- 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 16, 2008
George, How Could You?
Posted by on 2.16.08 @ 10:46AM
George W. Bush really has gone too far this time (scroll down to comments):
I really didn't have any major problem with the Clintons before this election season, I, like everyone else thought that Hillary Clinton would be the next president and that was that. But I realize now how the Bush administration has allowed everyone in this country to lower the bar of our expectations so low that we just couldn't see how truly awful the Clintons really are.
I'll be on Fox News at 12:20
Posted by on 2.16.08 @ 10:10AM
Tune in to watch me discuss the Obama-Clinton fight in Ohio and Texas on Fox News Live.
Re: Mormons Need Not Apply
Posted by on 2.16.08 @ 8:25AM
A final word on the Mormons Need Not Apply kerfuffle: I've been receiving a disturbingly large amount of private correspondence like this:
Sir: While we may like to think it was Romney's flip-flopping that did him in (most conservatives WISH McCain would flip flop on immigration, etc), the emails I've been receiving tell a different, more sinister tale.
You hit the nail no doubt about it. In my church here in
(Name Withheld)
Friday, February 15, 2008
Re: Churchill Rule
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 11:21PM
Jim: You offer me nothing but blood, toil, tears and sweat, yet I still find your proposal tempting. I accept.
McCain Should Resign Senate Seat
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 8:48PM
Political Pundits only complicate matters. I put my trust in political comedians, at least if it's Jackie Mason making the call. As he and Raoul Felder wrote earlier this week on our main site about McCain, Hillary, Obama and the rest who run without resigning (scroll down here), "Is there any business where you can say to your boss, 'Keep paying me my full salary for two years while I spend my time looking for another job'?"
Churchill Rule
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 7:51PM
I'm proposing a new rule in conservative opinion journalism: Nobody gets to be compared to Churchill -- or Reagan, or Lincoln, or Jefferson, or whomever -- until they have actually led the country or otherwise had the opportunity to perform Churchill-like tasks. Any takers?
McCain as Churchill
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 5:45PM
Regular readers here will of course know how critical I am of John McCain. What you may not know is that I revere Winston Churchill. It may therefore come as a surprise that I think this Weekly Standard column is right on target. It posits that McCain is very Churchillian.
Now how can I not like McCain, while revering Churchill, yet applaud a favorable comparison of McCain to Churchill? Well, first, because I do think that McCain has greatness in him. It is a greatness too often unrealized, too often subsumed to bitterness and meanness and pettiness, but it is undeniably there, at least in potential.
Second, I may not have liked Churchill either if I had lived then -- although, just as I have agreed with McCain EVERY STEP OF THE WAY on the big issues of the Iraq war, I flatter myself that I would have agreed with Churchill about the Nazis during the 1930s even if I didn't like him personally.
Third, the one good quality I will always ascribe to McCain is his deep, passionate, undeniable love of his country and dedication to advancing its strategic interests as he sees them -- which is exactly what Churchill felt about Great Britain. Meanwhile, I literally was just thinking yesterday (before this column in the WStandard came out) that McCain reminded me a bit of Churchill in these ways, and in his bellicosity, and in his vanity and self-absorption -- and, too, this time to his credit, in his recognition of the nature of the enemy and the need to stop the enemy and insist on our own nation's moral superiority to it.
Now if only McCain would learn how to make gradations of distinctions between temporary political adversaries and mortal enemies, then we really might get somewhere with him. He often gives the impression that anybody on the right who disagrees with him is as corrupt and immoral as Al Qaeda is. That attitude of his is one of the things that makes him, quite simply, a jerk. But he is a jerk of a Churchillian bearing, and he may get the opportunity, as Churchill did, to lead a great nation in a moral cause against true evil abroad.
Re: McCain Should Keep Senate Seat
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 4:55PM
Phil is absolutely right that McCain should keep his Senate
seat. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty. His
constituents elected him to serve a full term. His party supported
him expecting that he would serve a full term, and especially
expecting that he would not resign and let his replacement be
appointed by a Democratic governor. This new fad of elected
officials leaving office mid-term, not because of severe health
problems or serious family issues but just because other
opportunities came along, is a terrible fad made use of by people
who do not understand the concept of duty. Of course it is okay to
leave an open seat by virtue of being elected to higher office...
but to leave a seat mid-term just to run for higher office is as
venal as to leave it mid-term in order to cash in and get rich --
again, especially if the replacement will be of another party.
McCain's vote in the Senate is of crucial importance, and to fail
to exercise it on behalf of the people who elected him would be a
betrayal of duty.
Plus, Phil makes the great political point that it would reinforce
the similarities between McCain and Bob Dole, which is not at all a
good thing.
If McCain leaves his seat, it will be a move both brazen and
craven. Let's hope he is a better man than that.
Dollar Security
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 4:43PM
For several months now I have been boring people here with columns and blog posts sounding the alarm (or perhaps just sounding alarmist!) about the desperate need to strengthen the dollar. In the WSJ today, Judy Shelton tells us that the weak dollar is now officially seen as a national security threat. Yikes. When are our policymakers going to wake up?!?!?
The McCain Uncertainty Principle
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 3:11PM
Over at TNR, Jonathan Chait disputes the image of John McCain as a straight talker who tells people where he stands, regardless of whether his views are popular. In fact, on issues such as taxes, spending, and immigration, Chait argues, McCain has been quite unpredictable and idiosyncratic, flip flopping shamelessly, or taking stands out of cold political calculations.
The piece is worth reading, but I have a bone to pick with this point Chait makes about McCain's support for the Iraq War:
The fact that the war was increasingly unpopular with the public at large, paradoxically, made it all the more effective for McCain. His hawkish stance signaled to conservatives his willingness to buck public opinion. And reporters, bizarrely, interpreted his position as more evidence of McCain's probity--here was a man, gushed a string of campaign reports, willing to lose the presidency for the sake of his beliefs. In fact, the war was an issue where McCain's beliefs aligned perfectly with his self-interest, since the constituency he needed to woo, conservative stalwarts, supported Bush.
The problem with Chait arguing that McCain's position on Iraq wasn't a political risk because it helped him among conservatives neglects the fact that by being so supportive of the surge, McCain was risking the erosion of his support among independents, who were central to his strategy for winning the nomination.
For a more positive perspective on McCain's conservative fiscal record, check out Kevin Stach's WSJ column.
Ilya Shapiro on the Slippery Slope of Gun Rights
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 2:54PM
At Cato's blog, Ilya Shapiro notes some strange things afoot in the fight for the right to keep and bear arms. Sex toys may finally be defended in the courts alongside guns.
Well, we did forge an alliance with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis, so I suppose there's a precedent for such... strange bedfellows.
Bush To Endorse McCain
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 1:48PM
The elder Bush, that is. Mike Allen has the scoop.
TNR on Lantos: Pretty Good, Except For...
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 1:46PM
Perusing The New Republic's site, I was happy to see an obituary for Rep. Tom Lantos (see our Ivan Osorio's here). After all, he fits the mold for the ideal hawkish liberal. But... they picked an anti-war Brian Beutler to write it, a choice that reflects TNR's awkward flip-flop on the war. It's a choice that also leads to a very troubled assessment of Lantos as an "idealist" (remember: that's a slam) who was riven with "contradictions." This best encapsulates the point:
Huh? These are ideals clashing against eachother? It seems that the logic of this piece is that diplomacy sans teeth is probably the best way to go. But just because a congressman would rather not go to war doesn't mean he should avoid war at all costs. Sometimes you have to be willing to back up your threats.
In any case, "idealism" seems hardly the word, then. If Lantos was willing to be hawkish when he felt he had to be rather than persevere in the ideal of always keeping the peace, doesn't that mean that he was more pragmatic, or reasonable?
Ivan Osorio's assessment seems to capture Lantos's thinking in a series of episodes from his life -- episodes in which he took people to task for not doing the honorable thing, or for not backing up their words. If anything, what we learn from a close reading of both pieces is not that Tom Lantos was an idealist. He was a man of honor.
Hillary's Bad Week Just Got Worse
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 1:28PM
The SEIU, the influential union with 1.9 million members, has just officially endorsed Obama. Also, a new ARG poll has Obama leading Clinton in Texas 48-42. The poll has Clinton's lead among latinos at only 2 points, and that's before this endorsement (the SEIU has a huge presence in the Lonestar State). And remember, Clinton not only has to win Texas, but win by a huge margin to be able to catch Obama in delegates. It's worth noting that due to Texas's complex allocation system, the popular vote isn't a great indicator of how delegates will actually get doled out. But even accounting for that, if this poll is accurate, it doesn't bode well for Clinton.
UPDATE: A friend who is on the SEIU conference call announcing the endorsement emails that SEIU president Andy Stern said the vote in the union's executive committee was "overwhelming" for Obama. "It is time for a real change in America and that is why we are excited about endorsing Barack Obama for president," Stern said, acknowledging that there were no serious differences between the two candidates on actual labor issues.
UPDATE II: Other polls show Clinton with a comfortable lead in Texas.
McCain's Trivial Pursuit
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 1:19PM
More than a week out, finally taking some time to parse Senator McCain's remarks at CPAC, I run across this oddity:
"This election is going to be about big things, not small things."
Wow!
Are we to take from this that eliminating America's borders, cancelling the First Amendment at election time, and putting an end to American affluence by turning energy decisions (and thereby the economy) over to global warming hysterics are small things? Trifles? Whatever, then, would the big things be?
This kind of "moderate" approach may convince some voters. But not many who are to the right of George Soros.
Why Obama Is Winning
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 11:16AM
After finding this handy chart of the results of the primaries and caucuses held thus far, I decided to look at how Barack Obama has been able to take the lead in the delegate count even though Hillary Clinton has won delegate rich states such as New York, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. The obvious answer, of course, is that Obama has won more states by larger margins than Clinton, enabling him to pull ahead because of the Democratic Party's proportional rules. But I wanted to take things a step further and quantifty them. So, with the help of an Excel spreadsheet, I came up with the following:
--Obama's average victory margin is 28 points, Clinton's is 14 points
--Obama's median victory margin is 29 points, Clinton's is 13 points
--Obama has had double-digit wins in 19 states to Clinton's 9;
Obama has had wins of over 20 points in 15 states to Clinton's 2;
Obama has had 30 point-plus wins in 10 states to Clinton's
1.
Another interesting note is that Clinton's "home state" of New York has 231 delegates, while Obama's home state of Illinois has just 152, which one would think would translate into a big andvantage for Clinton. However, though both candidates won their home states, Obama ended up gaining 9 more delegates out of Illinois than Clinton did out of New York. The reason? Clinton won New York by 17 points, while Obama won Illinois by 32.
As has been said before, even if Clinton wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, she'll have to do so by tremendous margins to catch Obama in the delegate race. Therefore, it's quite possible that Clinton could win 8 out of the top 11 states in terms of electoral votes, and still lose the nomination.
Huck Not Making Friends
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 10:56AM
Our friend Jennifer Rubin is not impressed with Huck.
Now is the time for AmSpec Blog Readers
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 10:04AM
(and all conservatives) to come to the aid of their party.
In response to the great outpouring of email I received after my first letter to Senator McCain regarding his relationship to conservatives, I'm soliciting additional reader suggestions for future correspondence with our inevitable, if irritable nominee.
What questions, observations or purgations would you address to our anointed one? Please keep them polite and pithy that we may show the good senator that the true soul of a conservative is an informed patriot, in love with the U.S. Constitution, and not the knuckle-dragging slug so often portrayed in the media that were formerly in his enthrall.
The best responses will be published in AmSpec's distinguished Reader Mail roll call and be used in my future columns to persuade Senator McCain that we are sincere in our opposition to some of his more liberal stances and firm in our belief that he will, as he said at CPAC, "seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives."
So I ask you, my fellows; step up and make your mark.
McCain Should Keep His Senate Seat
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 9:56AM
On Wednesday, I reported that on a blogger conference call, John McCain said while it was his intention to remain in the Senate, he would wait until after he wraps up the nomination to decide whether to leave his seat to focus on the presidential race full time. In other words, he left the door open to giving it up. Since Drudge has now decided it's news by linking to this story, I assume it'll generate more buzz, so I thought I'd offer a quick comment.
As exciting as the possibility of having a Sen. John Shadegg is, I think it would be a huge mistake for McCain to abandon his seat. Though it may free up time to run for president, it would reinforce the age issue by communicating the impression that he's a man in the twilight of his career. Especially if he's up against Barack Obama, the last thing he needs is a series of headlines with the words, "MCCAIN RETIRES" in them. The obvious parallell to this is Bob Dole, who delivered a beautiful speech in leaving the Senate that was widely praised ("I will seek the presidency with nothing to fall back on but the judgment of the people and nowhere to go but the White House or home"), but the "one last mission" concept didn't work out too well for him that November. McCain would be much better off keeping the seat so he could communicate that he is still young and vigorous, in spite of his age.
Gray Lady, Feminist for Life?
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 9:48AM
I was going to write something about Debbie Nathan's nutty piece arguing that the New York Times is biased against pro-choicers because it does not always function as NARAL's press office, but Ross Douthat and Ramesh Ponnuru have pretty much said everything that needs to be said. Perhaps Nathan's explanations of pornography to teenagers and young adults are more convincing.
At the Helms
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 8:35AM
How's this for contrarian? Politico editor David Mark argues that this country was founded on a negative attack ad. Sean Higgins talks to Mark about his book and the 2008 elections over on the Spectator main page.
Wait, Mitt's a Mormon?
Posted by on 2.15.08 @ 8:29AM
Today's Reader Mail continues a conversation that dominated this blog yesterday: How much did Romney's Mormonism contribute to his defeat. Several readers agree with Orlet that it was the most important thing, but a few correspondents are inkleined to support Phil's position that, while it didn't help, Romney's fakeness and flip-flopping really killed his candidacy.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Will Huck Please Crawl Back Under a Rock?
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 7:00PM
Mike Huckabee is rapidly showing all the nasty characteristics that I warned everybody about. See here, his response to Mitt Romney's gracious endorsement of John McCain. Huck whines that Romney "attacked" him -- ignoring that all of Romney's negative ads, etc., were absolutely 100% issue-based -- while trying to play the martyr who never made a personal attack on Romney. Of course, Huck is the guy who repeatedly did attack Romney in personal terms, especially raising questions about Romney's religion. The crack about Mormons believing weird things about Satan, etc., remains the lowest blow of any campaign this year. Gimme a break.
Hey Ladies
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 4:49PM
Here's a Valentine for you, from the latest Atlantic. Lori Gottlieb argues that Mr. Right is a myth and that you'd be much better off to settle for Mr. Good Enough.
MoveOn and Superdelegates
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 3:17PM
The left-wing group is circulating a petition declaring, "The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's choice." The group will be publishing an ad in USA Today if it can get 200,000 signatures.
I think this is worth noting, because if Hillary Clinton loses the overall popular vote as well as the delegate race, but ends up winning because of backroom deals with superdelegates, and the feeling emerges on the left that Obama was robbed, it will be incredibly difficult for her to unify the Democratic Party in the fall.
Measuring Clinton's Ohio and Pennsylvania Strength
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 3:03PM
The Clinton campaign is touting a pair of Quinipiac polls showing her with commanding leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania of 21 points and 16 points, respectively. If she were to win those states by such margins, she could be in a position to catch Obama in the delegate race. But unfortunately for her, these contests are likely to tighten. For one thing, the polling period ended on Feb. 12, before news hit of Obama's stunning trio of victories in the Potomac primaries. For another, Obama hasn't campaigned in either state yet. There are almost three weeks between now and the Ohio primary, and more than two months before Pennsylvania. That gives him plenty of time to campaign there, spend money on ads, and ride his wave of momentum. So Clinton still may win there, but she's unlikely to do so by wide enough margins to erode Obama's delegate lead. It seems to me that these polls represent a ceiling of support for her, while for him they're only the floor.
Romney To Endorse McCain
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 2:01PM
CNN reports. No word on whether Romney plans to release his delegates. I'm curious to see how this plays out. A lot of Romney's supporters voted for him specifically because they wanted to stop John McCain, so I wonder how much goodwill the news will buy McCain among conservatives. But it is certainly a good show of party unity.
UPDATE: Romney plans to release his 286 delegates encourage them to support McCain, CNN reports. That's a big boost for McCain.
Re: By Any Means Necessary
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 1:02PM
There's finally recognition that the Democratic contest may not be determined until the beginning of June. John McCain is already the presumptive nominee for the Republicans. The media has been saying for months, heck, years, that Hillary was the clear frontrunner, and that the Republicans' lack of one will be a big problem. Those tables have turned. In an election where Bush hatred was going to play a big role, now the Dems are still having a problem. This should be THEIR election! By the time the Democrats get their act together, John McCain will have had plenty of time to patch together the Republican coalition. Anyone that doubts he can pull it off forget that only a few months ago, his campaign was dead in the water. There's a lot of time between now and June.
Re: Mormonism Didn't Sink Romney
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 12:01PM
Chris, it's not accurate to say that "half of American voters probably would not vote for a Mormon." Your evidence for this statement, as you wrote in your piece, is that "a recent WSJ poll found that half of American voters voiced 'some reservations' (29 percent) or were 'very uncomfortable' (21 percent) with even the thought of having a Mormon in the White House." That's not the same thing as people not voting for somebody. When the Gallup poll actually asked that question in December, it found that just 18 percent of Republicans would not vote for a Mormon. Earlier last year, Gallup also found that 40 percent of Americans would not vote for somebody 72 years old, which would be John McCain's age on election day.
And whether you think it's a good or bad thing, I don't see how you can deny that it's important for a candidate to emotionally connect with voters. I don't think bringing Lincoln into this has any relevance because he did not run in the modern television era. But the other examples you use demonstrate this. JFK beat LBJ for the nomination and Nixon in the general election, not because he was more experienced, but because he was charismatic and people emotionally connected with him. Bill Clinton beat Bush I because Bush I was seen as out of touch and Clinton felt people's pain. Ronald Reagan didn't just make cerebral arguments for conservatism, but he was able to put conservative principles in human terms. Look at how far Barack Obama has come this election. If you were to do a poll asking voters abstractly whether they have "some reservations" or were "very uncomfortable" with electing a president who only has three years of national political experience, I'm sure you come up with a high number. But because Obama has the ability to inspire through his rhetoric, he's built a movement that may very well carry him into the White House.
You asked, "What else besides Romney's faith can explain the ex-governor's poor showing?" Let us count the ways. Is it inconceivable that primary voters would find his conversions to conservatism inauthentic? Is it inconceivable that they have a hard time believing that a man who described himself as pro-choice since 1970 would suddenly become pro-life in 2005? That somebody who once found McCain reasonable on immigration, would suddenly attack McCain's position as tantamount to amnesty? That somebody who once promised to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy would end up portraying himself as a social conservative crusader? That somebody who signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts would say he's a big defender of the Second Amendment, who would veto any such legislation as president? Are conservatives bigots if they don't support government mandated health care? Or $20 billion bailouts for the auto industry? Are they anti-Mormon if they decide that in a time of war, somebody with national security credentials is preferable to a one term governor?
Like I've said, there's no doubt in my mind that there were voters who view Mormonism as a cult and would not vote for Romney under any circumstances. I've spoken to some of these voters. But had Romney been a credible conservative and demonstrated to voters that he has a pulse, he could have won the nomination.
Back To The Future
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 11:59AM
Unable to let go of the past, I just wanted to point out W. James Antle III's masterful column yesterday on the Big Pharma Boogeyman for anyone who may have missed it.
"My Earmark Is...A Bridge To Your Heart"
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 11:33AM
John Hawkins offers up this and other right-wing Valentine's Day sentiments here.
Heere Bigynneth the Tale of the Asse-Hatte
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 11:15AM
Who says Middle English is dead? Iowahawk's modernized version of the classic Canterbury Tale. A taste:
All sondry folke urbayne and progressyve
Vexed by Musselmans aggressyve.
More on Marty
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 11:14AM
The first, and so far only, comment on Marty Beckerman's day two Radar dispatch from CPAC asks, "Did Beckerman actually attend?" Yes, he did, though as readers can see from his dispatches, he didn't go there without his blinders firmly in place. How else to explain the fact that he couldn't see any of the black Republicans there?
Re: Mormonism Didn't Sink Romney
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 10:38AM
Phil: I'm a little surprised you consider the fact that half of American voters probably would not vote for a Mormon is a "petty issue." To me, this seems HUGE. Imagine if it was said about a papist. The press would have gone into paroxysm of supraventricular tachycardia. Anway I hope you are wrong when you say a lot of people want to have an emotional relationship with their candidate/president. I mean, I hope that's not what got Lincoln elected. Looking back at our illustrious line of presidents, few seem to have been the type I would want to have an emotional relationship with. Maybe Reagan, maybe Clinton and Kennedy, but what kind of freak wanted an emotional relationship with Nixon, Johnson or Bush I? I doubt even their wives wanted that sort of thing. Heh. Finally Romney looked "slick" when he was standing next to a bunch of frumpy old women like McCain and Fred Thompson and the Rev. Huckster. Perhaps he should have mussed up the hair a bit and worn some old shoes, but that would have not been Mitt. Besides slick didn't seem to hurt "Slick Willy."
By Any Means Necessary
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 9:57AM
The Clinton camp isn't afraid of dividing the Democratic Party to get some extra delegates. They haven't backed away from their position that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated in defiance of party rules -- which, not coincidentally, would benefit Hillary Clinton. As the New York Times reports, this is a move that pits Julian Bond against Al Sharpton.
If this is their strategy for uniting the party, the Clinton machine might as well be a wrecking crew.
Trouble in Hillaryland
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 9:53AM
Both the NY Times and the WSJ have stories out this morning on the fine mess that Hillary Clinton finds herself in. The bottom line is that at this point, it's almost mathematically impossible for Clinton to catch up to Barack Obama in terms of delegates won. She'd not only have to stave off his momentum and overcome his financial advantages to win the remaining big states of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but due to the proportional rules on the Democratic side, she'd have to win by overwhelming margins. However, neither candidate will be in a position to win the required 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination, meaning that everything will come down to superdelegates, and may not be decided until the Democratic convention. While at first glance you'd think that such a scenario would favor the Clinton machine, the reality is that her institutional support within the party has eroded in the past few weeks. If she were to take victory away from Obama with superdelegates, or were she to engage in a protracted battle to have Michigan and Florida seated at the convention, I can only imagine it would turn more Democrats against her.
Second Acts in American Liberalism
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 9:52AM
Don't want to ruin George Neumayr's new piece on Barack Obama for you, so let's just say F. Scott Fitzgerald puts in an appearance.
Well Played, Huck
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 9:48AM
Today, Eric Earling reports on Mike Huckabee's Washington state temper tantrum. In a follow up post on his blog Sound Politics, he writes, "I've been a bit startled by the unsolicited comments I've been getting from local Republicans of all stripes who are genuinely irate at how the Huckabee campaign has chosen to handle this situation. Maybe not startled by the fact people are annoyed, but startled by how they're coming out of the woodwork behind the scenes to express dismay and anger. If Mike Huckabee loses badly here on the 19th, there will be a number of Evergreen State Republicans with big grins on their faces --- not necessarily because they love John McCain."
Mormonism Didn't Sink Romney
Posted by on 2.14.08 @ 9:29AM
Over on our main site, Christopher Orlet argues that "it now seems undeniable that religion played the key role in Mitt Romney's failure to win the Republican nomination or, for that matter, to finish a close second." Orlet reaches this conclusion by cherry picking a few examples of low level anti-Mormon quotes and offering little else.
Let us not forget that Romney snapped his fingers before the election and decided to become a conservative by switching his positions on a litany of key issues, even though his past record was moderate. There were endless gaffes throughout the campaign in which he reinforced the well-earned perception that he would say anything to get elected--from describing himself as a lifelong hunter even though he had hunted only twice, for saying he watched his father march with MLK, for claiming an endorsement of the NRA he never received, etc.
He also failed to emotionally connect with voters. I would go to Romney speeches all year, and talk to audience members after who would tell me they agreed with what he said, but he was "too slick" and "too packaged." It never ceased to amaze me how emotionally tone deaf he was as a candidate, most notable was when he said his sons were serving their country by working to get him elected. I went to a townhall meeting just days before the New Hampshire primary in which a woman said her 26-year old cousin had been paralyzed in a rugby accident, and she asked Romney for his position on stem cell research. Romney responded, "Great, thank you for the question" and he went on with a textbook answer about pluripotent cells without offering any sympathy. Romney's checklist conservatism appealed to desperate conservatives on a cerebral level, but he never reached people emotionally as Huckabee and McCain did. If you want to know why McCain beat Romney, look no further than the final debate between them at the Reagan Library. When they were asked why Reagan would endorse them, Romney recited a laundry list of issues on which Reagan would have agreed with him, while McCain spoke movingly of the importance of having strength of conviction, and how Reagan was attacked when he deployed missiles in Europe just as he was attacked when he was out front defending the surge. McCain formed an emotional bond with voters, and Romney didn't. And a lot of people want to have an emotional relationship with who they vote for. More importantly, if they like somebody personally, they're much more willing to overlook their faults or petty issues like a candidate's religion.
Orlet also writes:
I wouldn't deny that some people refused to vote for Romney because he was a Mormon--just as some people didn't vote for John McCain because they thought he was too old, and some people didn't vote for Mike Huckabee because he's a Baptist minister. But if Romney's record were as conservative as his rhetoric, or if he came across as a bit more human, he would have walked away with the nomination, regardless of his religion.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Catch Me If You Care
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 6:48PM
I was on CBN's "Newswatch" this afternoon discussing the presidential election. Here's the link to the video, though you have to fast forward past a few stories on Roger Clemens, the economic stimulus bill, and last night's returns to get to my segment.
Obama Gets Specific
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 6:44PM
No doubt in an attempt to stave off criticisms that he's all platitudes and no specifics, Obama unveiled his economic plan today. The Clinton campaign notes, correctly, that a lot of the plan is a carbon copy of what she has already proposed, including starting an "infrastructure reinvestment bank." The problem for Clinton is that voters don't really care who came up with something first. John Edwards found this out when for months he argued that his health care plan was nearly identical to Clinton's but the difference was that he was the first one out with a plan. It's kind of the political equivalent of "well, he started it!"
Obama's overall plan is also ideologically similar to the approach Bill Clinton took in 1992, the idea being to advocate government solutions to people's problems without making it appear as though he is a big government liberal. In addition to investing $60 billion in infrastructure over 10 years, $150 billion to "establish a green energy sector," and a $4,000 college tuition tax credit, Obama proposes middle class tax cuts, which will no doubt be used as cover as he advocates repealing the Bush tax cuts.
Some other items of note, "Obama has proposed a fund to offer direct relief to victims of mortgage fraud and would ease the burden on struggling homeowners by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year." The problem is that we already have something like this--it's called the mortgage interest deduction--and all it does is artificially inflate home prices and effectively act as a subsidy for the housing industry.
Also, "Obama will require employers to enroll every worker in a direct deposit retirement account that places a small percentage of each paycheck into savings. Workers would be able to retain this account even if they change jobs, and the federal government will match the savings for working families." This seems very similar to Clinton's government-subsidized 401k proposal. Just as I wondered then, I'll wonder now why it makes sense to force employers to create a retirement account allowing workers to save, but it's a risky scheme to allow a portion of money that is already removed from checks for Social Security to be voluntarily diverted to a portable, personal account.Â
Sorry CPACers...
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 6:27PM
...looks like actually being waterboarded might not end up being an alternative to voting for John McCain. No word on whether the Senate plans to outlaw the Barack Obama option.
How About A Little R-E-S-P-E-C-T?
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 6:07PM
What's bigger news than Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign manager supporting Barack Obama? Beyonce dissing the Queen of Soul. But that's okay. In an era of style over substance, sometimes it's easy to get a little crazy in love.
Albert Didn't Wynn
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 2:48PM
The flip side of nine-term Congressman Wayne Gilchrest's loss in the Maryland Republican primary is the defeat of eight-term Congressman Albert Wynn in Maryland's Democratic primary. Wynn was one of just four members of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote for the Iraq war, he opposed the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan campaign-finance reforms, and he had favored repeal of the death tax. Wynn lost to liberal nonprofit executive Donna Edwards, whom he narrowly beat in the 2006 primary. This time, it wasn't that close.
Even if the presidential race turns into a contest for swing voters, the party's bases seem to be hardening on core litmus test issues. That has to at least be a small advantage for Obama, if he wins the Democratic nod, since his appeal to independents doesn't come from bucking his party's base on the issues, while John McCain's in no small part does.
McCain May Have To Wait Until May
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 2:37PM
In his blogger call today, John McCain said he wants to have the nomination wrapped up soon, but assuming Mike Huckabee remains in the race, an analysis of the delegate math reveals that the Arizona Senator will likely have to wait until at least May to officially secure the nomination.
According to calculations based on RCP delegate estimates, McCain needs 387 more delegates to win the nomination. The upcoming races in Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Mississippi, and the Virgin Islands only add up to 385 delegates. That means that at the very minimum, McCain will have to wait until Pennslyvania on April 22 to wrap things up. However, it may take longer than that.
The tiny state of Vermont, with just 17 delegates, is the only one of those states that is winner take all. Therefore, if Huckabee continues to stay in the race and perform well among evangelicals and social conservatives, he should be able to absorb a bunch of delegates in big states such as Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania. According to my calculations, all Huckabee would need to do is win 16 percent of the delegates through Pennslyvania, and he will force McCain to wait until at least North Carolina on May 6 to capture the nomination. That's almost three months from now. I wonder how long the McCain campaign will keep on a happy face about Huckabee's continued presence in the nomination battle.
Re: It's Your Strategists, Stupid
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 2:17PM
While I woudn't count Hillary out yet -- she could certainly still come back and win the nomination -- two things about this "analysis" jump out at me.
The first is just standard campaign boilerplate, but it still says a lot about the Clinton camp's arrogance: "The reason Hillary is so strong in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania is that her message of delivering solutions resonates strongly with voters in those states." Voters in Connecticut, Virginia, Kansas, Utah, Maryland, Nebraska, D.C., Delaware, Montana, Alaska, etc. apparently don't care about solutions. They just care about niiice speeches.
The second is the trip down memory lane about Democratic nomination contests past. It's true that the candidate with the most delegates wins, but it's also worth noting that 1976, 1984, and 1992 were not two-way races while they were still competitive (the closest is 1984, since Jesse Jackson only won two primaries but was a factor in other states). It's interesting that they don't cite the 1988 example as well, as it might make their point even better -- except then the success rate of these Democratic nominees would drop from two out of three to one in two.
Clinton Strategist: It's Delegates, Stupid
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 2:04PM
Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, just sent out a memo making the case for her path to the nomination. It centers around the fact that she leads in Ohio, Texas, and Pennslyvania--though all the polls cited were taken in January, and do not reflect Obama's latest surge, nor his likely victories in Hawaii and Wisconsin, nor the weeks of campaigning and millions of dollars of ads he will put into Ohio and Texas before March 4., or Pennslyvania on April 22, if necessary.
With that said, here is Penn:
The reason Hillary is so strong in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania is that her message of delivering solutions resonates strongly with voters in those states. Hillary is the only candidate who can deliver the economic change voters want - the only candidate with a real plan and a record of fighting for health care, housing, job creation and protecting Social Security.
The demographics in these states also favor Hillary Clinton. Hillary won among white women by 6 points in Virginia and 18 points in Maryland, and white women make up a much bigger share of the electorate in these states (41% of 2004 Ohio Democratic primary voters, for instance, compared with only 33-35% of 2008 Maryland and Virginia Democratic primary voters). Hillary has also won large majorities among Latinos nationwide - 73% in New York, 67% in California, 68% in New Jersey, 62% in New Mexico, 59% in Florida and 55% in Arizona. Latinos made up 24% of Texas Democratic primary voters in 2004, and may be an even larger share in 2008.
Hillary Clinton has shown that she has the ability and organization to compete financially and on the ground. She raised 10 million dollars in just three days last week, and will be competitive with Barack Obama in fundraising and TV advertising from now through March 4th and beyond. She has a strong organization in each of these key states and endorsements from Governor Strickland, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and former Senator John Glenn in Ohio. Hillary had a huge 12,000 person rally in El Paso last night to kick off her Texas campaign.
Again and again, this race has shown that it is voters and delegates who matter, not the pundits or perceived "momentum." After Iowa, every poll gave Barack Obama a strong lead in New Hampshire, but he ended up losing the state. And after a defeat in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton went on to win by large margins in California, New York, Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Arkansas.
As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates - not the candidate who wins the most states. In 1992, Bill Clinton lost a string of primaries before clinching the nomination. He ceded Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, Arizona, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont and South Dakota. Similarly, in 1984, Walter Mondale also lost a series of major primaries before winning the nomination, including New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Colorado, Ohio, and California. And in 1976, Jimmy Carter lost twenty-three states before winning the nomination, including: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah.
Re: The Stature Gap
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 12:56PM
I think in a McCain vs. Obama race, you can basically toss aside every bit of micro-analysis we might do between now and November, and realize that the election will boil down to something very simple. Either Obama will be viewed as too green and inexperienced, or McCain will be seen as too old and out of touch. Obviously, all of the issues--the economy, health care, Iraq, etc.--will reinforce these impressions one way or another, but it's pretty clear that this is what the campaign will boil down to. I think in the current environment, youth and change beats stature and experience. But a lot can change in the next 9 months--a international crisis, for instance, could make voters place a premium on stature.
McCain Doesn't Rule Out Early Senate Exit
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 12:29PM
Sen. John McCain, on a just completed blogger call, said that while it is his intention to remain in the U.S. Senate, he would take time once he sews up the Republican presidential nomination to consider whether to give up his seat early.
Asked about speculation that he would leave his Arizona Senate seat before the November election, perhaps to make room for outgoing Rep. John Shadegg, McCain did not dismiss the possibility out of hand, but said he would consider the option. He was also sure to emphasize, "Right now I have no inclination to leave the United States Senate early."
As for other matters, McCain noted that he made "significant progress on the delegate count" last night and touted the endorsement of the House Republican leadership today as "another step in the process of uniting the party." He said he understands that he still has a lot of work on that front, but is confident that he'll be able to achieve unity.
McCain also remained unwilling to exert pressure on Mike Huckabee to leave the race. "I respect him, I like him," McCain said. "I will not in any way try to dissuade him from continuing his campaign." He acknowledged, though, that "my understandable inclinations are to get this thing wrapped up as quickly as possible."
Other topics discussed included:
VP Selections--McCain said he hadn't started the process yet, that he's too superstitious and has been too focused on securing the nomination.
Mitt Romney -- McCain's staff has been in touch with Gov. Romney's staff over an appropriate time to meet.
FISA, and Barack Obama's judgment --McCain said that if the government comes to a company and asks them for information citing national security reasons, they are going to hand over the information, and should be legally protected. He didn't want to say whether Obama had the judgment to be commander in chief, but said Obama would have to be judged by his record, and he was wrong when called for withdrawal from Iraq, he was wrong saying the conflict couldn't be won militarily, and wrong on saying the Iraqi government couldn't function. He said their disagreement on the eavesdropping vote is just "one of many stark differences" between the two candidates.
Gitmo tribunals-- McCain said he is in favor of the tribunals, and that these individuals do not deserve the same legal rights as U.S. citizens. The tribunals are "appropriate, and they are the way to address these types of cases." He just wishes we hadn't waited so long.
Continuing blogger calls: "You were the only ones who would listen to me for a period of months, you think I'm gonna bail on you?"
The Stature Gap
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 12:25PM
Jennifer Rubin makes an argument that you're going to hear frequently if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee: Obama doesn't have the experience or credentials to serve as wartime commander in chief, especially when compared to John McCain. Obama would indeed be the greenest major party nominee since Jimmy Carter, maybe even Wendell Willkie, and McCain would be particularly well situated to make an issue out of his "opponent's youth and inexperience."
It's an important part of defeating Obama, but it won't be sufficient. For one thing, even after the surge, most Americans want to reduce rather than increase the U.S. commitment in Iraq. They see the "realities we face" differently than McCain does. Changing that narrative may be important than pointing to his experience doing things voters don't like. Secondly, this is the very same argument that many conservatives made -- to no avail -- in defense of George H.W. Bush against Bill Clinton. Granted, Clinton was more experienced than Obama and 1992 was a peacetime election. But given the voters' attitudes about the war and occasional willingness to overlook stature gaps, I'm not sure this is an insurmountable disadvantage.
Huck is Thinking This:
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 11:08AM
Philip,
As much as I have been a critic of Huckabee, I don't think it is
fair to say that "it is mathematically impossible for him to win."
It is only impossible for him to win ON THE FIRST BALLOT. But his
whole point is that until McCain has a first-ballot nomination
sewed up, he (Huck) may as well keep fighting. If nobody wins on
the first ballot, all bets are off, and anybody can win, including
people not even in the race. Of course it is a longshot, but it
isn't impossible. Huck is merely acting out Yogi Berra's dictum
that it ain't over til, well, you know....
Here's the deal: McCain could have a health scare. McCain could be
blown out of the water by the long-awaited NYT expose. McCain could
have one of his temper tantrums and make people desperately search
for an alternative. All sorts of things could happen between now
and the convention.
Me, I would prefer McCain as the nominee to Huck. But I am all for
doing everything possible to let the convention actually act as a
convention, meaning letting the delegates actually have a chance to
exercise their discretion. Every four years I get frustrated that
candidates pull out too early -- which is even a worse thing when
the contests are all so early. I mean, it is absolutely crazy for
us to be less than halfway through February, with a convention not
until September (or late August -- when the heck is it, anyway?),
and for us to already have a nominee-designate.
So, although I am no fan of Huck's, I can put on my neutral analyst
hat and say Go Huck Go!
Re: What Is Huckabee Thinking?
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 10:38AM
I think the desire to come in second is part of it. But I think a larger motivation is to establish himself as an undisputed leader of the populist, socially conservative wing of the party. There is an opening and he can fill it at relatively little cost to McCain, who is getting closer to clinching anyway. Huckabee hasn't really gone negative against McCain but he has established himself as a spokesman for Republicans the other candidates haven't reached and professional conservatives don't understand. The longer Huckabee can go on collecting primary votes and delegates without -- key caveat -- embarrassing himself, it makes sense for him to continue. At least until McCain finally secures the nomination.
What Is Huckabee Thinking?
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 10:26AM
Byron York has a column on Mike Huckabee's efforts in the coming weeks, which are focused primarily on Texas. The question is, now that it is mathmatically impossible for him to win, why is Huckabee sticking it out? My best guess is that right now, he trails Mitt Romney by 45 delegates, according to RCP estimates, and Huckabee wants to stay in long enough so he can claim the second place. Texas alone has 140 delegates that are allocated proportionally.
Somebody Woke Up A Frontrunner!
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 10:12AM
The GOP unveils its Obama Spend-O-Meter.
Big Expose on Class-Action Firm
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 10:11AM
My boss at the Washington Examiner, Mark Tapscott, today starts
an absolutely top-notch series on a little-known "legal education"
outfit called ILEP that seems to be buttering up judges and others
for favorable treatement for class-action suits, especially for
those involving principals (or former principals) of the
now-disgraced Milberg Weiss firm. Today's installments are here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
and here.
And there is more to come in the next few days.
One other note: The articles a few times mention, quite favorably,
the "Prviate Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995," which cited
Milberg Weiss "as evidence why the legislation was needed"; and top
partner William Lerach, who was sentenced to a prison term just two
days ago, mentioned that act in his pleadings as one reason why (he
claimed) he stopped breaking the law after 1995. And who was the
author of that act, passed over President Bill Clinton's veto, an
act that now looks better and better as time goes on? Chris Cox,
now chairman of the SEC, and an excellent potential choice to be
John McCain's running mate.
One Of World's Most Wanted Terrorists Killed
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 9:38AM
This is huge:
Hillary's Rough Road
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 9:28AM
Given that I declared an end to the era of the Clintons right after Iowa, only to eat my words a few days later in New Hampshire, I'm somewhat hesitant to write off Hillary's chances of winning the nomination. But I will say that right now, she certainly has her work cut out for her.
After last night Barack Obama has attained a 41 delagate lead, according to Real Clear Politics, even when you include her advantage among superdelegates who can still change their votes. Among actual delegates won, he's up 125. Next week, an additional 94 delegates are up for grabs in Wisconsin and Hawaii, and Obama is poised to take a bulk of them. Hawaii is his native state and Wisconsin is a very liberal state with a huge college population. I just looked at Clinton's schedule through Friday, and it doesn't even look as though she's contesting Wisconsin, because all of her time will be spent in Ohio and Texas. Those two huge states that vote on March 4 have 334 delegates, to be sure, but given the proportional allocation rules on the Democratic side, Clinton will not only have to win, but win big to be able to catch Obama in the delegate race. And she'll have to do it while he has more momentum, more money, more enthusiastic supporters, and adoring media coverage. Also, one of the things that Clinton had going for her in this election is the air of inevitability, but what we've seen so far is that the more beatable she looks, the more her support erodes. Now that she finds herself the underdog, she loses all of the bandwagon support. Will voters who were supporting her because she was a winner stick with her now that she looks like a loser? If she loses those states, I don't see how she justifies sticking it out another 7 weeks for Pennslyvania.
Like I said, I've learned to be cautious about writing her off, but at this point Hillary Clinton certainly has a steep and thorny path to the nomination.
Uh Oh. Now Jack's Going To Have Feelings!
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 8:50AM
24 creator and self-described "right-wing nutjob" Joel Surnow won't be returning to the show post-writer's strike. There have been all kinds of whispers about liberal navel-gazing replacing torture as the show's untreatable narrative tick--although, if you're like me, liberal navel-gazing is torture and the show should still work.
At any rate, now seems as good a time as any to point readers to Phil Klein's piece on an enlightening afternoon with Surnow. Meanwhile, my bit on the writer's strike that apparently set off this counter-revolution lives here.
The Today's Hero Award
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 8:37AM
I'm calling it for Brian Williams.
Williams came on MSNBC last night shortly after Chris Matthews
admitted that during Barack Obama's victory speech, "I felt this
thrill going up my leg." The even-toned anchor could have let the
excitable Hardball host's line drift away and simply got onto the
business of...well, reporting actual news. Instead, he followed
up:
WILLIAMS: Well, let's talk about that feeling Chris gets up his leg when Obama talks, for starters.
OLBERMANN: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
WILLIAMS: That seems to be the headline of this half hour.
Congrats to Williams for winning this presitigious AmSpec blog honor. And thanks to NewsBusters
for the transcript.
Too White to Check
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 7:40AM
In his writeup of CPAC day two for Radar, Marty Beckerman reported, "The only black man I see over the course of the day cleans the restroom." I don't see how that could be true. When you walked into the CPAC exhibit hall, the first booth, right next to the Spectator booth, was for a black Republican group, and many speakers, authors, and attendees were obviously black. To name three off the top of my head, you had Ohio's Ken Blackwell, Angela McGlowan, and the Rev. LeRoy Thomas. But Beckerman decided to paint CPACers as a bunch of lily-white bigots and didn't let the facts get in his way.
Gilchrest Loses In Maryland
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 1:28AM
The Club For Growth-backed Andy Harris has defeated incumbent Republican Rep. Wayne Gilchrest in the primary in Maryland's first Congressional district. The race was one of the more closely followed Republican primary contests this cycle, because it was seen as an early test of how Republican incumbents who turned anti-war would do.
HisPanic Button
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 12:55AM
According to J.P. Freire, Geraldo Rivera has written a book, but I think he's pulling our legs.
Riddell Me This
Posted by on 2.13.08 @ 12:44AM
Over on the Spectator main page today, we feature the work of two new contributors. Peter G. Riddell examines the recent statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the possibility that Britain might incorporate Muslim law into the common law. Elizabeth A. Terrell looks at No Child Left Inside, a plan to tax televisions, video games, and such to fund outdoor education programs, and wonders Whatever Happened to the Inner Child?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Scenes from the Party
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 11:05PM
Here's a sense of perspective around the room as John McCain was getting introduced.
Re: The Contrast...
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 10:42PM
That's an excellent point, Philip. Truth is, it's a small room, not a large auditorium, and it was packed tight only when everyone was here. Obama has more star-power, definitely. The crowd here was fairly reserved, not incredibly excited. But then, no one was really surprised by the outcome.
McCain's speech
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 10:38PM
This was clearly a preview of the talking points McCain is going to run against the Democrats. His speech focused on how he doesn't believe that government has all the answers, which is shocking, SHOCKING, to find out. But the real dig was at Obama, who was implicated in a not-so-veiled statement where McCain said he didn't come to this campaign as someone chosen for the nomination.
The Contrast...
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 10:11PM
between the wild scene at the Obama rally--the massive, enthusiastic, and chanting crowd in the large auditorium--and the rather subdued McCain affair at an Alexandria hotel, is a stark reminder of the challenge Republicans face in November.
McCain Stumbles Forward
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 9:57PM
As I predicted last week, Mike Huckabee kept John McCain close tonight in Virginia (McCain may BARELY, if he is lucky, end up with 50%), after beating McCain in two out of three contests this weekend while barely losing to McCain (who got only 26% of the vote in his "victory") in the third. The networks indicated earlier that it might even be closer still, so now they are turning on a dime and saying, wow, McCain's victory was "larger than anticipated." That is hogwash. The win is MUCH, MUCH smaller than ALL the idiotic polls were showing, and thus much smaller than anticipated -- up until the anticipation changed just three hours ago. What really happened is that McCain badly underperformed (except compared to what I personally predicted). This means that McCain still has a long, long way to go in solidifying his base.
There will be a great deal of time for people to weigh in even more on what McCain needs to do to garner the enthusiasm of the people who usually do all the legwork in campaigns. Most of the analysis so far, though, has set up a false scenario. The analyssts say that McCain has a problem because the more he changes his positions to placate conservatives, the more he costs himself among independents; and vice versa. They miss the point. What McCain needs to do is less to move rightward on issues (although that would be nice) than to make amends in TONE and RESPECT to conservatives. He can say, look, "on some issues of principle we just disagree, and I hope you understand that I am acting due to principle just as you are. BUT, and here is the new thing, I now realize that in my fierce defense of my stances, I have not always shown enough realization that you, too, were acting out of principle. I may have let my fighting spirit get the best of me. I will not apologize for my issue stances, but I WILL and do express regret for the tone in which I sometimes expressed my disagreements with you. I made it sound as if you were my adversary, rather than as if we were having an honest and respectful disagreement among friends. Look, I can't change who I am. But I can change how I fight. And I also change how I listen, so that maybe we can find at least some common ground in areas where we at first appear to be completely apart. All those things I vow to do, and I ask you to hold me to it."
Something like that.
Bush-McCain Republicans
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 9:53PM
That's a term that Obama just employed in his victory speech.
UPDATE: Also says McCain is an American hero, but bound to the failed Bush policies. Brings up the 100 year war comment.
At McCain's Party in Old Town
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 9:39PM
The crowd is milling about anxiously awaiting John McCain's arrival at the podium. I've spoken with a few McCainiacs who are excited about the news that he's won Virginia. Senator George Allen has made an appearance to show his support -- interesting to see him in this area, considering how badly he lost it in 2006. Currently, we're being forced to listen to recent hits from U2 while we wait. If anyone was concerned about John McCain's environmental policy, this is not a good sign.
To the Center, To the Right
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 7:41PM
If the Virginia exit poll numbers hold up, it looks like Mike Huckabee carried self-described conservatives (including two-thirds of those who consider themselves "very conservative") while John McCain won two-thirds of the moderates and about half of the primary voters who are "somewhat conservative."
UPDATE: Byron York has the geographic breakdown.
Virginia Exit Polls A Nightmare for Clinton
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 7:20PM
Obama wins the female vote, and barely trailed among whites 51-48. There's no reason why Hillary Clinton should be getting this trounced in Virginia.
Virginia Primary
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 7:06PM
The polls just closed; Obama wins easily.
The Republican race is too close to call. It seems that Huckabee's base is still turning out.
There's Always The Sex Worker Show To Fall Back On
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 5:55PM
Gene Nichol is out as president of the College of William & Mary, after a term that saw crosses hauled out and sex workers hauled in. Or, as the Center for American Progress blog put it, "Right Wing Succeeds In Campaign to Bring Down Progressive College President."
By the by, if you can handle the blue language, I wrote up the Sex Workers Art Show that caused all the fuss last year.
McCain The Radical Right Fringe Candidate
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 4:44PM
As I mentioned before, the left is starting to try to portray McCain as a closet scary ultra conservative.
Now Arianna Huffington joins the growing chorus:
I hate to be the one to break up a love affair, especially with Valentine's Day just around the corner, but I can no longer stand idly by and watch the media and independent voters continue to throw themselves at the feet of John McCain.
The John McCain they fell in love with in 2000 -- the straight-shooting, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may maverick - is no more. He's been replaced by a born-again Bushite willing to say or do anything to win the affection of his newfound object of desire, the radical right.
Organic School Lunches: Good. Marines: Bad.
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 4:00PM
Congressman John Campbell (CA-48) led a bloggers briefing at the Heritage Foundation today. Campbell is the major House force behind the "Semper Fi Act", which would remove $2 million of earmarks from the city of Berkeley, California and give them to the Marines.
The Berkeley City Council, in late January, passed a resolution calling the U.S. Marines "unwanted and unwelcome intruders" in the college town, and "encourage[d] all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink, that may volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley."
And what would Berkeley have used the $2 million for? Well, $243,000 of it is specifically earmarked to pay one local restaurant to provide "organic" lunches for Berkeley Public Schools.
And apparently Berkeley's attachment to gourmet-quality organic fare is more powerful than its distaste for the Marine presence. Tonight the Berkeley City Council is convening, once again, to "reconsider" the resolution. When asked by AmSpec Managing Editor J.P. Freire when we can expect to see similar bills stripping earmarks from San Francisco, or Madison, Wisconsin, or any number of other cities nationwide, Campbell allowed that Berkeley was an extreme case that can be used to shine the light on the problem of earmarks in general.
Plus, they attacked the Marines.
But what of the idea that earmarks are "just" 1% of the budget?
"Only in Washington," said Campbell, "is $30 billion dollars considered no big deal."
More Bad News For Hillary
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 3:51PM
A new Wisconsin poll shows she trails Obama by 11 points, losing both among whites and women. The only demographic group in the poll she is winning is voters who are over 65.
Eavesdropping and '08
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 3:24PM
Today, President Bush won a vote in the Senate that would give phone companies that cooperated with the terrorist surveillance/warrantless wiretapping program legal protection. According to the roll call, John McCain voted for legal protection, Barack Obama voted against it, and Hillary Clinton, who recently criticized Obama by arguing his "present" votes in the Illinois Senate showed he refused to take responsibility, skipped the vote. She was eager to get to Texas.
The Left and McCain
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 2:33PM
This is rich. Over at the American Prospect, Paul Waldman laments that Barack Obama won't get as favorable coverage in the media as John McCain. The column argues that the media is in love with McCain becuase they think he's a "maverick" but in reality he's that dreaded beast--a "reliable conservative." I imagine that as the months go on, we'll start to see a lot of stories about how McCain is actually a right wing radical after all.
But I just wanted to take issue with one specific point Waldman makes:
So too with the perennial topic of flip-flops. When he ran for president in 2000, McCain decided to skip the Iowa caucus, and noted his opposition to heavy government subsidies of ethanol, made from Iowa corn (a topic of frequent presidential candidate pandering). But in the current campaign, McCain did contest the Iowa caucuses, and by an extraordinary coincidence changed his position on ethanol 180 degrees.
In actuality, McCain still opposed ethanol subsidies this election cycle. If you wanted to pin him as a flip flopper, doing so on the Bush tax cuts and immigration would be easier.
Taking The Talkers To Task
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 12:42PM
In today's WSJ, Mark Helprin, takes aim at talk radio show hosts who keep hammering away at John McCain. Helprin argues that "Ostracism following tests of 'right thinking' is a specialty of the left" and writes that, "John McCain, even though he is conservative has an 80% positive rating from the American Conservative Union but who as a truly independent soul does not fit, at the margins, some of the transient notions of what makes a conservative"
The choice, to Helprin is:
One can agree or disagree with his peripheral positions, but political orthodoxy is political death. If those who are in a hissy fit about Sen. McCain would rather have Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, they will get Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton -- how delightful to go to jail for building your house on land once visited by an exotic moth -- and they will wake up to a great regret, as if in their drunkenness they had taken Shrek to bed.
I agree with Helprin that one of the negative aspects of talk radio is that there's often the echo chamber effect, whereby conservatives can no longer engage in serious challenging debates with each other because anybody who disagrees with what is considered conservative orthodoxy is driven out of the movement. And I do think that the hatred of McCain is overblown, especially given the fact that talk radio got behind Mitt Romney, whose conservative credentials, in my view, were even more suspect.
However, I would take issue with some of what Helprin said, because I don't think that all of the problems conservatives have with McCain are "peripheral." While I've been more sympathetic to McCain than some because national security concerns trump everything else in my mind, I respect the fact that a lot of conservatives who are opposing McCain are doing so because they believe it is important to put their principles ahead of blind loyalty to the Republican Party. I think that's a good thing. In the end, most conservatives will get behind McCain, given the alternatives. But it doesn't mean that have to do so after the first date--they may as well play hard to get and see what other concessions they can extract from him.
At Least They Give Them Fake Hydrants
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 12:29PM
Behold the posh relief area of Westminster Dog Show contestants.
"The Sex Workers In My District Objected"
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 12:27PM
Ivan Osorio posts a nice bit on Tom Lantos over at the CEI blog with a link to the congressman's scathing speech at the opening of the Victims of Communism memorial.
Tom Cole To Obama: Wanna Bet?
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 11:24AM
Here's my interview with Rep. Tom Cole, in which he pours cold water on the idea that Barack Obama could attract Republicans in November (Obama calls them"Obamacins").
Cole: Obama Is Not 9-Feet Tall
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 10:45AM
Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, argued at this morning's American Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast that Sen. Barack Obama would be a weaker general election candidate than Sen. Hillary Clinton because of his inexperience and extreme liberalism.
"I do not see (Obama) as some 9-foot tall, overwhelming candidate," Cole said.
Although he described Obama as a "phenomenon," Cole was skeptical that the level of enthusiasm the Illinois Senator was generating would last through a long general election campaign against a tested politician like Sen. John McCain.
He noted that Obama has a more liberal voting record than Clinton, that he has the "thinnest public resume of any presidential candidate since Wendell Willkie," and that he is not a plausible commander in chief.
Clinton, he said, would actually be a stronger candidate, because she has already been vetted.
As far as congressional races, where Republicans have fewer financial resources than Democrats and already face the retirements of 29 members, Cole wouldn't allow himself to give into doom and gloom.
"I didn't come here to preside over the liquidation of the Republican Party," he said.
Cole argued that while the retirements present challenges, they occured mostly in safe Republican districts, and would provide the party with an oppourtunity to bring new blood toWashington.
He also said that the presidential race has been unfolding well for Republicans, because he believes the primary process has moved McCain further to the right on border security and making the Bush tax cuts permanent. He said he believed that Republicans would rally around McCain in the end, because he is much better than the alternatives.
I will have some video up shortly of an interview I conducted with Cole.
UPDATE: Video here.
Sincerity. Or A Used Maxima Bribes No One
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 10:44AM
Bill Lerach, the once-powerful attorney set to be
sentenced today after pleading guilty to conspiring to obstruct justice with a
class action kickback scheme, can’t be all bad: After all, our own Ben Stein—along with
Sen. Carl Levin and Ralph Nader!—has written a letter attesting to the man’s
character to accompany a leniency filing. Nevertheless, the ruminations
of some of these character witnesses unearthed by the Wall Street Journal’s always fantastically entertaining
Law Blog seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. Here are a couple
examples:
When he bought a new car, he gave me his Maxima instead of trading it in.–Kathryn Lichnovsky, Lerach’s secretary for almost 30 years.
Every day Mr. Lerach makes us a big pot of coffee and gives
us juice, fruits, pastries, cookies.–Encarnacion Lopez Sanchez, Lerach’s
gardener
I will close by providing the Court with Mr. Lerach’s
response to my pleas to return as his associate in the summer of 2006 . . .
‘Money makes people a******* Mary. That is why I would not pay you the money
you insisted you were entitled to.--Mary Blasy, a former associate with
Lerach’s firm.
Ah, so sometimes cheapness is just another method of
character building. Interesting. I thought that line of thinking went out of style at the end of A Christmas Carol. Judging my own experiences in journalism along
those lines I realize I should technically be a much better person than I am
by now or at least less of an a******, anyway. Or perhaps I have only gotten to the level where I deserve a used Maxima. It is so difficult to judge one's own worth.
An aside: These references remind me of the online
Attack of the Jew-Eating Rabbit
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 10:00AM
Can't say that those folks over at Hamas TV don't think of creative ways to teach children to be terrorists:
Via LGF.
Read All About It
Posted by on 2.12.08 @ 1:10AM
Over on the Spectator main page, the
cover links to a Mark
Falcoff review of our publisher's new book on the history of
the conservative movement, which officially launches today. Writes
Falcoff, "Although I find myself in accord with most of Regnery's
interpretations, some of them would be regarded as idiosyncratic
even by people who consider themselves conservative."
Then Falcoff supplies the litany: "[Regnery] frankly regrets American entry into the First World War, which he sees as having established the circumstances that led to the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Adolf Hitler. He objects to domestic institutions like the income tax, direct election of senators, and many innovations of the Progressive movement (in which he locates the origins of vote-buying through redistributionist policies). He takes many Republican icons to task -- most notably Herbert Hoover and Dwight D. Eisenhower -- for veering too far from their stated philosophies. (Hoover, he explains, really became a spokesman for conservative ideas once he left the White House.) He reminds us that the Nixon administration -- whose unlovely fruits included an embrace of the Brezhnev Doctrine, wage and price controls, creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, and minority set-asides -- was (not surprisingly) devoid of any movement conservatives; indeed, many of the latter didn't even want their president reelected in 1972. ('It was not that people liked Nixon -- nobody ever liked Nixon,' he writes in one of his more lapidary phrases, 'but that they were appalled by McGovern.') The one movement conservative who managed to be elected to the White House, Ronald Reagan, was (not surprisingly, in Regnery's view) the most successful."
It's probably too long a list for Falcoff to have indicated what
items he found idiosyncratic and what ones he agreed with without
turning the paragraph into a structural atrocity. It looks to me
like he bunched the "not so much" items near the top and the
"agree" items near the bottom, which would put American involvement
in World War I into the "idiosyncratic" column. So I'll bite:
Outside of a few neoconservative intellectuals, does the larger
mass of American conservatives really believe our intervention in
that war was a good idea?
Monday, February 11, 2008
McCain, Kerry, and the 100 Year War
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 6:34PM
When I was walking out of the Obama speech this afternoon, I began to wonder whether there was a danger that McCain's comments in New Hampshire about being fine with a 100-year U.S. presence in Iraq would come back to haunt him in the general election like John Kerry's infamous, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
In 2004, Kerry's complicated legislative explanation for his statement didn't matter, because the remark fit in perfectly with the narrative that he was a flip-flopper at a time when a nation at war needed a strong commander in chief who would stick to his convictions. Even though McCain's reasoning makes sense--that we still have troops in Japan and South Korea, but few people make a fuss, because there aren't large casualties--the details will get lost in all the noise, because the statement reinforces the sense that McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq forever at a time when a majority of Americans want out. Of course, I hope I'm wrong, but Obama has clearly been hitting this 100 year war thing hard.
Shadegg Can't Retire!
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 6:08PM
This just can't be happening.
John Shadegg is still very young. Why in the Lord's name is he retiring? This just makes me ill. Will the last good conservative officeholder please turn out the lights before exiting stage right????
Bush Endorses McCain
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 5:57PM
Jeb, that is. Just another example of how the Republican establishment is rallying around McCain now that he is all but officially the nominee.
A Clinton Classic
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 5:55PM
Below, I mentioned the memo from chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn on why Hillary would be a stronger candidate against McCain. The arguments are so juvenile, that the document is worth excerpting in greater length. I think my favorite part is the section on why Hillary is more electable because lots of people already hate her:
Sen. McCain Will Run on National Security; Hillary Wins That Argument. When it came to national security, "strong and wrong" won out over "right and weak" in the 2002 and 2004 elections. With Hillary, that is not and will not be an issue: Based on what they know of her and her experience, voters believe Hillary is fully ready to be commander in chief. She will be strong and right. Voters know she has the right policies - ending the war in Iraq, re-establishing our relations with our allies - and they know she has the strength of leadership that America's next president will need in a world that can turn dangerous in an instant. As such, the Republicans will not be able to play the national security card against Hillary Clinton, like they are now doing against Senator Obama, and that makes her a fundamentally stronger candidate against John McCain. Case in point is what George Bush said on Sunday morning about Sen. Obama, "I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad." With Hillary, the Republicans' national security argument blunted and the election debate will shift to healthcare and the economy - areas of decisive strength for Hillary.
Sen. Obama's Negatives Will Rise; Hillary's Are Already Factored In. Sen. Obama himself has been saying that even after a year, voters in places like Texas and Florida don't really know him that well. So how much do independent voters know about Barack Obama, his voting record and his past positions? Even less than Democrats know. For example, he recently told voters in Idaho that he favors the Second Amendment - but he didn't mention that, in the past, he supported a complete ban on all handguns. If he were the nominee, the Republican attack machine would have immediately rolled out his full record - and his independent Idaho support would have evaporated. So far, the Republicans have been laying low. Sen. Obama has never faced a credible Republican opponent or the Republican attack machine, so voters are taking a chance that his current poll numbers will hold up after the Republicans get going. With Hillary, the GOP has already tried just about every attack and has failed. Those attacks are already factored in her ratings, where she remains competitive against Sen. McCain. But when it comes to Sen. Obama this is a big unknown, and the likelihood is that his negatives will rise.
'Tough' Obama Slams McCain
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 5:46PM
COLLEGE PARK, MD -- Speaking to a pumped up crowd of more than 15,000 at the University of Maryland's Comcast Center this afternoon, Barack Obama took aim at likely Republican nominee John McCain as the two remaining Democratic candidates continued a fierce battle over who is the most electable in November.
"Senator Clinton says, '...I've been around a long time, so I can go after the Republicans, and I'm tough,' Obama said, paraphrasing one of Clinton's common arguments about why she would be stronger in a general election. "Well, let me tell you something. I may be skinny, but I'm tough too. I'm looking forward to mixing it up with John McCain."
"I admire Senator McCain's half a century of service to this country," Obama said, in what could be construed as an underhanded reminder of McCain's age. "He is a genuine American hero."
After all the pleasantries, however, Obama launched into an attack that made McCain out to be a Bush clone.
"He wants to perpetuate the failed Bush economic policies, and continue giving tax breaks to the wealthy while we're working up a deficit and people's needs go unmet," Obama lamented. "He wants to continue a 100 year war in Iraq, spending $9 billion a month that can be spent right here in the United States of America."
He also said that he would be better able to attract Republicans. "They call them Obamacins," he joked.
The assault from Obama comes on the same day that Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, released a memo arguing that Clinton was more formidable against McCain because of her ability to withstand the "GOP attack machine," her stronger background on national secuirty, and because her negatives "are already factored in," while Obama's will rise.
Nothing Lasts
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 4:29PM
In yet another addition to the "nothing lasts forever" department, South Korea's top national treasure was destroyed in a fire last night, the International Herald Tribune reports. The Sungnye Gate -- or "Great South Gate" -- was built in 1398 (94 years before Columbus's arrival in the "new world") as the southern entryway into the then-walled capital of Seoul.
And it took but one night of fire to do what invading Japanese and Chinese armies couldn't, despite centuries of takeovers: burn the Korean treasure beyond repair. Foul play is suspected, though no suspects have been named.
We'd All Be Better People Without Money
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 3:38PM
Over at Alarming News watch Karol snip apart the arguments of New York Magazine's Joel Lovell who is, in Karol's estimation, "hoping for a recession so that New Yorkers can stop being so materialistic. Or so he can stop being so materialistic anyway."
Hmm. I say to this, "Eh...you go first."
Waiting for Obama
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 1:14PM
COLLEGE PARK, MD-- I'm here at the Comcast Center waiting for Barack Obama to take the stage at the Comcast Center. The basketball arena, which holds nearly 18,000, is nearly packed other than a small section in the back corner. It really does have the feel of a sporting event, not just the chants of "O-BAM-A" and "Yes We Can!" but they just did the wave! A new kind of politics, for sure. I was running late and missed the cutoff for press credentials, so I'm observing it all from the cheap seats.
Iran Crooner
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 12:49PM
This weekend, the Guardian carried a piece by yours truly that looked at McCain's war hero campaign for the presidency. The argument: It was necessary but risky.
First and Last Dance
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 12:38PM
This takes the prize for most depressing story of the week, and it's only Monday.
Brad Smith on McCain
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 11:51AM
Bradley Smith, the wonderful former FEC commissioner, has a
thorough, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-researched, sober, and
rather lengthy
post up at Red State analyzing the problems John McCain has
with conservatives. It is the best such analysis I have seen yet. I
urge everybody to read it. As Smith notes right at the front, Mona
Charen just wrote a column telling the tale of McCain's incredibly
boorish behavior toward Smith while Smith was wheelchair bound.
Considering that experience, Smith's essay is remarkably
restrained. Read it. Read it. Read it. Even more, if anybody can
make McCain and his top aides read it, they should. It actually is
good advice for McCain, and well-intentioned.
To which advice I would add only four words: Chris Cox for
Veep!
Tom Lantos, RIP
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 11:23AM
Congressman Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor in Congress, has died of cancer.
McCain's Electoral Math
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 10:37AM
John Fund does some speculation about John McCain's ability in the general election to hang on to the states Bush won while taking away some of the blue states. But I think that it is problematic to analyze this general through the lens of what happened in the last two election cycles. Though the 2000 and 2004 races ultimately came down to turning out the base in a few crucial swing states, most presidential elections in the modern era have been won by much more comfortable electoral margins, and decided by independent-minded voters who shifted one way or another. This was pretty much the case from 1964 through 1996 (with the exception of 1976).
It is my strong sense that this election year will move us away from the trend that developed over the last two election cycles, away from an iron clad red state/blue state divide, and back to a time when parties could claim victories in states that at first glance, would seem to be unfavorable terrain.
It's pretty clear that a Hillary Clinton nomination would make things a lot easier for McCain, both because she would instantly unite the Republican Party, and also because he'd be much more formidable among independents. I think that with Clinton as the nominee, a lot more moderate Democrats would vote for McCain than moderate Republicans would vote for Clinton, and the number of anti-McCain conservatives who would be inclined to sit out the election would be minimal. Also, it will be hard for Clinton to argue that she represents change, at a time when that's what Americans desperately want.
With Barack Obama as the nominee, things get trickier for McCain. Though conservatives won't want to see Obama as president, he won't generate the kind of visceral disgust that Clinton would, and thus anti-McCain conservatives would be much more likely to sit things out. Also, Obama is much more appealing to independents. I think a McCain v. Obama race would be a landslide in one direction or the other. It will come down to Obama as the change agent criticizing McCain for wanting more of the same, for wanting to keep us in Iraq for 100 years, for protecting the Bush tax cuts for the rich, etc, and McCain criticizing Obama for being on the outer fringes of the left, and for not having the experience to be commander in chief in a time of war. The age issue will personify this choice dramatically--either Americans will see Obama as too green, or McCain as too old. At the end of the day, one man will win the argument and a huge block of independents will swing in one direction or another, translating into an electoral rout.
Wrong Character Witness
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 10:01AM
The headline this morning is a bit ironic, unintentionally so. President Bush may want to reassure us that John McCain is "true conservative." But how would he know? That's almost like Bill Clinton making pronouncements about whether somebody is a good husband.....
Rock Star Hillary
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 9:54AM
The latest product of the Clinton personality cult, an excruciatingly bad parody intending to humanize Hillary by showing she can be self-deprecating while implying that Obama is all sizzle, but she's all substance:
Via Tapped.
About That Clinton Machine
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 9:43AM
For all the talk about how the Clinton machine would triumph in the end, because the couple and their advisors have all the experience and know how to game the system, right now it appears as though Obama has run a much more savvy campaign. What I'm talking about specifically is the fact that he has been sweeping up all of these delegates by winning by landslide margins in caucus states in which he has been organizing in for months, and Clinton largely ignored. It might very well be a case of overconfidence, with the Clinton campaign assuming it would deliver a knockout blow on Feb. 5 by dominated the massive states, and thus deemphasizing the smaller caucus states, especially those held after Super Tuesday. Clinton has serious problems now, because as her air of inevitability fades, so does her sway over superdelegates.
Sweet, Sweet Vindication Edition
Posted by on 2.11.08 @ 12:49AM
The articles over on the Spectator main page today are all embarrassingly good. Phil Klein got up early to cover President Bush's victory lap at CPAC and John Tabin was there for the rest of the long, listless day. Jay Homnick takes a swing at Hillary's new hatchetwoman Maggie Williams. G. Tracy Mehan III makes the case for a Huckabee vice presidency. Andrew Cline parodies the Clintons' Down Home Southern Strategy. Eugene Methvin explains the virtues of monkey moderation. And the Prowler enjoys the taste of sweet, sweet vindication as James Dobson endorses Mike Huckabee.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Obama Inverts History
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 10:48PM
As Yogi would say, if George Orwell were alive today he'd be rolling in his grave.
Speaking in Alexandria today, Obama scoffed at those who would criticize him for talking not just to our friends but also to our enemies.
Then, to support his point, he "quoted" President John F. Kennedy who "said" 'Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate'.
Perhaps the presumtive author of those words, Theodore Sorensen, who officially joined the Obama brain trust just this week, could send a torch out to Obama and clue him in that he has inverted the correct order of the two phrases, and thus inverted the meaning. Kennedy in his inauguaral address said: Let us never fear to negotiate, but let us never negotiate out of fear. A big difference.
For at least two decades, JFK's cold war hawkishness has been an uncomfortable truth for the "new" Democrats. Maybe Obama has figured out a solution: just give the speech backward - like playing the country/western LP backwards and the good ole boy gets back his woman, his house, and his dog.
Obama Wins Another State
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 7:30PM
Barack Obama has defeated Hillary in the Maine caucuses.
UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias explains why, from a Clintonian perspective, this win and all of Obama's other victories don't really matter.
Re: Re: Re: McCain Is at Least Right on Iraq
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 2:46PM
Quin, That's shifting the goalposts. The statement was that McCain is right on Iraq, in contrast to Huckabee; not that he was right. Last year, you might have had a point. Now, as readers can see below, their positions are not far apart.
Re: Re: McCain Right on Iraq
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 2:24PM
Jeremy,
Well, ANY half-sentient GOP candidate is going to SAY those things now, because of course the surge has has a ton of success. I don't think Huck has a clue, though, based on his Foreign Affairs article. Remember, for all the complaining McCain did about one stray Romney coment on Iraq, Romney announced the very day Bush did his first "surge" speech that he, Romney, supported it. Huck, on the other hand, found NOTHING good to say about the surge then; instead, he complained about what it would do to the state-level National Guard units -- and then he spent nearly another full month hemming and hawing about his position on it. In fact, it was at just about this time last year that Huck went on with Stephanopoulos and Steph tried to pin him down, because Steph said that after about three weeks of Huck statements, he, Steph, still couldn't figure out what Huck's position was -- and Huck AGAIN danced around the questions and really wouldn't answer.
Which is why I think it is safe to give credit to McAngry on Iraq and not to the Huckster.
Sunday Afternoon Fun Link
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 2:16PM
What if the Beatles were Irish?
H/t to the sherbet green blogger.
Re: McCain Is at Least Right on Iraq
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 1:39PM
Here's the link to the
Iraq section of Huckabee's website. The quick, bulleted
summary:
- Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror.
- The Democrats deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda seeks permanent bases in Anbar province to plot and train against us.
- General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraq government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors.
- The surge is a military means to achieve the political end of sectarian reconciliation among the Iraqis.
- Setting a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake. This country has never declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory.
- I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis.
- I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become militarily and financially committed to stabilizing Iraq.
Seems I Saw This Coming
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 1:02PM
So Huckabee wins two out of thre contests yesterday, and barely loses the third. Excuse me while I clear my throat, but I think I said something like that would happen. Some people said, oh, it's over, because Huckabee doesn't have any money. Excuse me, but he has NEVER had any money, directly, and that didn't stop him earlier, either. There is a TON of money on the street for him, though; it's just not being funneled directly through his campaign, but instead through social networks and church networks, etc. The fact is that he has a decent base, and that there is another very solid base of voters who just despise John McCain. Together, those bases equal almost 50 percent in almost every remaining state. And often more than 50%. It's actually pretty simple math, combined with the simple fact that McCain one-on-one against ANY serious Republican would have a hard time getting a majority anywhere.
Not that this makes me happy -- or at least not unless it leads to an open convention that then chooses another nominee altogether -- because, to answer Hunter Baker's humorous remark in the post "Hillyer Kryptonite," yes, I do consider Huck even worse than McCain. McCain is at least right on Iraq and on defense in general (with a few flagrant exceptions), and he is better against big spending. Plus he's a hero, despite all of his other manifold character flaws. And Huck? A huckster. A Huckster who will keep doing well in primaries and caucuses from here on out.
Gag Me With a Spoon (Made in China)
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 11:58AM
The UK is making its athletes sign pledges that they will be deferential to the Chinese government during the Olympic games this summer. No popping off about China's brutal past or its forced abortion policies, for instance. I'm with Radley Balko on this one: "Here's hoping a British athlete signs the oath, then breaks it after winning a medal. It'd be nice to see the British government put in the awkward position of actually trying to enforce the ridiculous gag order."
That Anti-McCain Vote
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 11:45AM
In the states that voted yesterday, Mike Huckabee discovered it was quite large. John McCain won by an unimpressive margin in the Washington caucuses. Whether this trend continues remains to be seen. But McCain looks like he has more fences to mend than can be done in a single CPAC speech.
Monica and the Executive Branch
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 10:46AM
There's continuing bemusement across the republic as Hillary Clinton continues to whoop up her "experience" as a reason she should be elected President.
If experience is the determining factor, the Democrats should consider nominating Monica Lewinsky. The evidence is clear that Monica has logged more time in the Oval Office than Hillary has. So there's no denying that Monica knows a lot about the Executive Branch. Especially Bill's.
Still In Kansas
Posted by on 2.10.08 @ 1:47AM
I got to hand it to Huck -- he's doing quite well in the Louisiana primary and elsewhere. Mitt Romney is showing some signs of life here as well. McCain, Huckabee, and Paul are locked in a tight fight in Washington. Not everyone can have an Obama-style landslide.
