vs. McCain
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:25PM
Whoa. They're not pulling punches -- they each have a pretty detailed attack on the record of the other. McCain had this smug smirk when Romney was talking, obviously ready to counterpunch.
Romney corrects some of McCain's facts -- McCain confused Romney's lieutenant governor with his predecessor, among other things. I think Romney won this exchange.
Romney Distances Himself From Bush
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:17PM
Refuses to say we're better off now that eight years ago--a clear liberally biased question, but Romney shifts to talking about his record in Massachusetts, and says Bush can defend his own record. Perhaps necessary for the general election, but to those economic conservatives who feel that the Bush economy has been good, it came off as a bit weasely.
McCain is a bit kinder to Bush, saying that overall things have improved, but there are concerns now.
This is weird though. Romney has been hammering McCain for opposing the Bush tax cuts, yet most conservatives who attack McCain on that do so on the basis of believing the tax cuts stimulaed the economy. So why wouldn't Romney defend the Bush economic record?
GOP Debate
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 8:15PM
Anderson Cooper starts off by demanding commentary on the Bush record -- "Are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?" Romney calls B.S. and talks about his own record in Massachusetts. A good answer, though it makes Cooper get hostile. "Are you running for governor?" What?
McCain pats himself on the back for "straight talk" about the economy -- but he seems awfully subdued. Is he tired?
Huckabee feels our pain, and does his best to fill the populist hole left by the departure of John Edwards. And Ron Paul says the same stuff about monetary and foreign policy that he says after every question.
Re: Another Prognostication Bites
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 7:15PM
Meanwhile, though, look for my column tomorrow for the last-ditch way to save the day -- a plan that will work only if Romney himself also keeps on fighting....
Quin, surely you're not going to suggest violence toward Gov. Huckabee! :-)
Great analysis. How do you think McCain will be received at CPAC?
Re: Another Prognostication Bites
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 4:58PM
Lisa, PLEASE tell me that you are wrong again. Please!!!
Look, a year ago I was definitely no McCain fan (even though I
supported him in 2000 over Bush), but I was not dead set against
him. I thought I might be able to concentrate on his stalwart
support for the surge in Iraq and his stance against pork, and
ignore everything he has done for eight years to stick his fingers
in the eyes of conservatives. Then he pulled his classless act at
CPAC. Then he started running as if he were a Bush, i.e. an
establishment candidate who could throw his weight around. Then he
didn't just go for flat-out amnesty (I was in the middle on that,
as a supporter of the Pence bill), but he insulted conservatives in
the process and yelled expletives at the gentlemanly and
hard-working John Cornyn. Then he continued to embrace that weasel
Lindsey Graham even after it came to light that Graham called
amnesty opponents "bigots." Then he ran a campaign where he
repeatedly twisted his opponents' stances to criticize them for
things they had not said or done, while twisting the truth on his
own stances -- and, in criticizing the opponents, did it in a nasty
and personal way all while claiming that he was running a positive
campaign.
But, Lisa, you put your finger right on the problem when you write
this: "Unless Romney starts to substantially connect with the
conservative base..."
That's the problem. Romney has not really connected with anybody.
There's just no emotional connection. And there's no consistency to
his message. And he really hasn't, even yet, said what he is FOR.
We just know that he wants very very badly to be president and that
he is a smart guy. That's not enough. On messaging as well as
delivery, his campaign has been pathetic. And that's the problem:
Thompson ran a pathetic campaign. Giuliani ran a pathetic campaign.
Romney has run a technically proficient campaign but with pathetic
messaging. And good old, earnest Duncan Hunter never figured how to
get past the media's bias against mere House members.
Yes, conservatives now need to hope Romney catches on. Meanwhile,
though, look for my column tomorrow for the last-ditch way to save
the day -- a plan that will work only if Romney himself also keeps
on fighting....
Novak Predicting McCain Blowout
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 4:49PM
"Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) successive wins in South Carolina and Florida mean he clearly is the front-runner in a two-man race with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Everything is in his favor in the high population states, and he could come close to wrapping up the nomination because of winner-take-all Republican rules. Time is growing short for the right wing of the GOP to stop McCain or even wrest concessions from him."
More here.
Here's Looking at You, Mitt
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 3:55PM
Sometimes Spectator contributor Robert Stacy McCain -- no relation to the Arizona senator -- looks at the two-man GOP race by asking that all-important question, Who's more electable? Right now, he says, primary voters have a choice of Sexy vs. Grumpy.
He may be onto something. Early last year, I sat in a restaurant and overheard several thirty- to fortysomething ladies talk about the GOP field. One woman had watched the debate the night before and she filled the rest of them in about the candidates, with her thick Jersey accent ("Rown Pawl, the libataarian"). Of Romney, she said, "He was soooo good looking. I could not take my eyes off of him."
Another Seat Bites the Dust
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 3:18PM
Congressman Tom Davis (R-Va.) has decided not to seek re-election. Davis said in statement that his plans aren't yet concrete but "returning to the private sector and reacquainting myself with that view of the world is the best move for me and my family."
Davis represents a tough Northern Virginia district that has been trending Democratic in recent years.
More Measured Rhetoric From KosLand
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 3:13PM
We've established beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans have added Latinos to their list of "things that they loathe", alongside blacks, San Francisco, Massachusetts, and gays....
I'd rather live in a world where my peeps weren't the subject of hateful rhetoric and demonization. But Republicans have made it their mission to create a world diametrically opposed to my ideal, and in their world, people with dark skin are scapegoated and hated.
It's true: I was surprised when the "Hate Everyone" orders came down from Mission Control. Guess I'll have to go along with it like an automaton or defect to San Francisco where they only hate the right people. I've got a lot of soul searching to do, apparently.
The best part of Kos' post, though? Seeing him call Grover Norquist a "lonely voice" "pleading for moderation"! For the record, I agree with Norquist as he is quoted on this issue.
McCain to Attempt Rapprochement With Conservatives
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 3:06PM
He's going to CPAC, Mark Hemingway reports.
More On Obama's Not Quite Great White Hope
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 2:47PM
It's difficult to see how John Edwards is going to "transform the world" when he hasn't been able to clean up one neighborhood in New Orleans over the last 14 months. Maybe that's a good lesson for the Nation At Large. Or maybe instead of hanging out with a bunch of college kids on spring break one week last year and then patting himself on the back for it months in speeches, Edwards should have raised money to bring in people who actually know how to build houses. It's a reletively novel idea, yet knowing Edwards' attachment to bold change, I thought I might offer it up anyhow.
After all, I can't help but notice Uncle John's Plantation somehow got built a whole lot faster.
Re: Talk About the Politics of Hope!
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 2:29PM
Indeed, Shawn. For Barack, John Edwards is only half-full of it.
Vintage Edwards
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 1:40PM
He's not so much withdrawing as declaring victory, at least when noting he exacted pledges from both Obama and Hillary that they would work to end poverty... Not the words of someone who about to endorse either. He must think he retains a bargaining issue.
Talk About the Politics of Hope!
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 1:24PM
"I am grateful to John Edwards for his service to this country. I am grateful to Elizabeth Edwards for her courage and inspiration. They are going to help to transform American and transform the world."--Barack Obama, optimist.
Conservatives and McCain
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 11:31AM
As everyone's been saying ad nauseam, there's been no ideal conservative in the GOP race all along. A more energetic, gung-ho Fred might have changed the score, but there was nothing in his past career to suggest he was up to it. So now conservatives are stuck with someone they loathe on most fronts and aren't likely ever to warm to. The feeling is no doubt mutual. What a contrast to 2000, when they and Bush reached a happy accommodation in order to win. It's no accident that marriage ended once Bush was safely re-elected. If victory is a common goal this time, something similar will occur, though without any of the warmth (and illusions) of eight years ago.
Another Prognostication Bites the Dust...Mine!
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 11:05AM
Some months back, I predicted that it would be Fred Thompson and John Edwards squaring off for the White House in November. I figured that Thompson most appealed to the GOP's conservative base and that smart Dems would realize that Hillary was too polarizing and Obama too young.
Now it seems that Republicans will be forced to choose between a maverick and a convert, while the Dems look to be heading toward choosing another dance with Clinton & Co. rather than going with the black knight of the new Camelot.
While I hold out great hope that McCain will soon run out of Independents and (sad to say) retired military veterans to support him, I fear that unless Romney starts to substantially connect with the conservative base in a forceful way, we will be left with the dreary prospect of a Clinton vs McCain contest.
But hey, I've been wrong before!
Mr. Right vs. Mr. Right Now
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 10:55AM
Last night Jeremy linked to this piece of mine arguing against giving John McCain the Reagan treatment (see Peter Wallison's column for a different view). We need to remember we're not crowning the leader of the conservative movement here or defining conservatism for all time. If McCain is nominated, as now appears likely (though still not inevitable), that is something conservatives need to keep in mind.
It's possible McCain will return to his Reaganite roots as the nominee or once in office. It's more likely that he'll continue his past decade's worth of Strange New Respect Republicanism, governing at best as a more hawkish Bush 41. Now is the time for conservatives to stop being, as Paul Weyrich once put it, monarchists at heart. We are not defined by whoever the GOP nominee or whoever the president is. The task of coming up with the conservative agenda for the 21st century should not be left to a septugenarian. If McCain is the nominee, back him when he's right and oppose him when he's wrong. But look beyond RNC press releases to determine which is which.
A Cautionary Note
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 10:39AM
Below I made the case for John McCain the wartime leader, but I should add that though such a case may appeal to national security first voters such as myself, it'll be much tougher to win on that argument in November. McCain's all war all the time style campaign has enabled him to win by a plurality of votes in major Republican primaries, but his lines about never surrendering in Iraq may quickly wear thin among a general electorate that is war weary and eager for change. Should McCain, who by his own admission is older than dirt and has more scars than Frankenstein, go up against the fresh faced Barack Obama, he'll have his work cut out for him. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, it's a different story, because she brings a lot of her own baggage.
Edwards and Demographics
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 10:37AM
John Edwards's decision to drop out is a big opportunity for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It could help Clinton consolidate the white vote, or it could shift more men (especially white men) into Obama's camp. But while Edwards ran as a much more liberal candidate than in 2004, some of his supporters were a lagging indictator. His best showing in South Carolina, for example, was once again Oconee County, which is white and relatively conservative for the Democratic Party.
A Race For The Middle
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 10:07AM
In 2000 and 2004, success in the general election was about energizing the base, and getting them to turn out in high numbers on election day.
For years, I've spoken to many conservatives who have told me they wouldn't cast a vote for John McCain under any circumstances. I've also spoken to Democrats and independents who have told me that if the match up were between McCain and Hillary Clinton, they'd vote for McCain. Barack Obama, meanwhile, has made the idea of appealing to independents and Republicans a major part of his platform.
What this all adds up to in November, I believe, is a return to the days when the president was determined by a block of moderate swing voters rather than the bases of each party.
Edwards to Drop Out
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:36AM
The pugilistic populist is hanging up his gloves. The obvious question is, who does it help? Under one school of thought, Edwards was splitting the working class white vote with Clinton, and thus helping Obama by being in the race. Under another, he was siphoning off some of the anti-Hillary vote. I think both lines of reasoning have some validity to them, but wouldn't wager to guess which effect is more dominant. According to the article, Edwards has no immediate plans to issue an endorsement. My guess is that he'll either endorse Obama or stay neutral.
I declared Edwards's candidacy dead on arrival from the moment he entered the race, Shawn Macomber examined the invisible personality cult around him, while John Tabin and I chronicled the exploits of Edwards, the fighter.
Churchillian McCain
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:27AM
There's been a lot of McCain bashing on this blog in recent days, and I think it's only fair to give him the credit he deserves. Back when in order to be considered a supporter of the war you had to be a supporter of Bush's policies, John McCain was the only prominent Republican who was both unwavering in his commitment to the mission in Iraq, but convinced that we needed to change the strategy by sending in more troops to accomplish victory. He went on TV, used his platform in the Senate, and did a lot to agitate for what eventually became the surge. While all the leading Republican candidates expressed support for the surge, McCain was most tied to the policy, and for much of last year we were talking about how it was costing him independent voters in New Hampshire, but he didn't waver. When he went to Iraq and said the surge was working, he was ridiculed for it by his so-called allies in the media, but he didn't succumb to their pressure.
During the summer, when his support for the comprehensive immigration reform bill caused him to crash in the polls, left his campaign broke, and forced him to fire much of his staff, he was written off for dead by most wise men. But he said he would keep fighting, and he did. And with little money and much of the conservative establishment ferociously against him, he took his case directly to the voters, and he won.
There's a lot to disagree with McCain on, and I'm not going to sit here and try to convince everybody to forgive him for all the various things that he's done that anger them, but I will say this. We can debate a lot of the other issues such as the Gang of 14 and campaign finance reform, which I'm not trying to dismiss, but we cannot lose sight of the big picture. We have a war going on against a vicious, cunning, and easily adaptable enemy, and we need the right leader to see us through it. Everybody has their own idea of what they look for in a wartime leader, but for me the model has always been Winston Churchill, and this election cycle, I was looking for somebody who demonstrated that type of guts and grit, that strength of conviction, and who shares the following attitude:
For a long time, I thought that Rudy Giuliani was that man. But given the foresight and fortitude McCain showed in his support for the surge, and the "never surrender" attitude he displayed in running his campaign, I would say that he is the most Churchilian leader we have--only as we know, history only gave us one Churchill.
Any regular readers may have wondered why, over the past year, I've been so hard on Mitt Romney for his various shifts on issues. The reason is that, to me, the biggest obstacle we face in fighting terrorism is ourselves, specifically, the idea that after some period without a large terrorist attack, we'll conclude that perhaps its not that big of a threat, and go back to the way things used to be prior to 9/11. Whenever Romney uttered the words "global jihad," it came across to me as something he was saying to check off another box on the conservative issue matrix, rather than a true conviction. I always had the fear that if a few years into his presidency, the anti-terrorism issue wasn't polling too well, he'd be distracted by other things. The recent shift in his campaign focus to the economy as polling changed, and his deemphasis on national security in stump speeches I've seen over the recent weeks, only served to reinforce my position. He has always represented, to me, the anti-Churchill.
Some conservatives will simply never be able to support McCain, and I understand that. But I would urge those who support the war and consider the threat of Islamic terrorism to be the greatest challenge of our time, to consider the big picture, recognize that McCain does deserve some credit for the courage and perseverence he's shown, and at least temper some of the hostility.
Compassionate Something
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 9:07AM
WaPo columnist Michael Gerson sheds a tear for the unappreciated "gains" of the Bush administration in striving to legislate liberal positions from a Republican White House. Gerson notes his first meeting with Governor Dubya:
"He talked with rushed intensity about being a 'different kind of Republican,' dedicated to racial healing and helping the poor and determined to provide moral leadership as a contrast and corrective to the Clinton years."
Talk about a whitewash. The reason that the conservative core of the Republican party is falling apart is because of this sort of squishy, liberal pander. "Uncompassionate" conservatism through its support of welfare reform, tax cuts, and business-friendly policies is more likely to help the poor, heal racial bonds, and the like precisely because it does not seek to exploit these groups for positive PR.
The most unfortunate consequence of Bush's embrace of compassionate conservatism is that it played into the idea that it was unusual to be both compassionate and conservative.
We Interrupt This Presidential Contest...
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 7:31AM
The Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy has some amusing observations about the goofy chaos at Media Day yesterday, in anticipation of the Super Bowl:
Miss Nevada does not shout. She just stands there in her bare-midriff outfit, sash across her chest (that's how I deduced that she is Miss Nevada), hand raised, emerald-green eyes trained on Brady. I wonder if she is cold. But I do not wonder if she's going to get an opportunity to ask her question. Instincts and anecdotal evidence tell me that Brady is going to notice Miss Nevada in this sea of guys shaped like sacks of inner tubes.
Re: Veepstakes
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 3:18AM
Are we sure that what McCain "needs" really enters into it? He might be too much of an egomaniac to let ticket-balancing considerations stop him from picking the running mate that he wants.
It's Different Down Under
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 2:40AM
In today's Reader Mail, a few letters take issue with Sean Higgins's Heath Ledger obit. The first letter argues that while the young actor may have had a lot of lousy roles, he made the best of them. The second sticks up for Brokeback Mountain. While we're on the subject, did you know that "Heath" was short for... Heathcliff?
Wrong About Rudy
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 2:28AM
For several years, I have been predicting that Rudy Giuliani would be the Republican nominee. I did so on this site on numerous occasions, as far back as June of 2006. I plan to write more about Giuliani's failed campaign once he officially drops out, but since I was so colossally wrong, I figured I'd offer some quick reflections for the blog.
My assessment of Giuliani's chances was based on a belief that the Republican field would be fractured and wide open, with no clear conservative option, paving the way for Giuliani to win because terrorism would be the most important issue to primary voters, and his strength on national security would overcome his personal baggage and liberal social views.
Despite the fact that many people older and wiser than me kept insisting that he had no shot, I remained confident in my prediction until late last year. The reason was that the same old and wise people had also insisted that Giuliani was never going to run in the first place, and that if he did run, he'd quickly fade once voters learned more about him. When Giuliani did decide to run, and when he maintained his lead in national polls through most of the year, I felt emboldened. I also thought that despite the obstacles before him, the man who had achieved so much against long odds in the past, would gut his way through to the nomination. But I ended up being wrong on every level.
For one thing, while terrorism was on the minds of Republican voters, it has not been the clear overriding issue that it was in prior election cycles. To the extent that national security is important, John McCain ended up winning the argument that his military background and foreign policy experience in the Senate was more relevant than Giuliani's law enforcement credentials, executive experience, and leadership during 9/11.
But beyond that, Giuliani's social views and personal baggage did eventually catch up with him. Starting in October, when leading social conservatives threatened to bolt to a third party if he were the nominee, it not only served to highlight these issues, but to undermine his electability argument. Then a few weeks later there was the Bernie Kerik indictment, stories about his accused child molester friend Alan Placa, and the flurry of articles about taxpayer funding for security for his then-mistress Judith Nathan when he was mayor. While he ended up being vindicated as to how everything was accounted for, the average voter isn't going to weed through all of the details. The only thing they remember is that he was involved in something sleazy. As I've been on the campaign trail in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida, I've asked people what they think of Giuliani, and oftentimes I'd hear voters tell me that there was something "shady" about him, even if they couldn't point to anything specific.
Another noteworthy thing is that as these stories began to come out, the Giuliani campaign was rather muted in its response. It was in stark contrast to the daily war that would go on between Giuliani and the media in New York. He just didn't seem to show the same fire in the belly, the same determination in this campaign that he did as he battled entrenched liberal interests in NYC. Giuliani may have achieved the impossible at various points in his career, but that Giuliani, relentlessly prepared, with laser beam focus, was simply not the man running for president.
In the end, a lot of people will fault his late state strategy for his demise. I agree that this was a terrible approach, but I think it's also important to note that the strategy was just a symptom. That is, he was forced to retreat to Florida precisely because of all the problems I noted above.
Rotten Rebates
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 2:18AM
Culture vulture Peter Suderman is currently circling appliance stores, waiting for that government "rebate" to pounce on one of those flat screen TVs. He still thinks the stimulus package is a rotten idea.
A Good Stiff Think
Posted by on 1.30.08 @ 1:39AM
For those readers who are despairing over John McCain's Florida win, a suggestion. First, pour a good stiff glass of ethanol, before the government mandates teetotaling to offset global warming. Next, read this essay by W. James Antle III, "Arm's Length Conservatism." Then, fire it down.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Giuliani Out?
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 11:30PM
CNN is reporting that he will drop out and endorse John McCain in California tomorrow.
It could happen to anybody!
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 11:19PM
Anybody that has control of a nuclear weapon, or a few of'em, at
least. The blog,
In From The Cold, did a special investigation of the Minot AFB
mishap in which a bomber flew over a few states loaded with nuclear bombs. Highly readable, it sounds
like something straight out of Dr.
Strangelove.
Oops?
ADDENDUM: The Air Force, with its groundbreaking broom gadgetry,
has technologically swept it under the rug, by blocking the blog.
Nice.
Turnout in Florida
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 11:12PM
The good news: with 90 percent of the vote in, Republican primary voters in Florida number some 1.8 million.
The bad news: Democratic turnout numbers, with 90 percent of the vote in, are at 1.6 plus million.
This in a hotly contested GOP primary in a year in which the Democrats found themselves having to sit one out. Hillary's cheating can hardly be credited with such a high Democrat turnout in a race that officially didn't count. If this doesn't drive home the point that this isn't shaping up as a Republican year, what else will?
McCain's Crist Figure
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 10:56PM
The scariest thing about the big McCain win in Florida is all the prattling on about how important Florida Governor Charlie Crist's endorsement was. The endorsement may have been important, and McCain may feel beholden to Crist. Let's hope McCain's gratitude and his desire to ensure that he wins Florida's 27 electoral votes in November won't lead McCain to give us a McCain/Crist ticket should McCain become the nominee. Crist is a liberal Republican who caters to environmentalists, including the global warming hysterics, who McCain is already far too solicitous of. But for all his flakiness, Crist is still popular in Florida. And his desire to be on a national ticket is one of the least well-kept secrets in Florida. We don't need two Republicans in the White House who think baby's breath is a pollutant.
Re: Veepstakes
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 10:49PM
Gimme a break. Rudy Giuliani has had a hard enough time convincing Republicans that he's a conservative. McCain doesn't need another "maverick" like Giuliani, let alone someone who would, supposedly, pull in northeastern states. He needs someone that can motivate either evangelicals or someone who can reassure the party establishment that he won't go too far left -- I mean, "maverick."
Huckabee might be it for the evangelical ticket, but in terms of calming the worries of the establishment, he's hardly it. McCain would be better off with a popular governor of a southern state.
Spin From The Romney Camp
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 10:26PM
ST. PETERSBURG, FL -- Romney spokesman Kevin Madden, talking to reporters here, declared it a "two way" race that is now a "delegate hunt" going into February 5.
Madden said that the campaign is still working out which states to focus the most energy on, but the idea will be to look at states rich in delegates with large conservative voting blocks including Colorado, Missouri, Alabama, and Tennessee.
He said that John McCain had "institutional advantages" in Florida such as universal name recognition and the endorsements of Gov. Crist and Sen. Martinez. Oddly, he also noted that McCain spent a lot of money here in the past few weeks. Given how far back he was in the state earlier in the month, Madden said it could be argued that Romney's finish was "within the spread."
Asked about the significance of Rudy Giuliani's expected endorsement of McCain, he said now that it's a national race with 21 states in play next week, no one endorsement will have as much impact as Crist's endorsement did in Florida, though he acknowledged it would be a factor in New York and New Jersey.
Veepstakes
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 10:07PM
Mark Levin suggests that Mike Huckabee is staying in the race -- and thus making things tougher for Romney -- in order to be McCain's running mate. That might be true -- but if the report that Rudy is going to drop out and endorse McCain are correct, it's quite possible that the job is already taken.
McCain is Speaking Now
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 10:03PM
In fairness, his victory speech has been quite gracious.
Re: Romney's Concession
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 10:01PM
He no doubt sounds like a man who intends to stay in the race, but it wasn't a rousing "we will fight on the beaches" speech either. One think that struck me was that in recent days, Romney has listed problems that Washington was supposed to solve, and added the refrain "They haven't, we will." He used the same basic rhetorical device tonight, only he just said "They haven't." There wasn't any, "we will."
Romney's Concession
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 9:49PM
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, sounds like a candidate who intends to stay in the race. But he'll have a tough road ahead.
Rudy Outclasses McCain
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 9:41PM
I am listening to a wonderfully gracious concession speech by Rudy Giuliani. I disagree with him on some important issues, but he ran a high-minded campaign and if he does pull out, I will miss his presence.
The same cannot be said about tonight's winner, John McCain. His behavior in the past several days has been despicable. He flat-out lied about Romney, and then not only refused to apologize, but repeated the lie and added insults on top of it. Bill Bennett pronounced it a lie and a low blow. Brit Hume said it was a lie. Indeed, just about every observer pronounced it a lie.
Then McCain fudged on the report from John Fund that he drew a distinction between Justices Roberts and Alito and that he migt not appoint ones who are perceived as conservative as Alito. Then he again told another whopper of a lie, claiming that he supported all the other Bush nominees not covered by the Gang bang of 14 deal. He perhaps could be forgiven if he had merely forgotten one and not gotten involved. But that's not what he did. Instead, he played wingman for Lindsey Graham to lead the fight against superb nominee Jim Haynes, smearing Haynes in the process.
Lies up lies upon lies. It cannot be repeated enough. These were lies every bit as bad as the ones Bill Clinton told about Obama. And they bespeak bad things about McCain's character. Which leads to this prediction: Now that McCain is the clear and unambiguous front-runner, it is McCain's character, up until now seen as his strong suit and his main calling card, which will begin to come under scrutiny and well-merited attack. We will see reports about his temper, about his lack of honesty, about his flip-flops, about his finances, and about other matters as well. For eight years, the establishment media has left him mostly immune from such questions. Well, no longer. Now we will see if he can take it as well as he has dished it out. To quote a current movie title, figuratively speaking, There Will Be Blood.
Rudy's Concession
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 9:36PM
Like Fred Thompson's in South Carolina, Rudy Giuliani's speech is a ringing defense of his campaign platform -- but doesn't sound like the remarks of someone long for the campaign trail. While talking about the Republican Party as a "big party" he quipped, "I'm even in this party. It's a big party!"
Giuliani seems upbeat, so we'll see, but he has also referred to the campaign in the past tense once or twice.
Re: McCain Wins
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 9:27PM
It may not be a huge margin, but it's a huge victory for John McCain.
McCain Wins
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 9:23PM
CNN and Fox calling it. Scene quite subdued here at the Romney base. Also, overheard one Mitt supporter declare, "Projections are bulls..."
Rudy To Endorse McCain Tomorrow?
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 9:11PM
The Page reports.
Giuliani has already said he would be supporting McCain were he not running. Again, this means McCain wins New York, New Jersey, and California. Look for Romney to exploit the endorsement as a race between the conservative and moderate wing of the party.
McCain and Miami-Dade
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 9:06PM
Won't pretend to be Michael Barone, but for what it's worth, looking at the data by county, McCain has a huge lead in Miami-Dade with 46 percent of the vote. Rudy is actually second there with 32 percent, and Romney is far behind at 13 percent. This is the most populous county in Florida, and less than a third of the precincts are in right now. This has to bode well for McCain.
Huckabee Vows To Stay In For All 9 Innings
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 9:02PM
He cites his leads in Georgia and other southern states. Another development that could complicate Romney's Feb. 5 strategy.
Re: Ah, Florida
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 9:00PM
James: If Romney narrowly loses tonight, there is certainly a rationale for him to continue. But I think his path to the nomination becomes a lot harder. He is beating McCain among conservatives, but not by the same margin that McCain is winning among moderates. After tonight, McCain is going to further consolidate the moderates. It isn't clear that Romney will be able to further consolidate the conservatives.
Also, consider the media boost McCain got from a fourth-place showing in Iowa (albeit just shy of third place) and a little better than three-point win in South Carolina. A win in Florida sends him into Super Tuesday with free media and a probable infusion of cash, eroding Romney's biggest advantages.
Phil: I agree that even a victorious Romney will have a tougher slog than McCain. But McCain needs to wrap this thing up before he goes broke. Romney is much better positioned to afford a slower war of attrition. And if there is any thinning of the conservative herd, though I don't think that's likely, Romney could benefit even more than McCain would by consolidating the GOP's moderate minority.
Shameless
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:53PM
Hillary holds a rally in Florida, with some weird choice quotes. She suggests that things will be better "...if we start acting like Americans again..."
Eh? I don't even know what this means.
Re: Ah, Florida
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:48PM
I think a loss here is more detrimental to Romney than McCain.
No doubt, a win in such a huge state that was so hotly contested, will provide Romney with incredible momentum going into Super Tuesday, will hurt McCain nationally, and deprive McCain of a much needed cash infusion. Not trying to downplay its importance.
But even if McCain loses, with Rudy either out of the race or severely diminished, McCain has to be seen as the heavy favorite in the huge winner take all states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Romney should take Utah and let's say Massachusetts, but that will be partially offset by McCain winning Arizona. If Huckabee stays in, it'll be tough for Romney to win in the southern states. So abstractly, you'd think a win in Florida gives Romney an edge next Tuesday, but when you look at it on a state by state basis, he still has an uphill battle.
If McCain wins, he gets a windfall of money, earned media, further boost in the national polls, and bragging rights of having won three out of four of the most hotly contested primaries.
So what I think is that a McCain win here makes him the likely nominee, whereas a Romney win means we have a dogfight on our hands.
Re: Ah, Florida
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:39PM
Interesting, Jim. You make a good case -- the opposite case I've been making to myself tonight. If Romney's as strong among conservatives as he seems vs. McCain, and pulls even among vets, and if Florida voters seem 'stupid' for worrying about the economy and going McCain, then why should this contest be over any time soon? It's easy to think Rudy's people would cut for McCain, but I sense complexities lurking in the breaks, and all the more so for Huckabee's supporters, despite the Huckster's obvious inclinations. I'm not sure any of the candidates has as much control over his own consituencies' second choices this year as they usually do...
That said, the pressure is unquestionably toward consolidating the race ASAP.
Re: Hillary, Um, Wins?
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:36PM
Isn't the problem with that scenario that more would have turned out if they knew it would matter? There's no way the Dems should let Florida have delegates after discouraging people. That's effectively creating retroactive disenfranchisement.
Tremendous Most Glorious Victory
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:34PM
Hillary still hasn't beaten Obama's margin of victory in SC, has she?
Re: Ah, Florida
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:31PM
And once again, Florida may decide it all. If John McCain's narrow lead holds, he will be very hard to stop. The benefits of a win here tonight could be enhanced if two other things break McCain's way: Rudy Giuliani drops out and endorses McCain; Mike Huckabee stays in and prevents Mitt Romney from consolidating among evangelicals or winning Southern primaries.
If Romney makes up the 1-point deficit in these fairly early returns and pulls it out, he too will be very hard to stop. McCain's leads in several important Super Tuesday states are based on momentum and name ID. McCain loses the former if he loses tonight. Romney also has a huge cash advantage that allows him more flexibility in advertising in multiple media markets simultaneously. If Huckabee gets out of the race, even if he endorses McCain rather than Romney, it will expand the pool of available conservative voters for Romney to win over.
Giuliani may well be right about at least this much: The winner of the Florida primary is the likeliest Republican nominee.
Re: Hillary
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:27PM
Despite her big "win," Obama still gets over 70 percent of the black vote, according to exits.
Ah, Florida
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:20PM
The state that just can't make it easy. Under 10,000 votes separating the Mitt and the Mac.
More Exit Polls
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:18PM
--McCain wins among the nearly half of voters who ranked the economy as the largest issue 38-34, which is a bad sign for Romney if accurate. Romney worked the economic issue hard, citing his business background.
--Romney wins among evangelicals, with 34 percent of the vote, and Huckabee and McCain tied at 28. If Huckabee cannot even count on dominating this demographic anymore, how much more gas does he have?
--Also, Rudy loses the pro-choice Republicans.
Hillary, Um, Wins?
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:09PM
Fox News called the Democratic race in Florida right at 8. Hillary won, but if the DNC sanctions hold Florida won't seat delegates. Naturally Team Clinton is fighting to have the sanctions lifted on Florida (and Michigan). And it might actually matter.
Sunshine Gravel
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:07PM
Wolf Blitzer just referred to Mike Gravel as the former governor of Florida.
Rudy's Watch
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 8:07PM
It's already pretty clear that Giuliani will not pull off anything close to a win in Florida tonight.
Rudy Watch
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 7:51PM
All indications are that Giuliani is still planning on heading to California from Florida. The campaign sent out an email about a press plane leaving for Los Angeles tomorrow. Assuming current trends hold and he ends up in a distant third, I'm not really sure what the point would be.
Checking In
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 7:32PM
ST. PETERSBURG, FL -- I'm here at the Mirror Lake Lyceum where Mitt Romney's event is being held tonight. Not much to report now, just a lot of anxious supporters beginning to congregate. Will have updates throughout the night, assuming my internet connection holds up.
Pander Dander
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 7:04PM
In Reason today, Phil Klein argues that not all pandering is created equal.Over at the Politico, I wonder how John McCain manages to have so many passionate supporters who disagree with him about everything.
Re: Exit Polls
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 6:45PM
It may tell us that we're in for a long night. And the polls haven't even closed yet.
FISA Needs Passage
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 6:26PM
The industrious Kathryn Lopez (and other NRO editors and writers) beat me to the punch on this, but they are absolutely right: It is of utmost importance that Congress pass a permanent FISA reform bill, NOW. (FISA is, of course, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which needs reform in order to keep up with new technologies and allow us to interdict terrorist activity.) I endorse just about every word in all three of those linked pieces. I will add that I was at the same meeting with a "senior administration official" that K-Lo attended today, and her account of what the official said is accurate (of course) and important. The official also stressed the importance of providing immunity from lawsuits for the telecom companies who cooperated, at the request of the Justice Department, with the key, prior surveillance efforts.
And what about all of the supposed violations of civil liberties? "I don't know even one" example of such violations, said the official. Not one.
Reminder (from Quin, not from the "official"): The fact of the matter is that the surveillance at issue is NOT, repeat NOT, a matter of "eavesdropping" on ordinary American citizens. All that is involved is following specific trails of known terrorists or of people of whom there is exceedingly good reason to suspect of terrorist associations.
Finally, I call attention to this particular paragraph from Kathryn's account:
While the official could not name names, so to speak, as to the specific intelligence gathered because of FISA, when asked how it is we haven't been attacked since 9/11, the official focused on our success weakening al-Qaeda's organization. The fact that we've "killed so many No. 3s," he pointed out is no small thing. "When you can operate at that level with a fair degree of consistency…that makes life very difficult for them." While he would tie no specific victory to one program, the tools at hand that this administration has fought hard to keep have contributed to the success of averting attack. The official believes that one London-scale attack was called off because of our effectiveness at undercutting the al-Qaeda organization.
One more great quote from the official, following up on what he said about the disruptions to Al Qaeda: ""One of the most dangerous jobs in the world right now is to be the Number Three guy in Al Qaeda."
If we pass the FISA reform, we will be in much better position to keep it that way.
Exit Polls
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 6:20PM
Jim Geraghty's got some Florida numbers, showing McCain up by a small margin. Doesn't tell us much, especially since it doesn't include early voters. (SurveyUSA final numbers showed early voters tracking pretty close to the total sample, which makes a Giuliani miracle seem very unlikely.)
Ain't That Stimulatin'
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 5:39PM
The stimulus plan has passed the House. Happy days are soon to be here again.
Keyes to the Asylum
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 5:33PM
Even if tonight's Florida results fit the worst-case scenario for Rudy Giuliani, he'll be in better shape than Alan Keyes. Dave Weigel reminds us that the professional candidate is still running for the 2008 GOP nomination.
Who would have thought that Keyes's 29 percent showing against Barbara Mikulski in 1992 and his 27 percent against Barack Obama in 2004 would look good compared to his showing in this year's presidential primaries? Keyes is a bright man and a gifted orator. If he had better judgement and people skills, what a career he might have had. He even managed to collect more than 1 million votes (one of them, ahem, mine) in the 2000 Republican primaries.
But Keyes never could shake that just-so-fringe feeling. That 2004 Senate race was a bridge too far, and his bizarre performance at the Des Moines Register debate put him right in the water. A "candidate" should not in good conscience be able to raise money just to get on the ballot in a bunch of states, not really campaign in the sense that most normal people use that word, and then demand to be included in the debates so that he can hector everybody else who is running.Another remind that Keyes still exists can be foudn here.
re: All I Want To Know Is...
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 5:31PM
You'd think that would be the end of it. But all afternoon, it's been playing over and over. Here's a PR pop quiz: Would it have been better for Obama to ignore this and just move on? Or was it smart for him to respond? It's a slow news day, I guess. The other news on TV has been a snowstorm somewhere west of DC. Specifically, Idaho.
All I Want To Know Is...
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 4:54PM
...are Hillary and Obama still sharing a locker. Find out during third period and tell me in study hall. I totally don't want to take sides if this isn't a big deal. The big dance is coming up, after all...
Still Waters
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 4:09PM
This campaign is full of irony, is it not? Caroline Kennedy gets gobs of news coverage for endorsing a candidate constantly compared to Bobby Kennedy, while Bobby Kennedy's kids endorse Hillary at elderly housing communities and the only press that shows up is...me.
And as for Maxine Waters, I'll never forget watching her bob her head and sway her arms over her head at the Boston Hip-Hop Summit in Roxbury during the 2004 Democratic Convention like an overzealous extra at a rap video shoot. I have a feeling we're not going to see the same Maxine Waters on the trail for Hillary as the one who bellowed at an audience full of kids tolerating speeches by politicians so they could see rap luminaries such as Wyclef Jean, Layzie Bone and Bone Crusher. "Police brutality!" Waters hollered. "You know something about that? Mandatory minimum sentences! You know something about that?"
Maybe on the trail for Clinton Waters can do
something more fitting, perhaps along the lines of, "Waking up
early for a midterm! You know something about that?" or "Using
scare quotes around the words 'fair' and 'balanced' when writing
about Fox News on your blog! You know something about that?" to a
backing beat from Little Wayne or somesuch. It's worth a
try.
Maxine Waters endorses Clinton
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 2:14PM
Leading the "Black People Love Hillary" charge! Maxine Waters has recently received an award from BET for, uhm, whatever (alongside Tyra Banks and Cornel West). If anyone's going to give Hillary that boost among minorities in the party, it might as well be Waters... I guess.
Hillary Flick
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 1:52PM
This Slate video splicing the campaign of Hillary Clinton with Tracy Flick's equally contentious presidential run in Election is just pure genius.
Afterward go take a gander at the riff off the bit at Jewcy where, even if calling John Edwards Atticus Finch plays a little too well into the former North Carolina senator's messiah complex, Marty Beckerman hits it out of the park with Dennis Kucinich as Rick Moranis and Ron Paul as one of my favorite television characters of all time, Dale Gribble.
Did Rudy Need More Money?
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 12:53PM
Rudy Giuliani was always relying on a Florida plus Feb. 5th boost to win the nomination, but what forced him to adopt a more extreme version of that strategy? Initially, Giuliani wasn't going to completely write off New Hampshire or South Carolina. He even hemmed and hawed a bit about Iowa. He spent time and money in all of those states.
Until the news broke that some Giuliani staffers were forgoing paychecks, we didn't tend to think of that campaign as having problems. Giuliani has raised a good bit of money relative to the other Republican presidential candidates. But Republican presidential fundraising hasn't been all that good. Did the Giuliani people ultimately decide to use the money that they had in places like Florida rather than the early states, especially after the New Hampshire ads didn't produce any tangible gains?
This isn't any informed speculation on my part, and I haven't crunched the numbers. I've said before that I don't think Giuliani's strategy for winning the nomination was wise. But I wonder if they adopted it because they felt they had no choice.
Florida Wildcards
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 12:38PM
With the race here too close to call, there are a few questions to keep in mind that could swing it one way or another.
How strong is the anti-McCain backlash? Yesterday, I was a guest on Renee Giachino's show on 1330 AM, a station based out of southwest Florida. All of the callers I spoke with excoriated McCain as a liberal on taxes, ANWR, immigration, etc. This is a sentiment that is pervasive throughout talk radio and blogs, and it's something I've picked up talking to voters on the campaign trail. This is definitely benefiting Romney right now, but it's hard to quantify how big the Anybody But McCain vote is.
Which way will Rudy's disaffected supporters go? Looking at polls showing that he can no longer win, many voters initially sympathetic toward Giuliani may look elsewhere. That could mean they shift to the other moderate, national security first candidate, or it could mean they are anti-McCain folks who will now defect to Romney.
Do endorsements matter? How much help does Charlie Crist and Mel Martinez give McCain?
Is it the economy or national security? Though one poll showed McCain with an edge among economic voters, Romney has been hitting the "economic squeeze" issue a lot harder than McCain, so I would expect to him to have the edge, whereas McCain should do better among those voting primarily on the basis of who will make the best commander in chief. If they're both equally important to voters, the question becomes whether people trust McCain with the conomy more than they trust Romney with foreign policy and national security.
Also, the ultimate wildcard is how early and absentee/early voting went. Polls pick them up to some extent, but in a race this close, in a state this large, it's hard to know how reliable any polling numbers are regarding how this group voted.
Romney Rallies His Troops
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 12:16PM
TAMPA -- I caught a Mitt Romney rally here held in the same convention center ballroom as John McCain's last night. The McCain crowd was several times larger, though I'm not sure how much you can read into that since the Romney event was held at the beginning of the work day.The crowd that did show up was enthusiastic, breaking into chants of "Mitt is it!" on several occasions, and there were a few homemade "Mitt Romney Is A Hottie" signs.
Romney brought his whole family to the rally, and each of his sons, as well as Ann, spoke briefly as he looked on, holding one of his grandchildren.
The speech was largely the same as the one he has given in recent days--that he's the best one to manage the economy because of his private sector experiences. Though, this time, he did mention national security briefly, in the context of oftering post-SOTU praise for President Bush for "keeping us safe."
Earmarks
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 11:09AM
Worse, even if Bush and the Republicans had managed to avoid going wobbly, they have already proposed enough new spending to more than wipe out any savings on the earmarks front.
Insomnia
Posted by on 1.29.08 @ 11:05AM
Shawn: Next time you might try listening to a Gov. Sebelius speech. Works wo