March 27, 2007

3/27: Another One Bites The Dust

In December it was Newt Gingrich. In January it was Mitt Romney. In February it was Rudy Giuliani. Now that it's March, Fred Thompson is currently the new leader in the GOP Bloggers straw poll. The Blogometer is starting to notice a pattern here: a new name is mentioned, bloggers fall in love, compromising facts are revealed, and a new name is mentioned. It could be that this ealry 'whack-a-mole' approach to GOP frontrunners might end up producing a stronger candidate in the end. But it also might just demonstrate that nobody is happy with the GOP's '08 options.

GOP FIELD: The Fredinator

Fred Thompson is quickly making his presence felt online. He's currently crushing the competition in early voting in the GOP Bloggers March '07 online straw poll. At deadline the top five vote getters were:

F. Thompson 38%
Giuliani 16%
Gingrich 14%
Romney 10%
Hunter 7%

Comparing these numbers with last month's results, we see Thompson stealing 13 points from Giuliani (previously at 29%), 8 points from Gingrich (previously at 22%), and 9 points from Romney (previously at 19%). Thompson is also the most "acceptable" option for conservative blog readers with 74% indicating they'd be willing to support him (55% of respondents tagged John McCain as "unacceptable").

GOP FIELD II: Who Knew Romney Was So Popular In Vegas?

Townhall's Matt Lewis is eagerly awaiting Q1 fundraising results and previews three possible headlines coming out of the filings:

• Romney/McCain/Rudy raise most, but spend most (remember, you can only spend NET money).
• 50% of Romney's money comes from Utah/Nevada (you may not like this story, but it would be newsworthy).
• Brownback/Gilmore/Hunter are dwarfed by the big three.

GIULIANI: It's A Famous Contest

Conservative bloggers reading recent nat'l and NH polling all conclude Fred Thompson's entry into the race is hurting Rudy Giuliani the most:

• RedState's Hunter Baker on NH ARG numbers: "In February, before there was any talk of Thompson, Giuliani and McCain were in a virtual heat with 27% and 26% respectively. Move to March and Giuliani drops to 19% and McCain drops much less dramatically to 23%. ... Why does Thompson (in this single poll in this single state) gain from Giuliani? One possibility is that both men are famous beyond the simple confines of the political world."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein on Gallup's results: "With Thompson in the race, first place Giuliani drops to 31% from 44% in the last poll from early March, McCain actually ticks up to 22% from 20%. ... I think Thompson eats into Giuliani's support because clearly a portion of Rudy's backers are people who want someone electable, but hate McCain. Thompson offers a viable alternative to McCain who is also hawkish on national security, but is conservative on social issues.

The Brody File asks his evangelical readers if Giuliani's description of himself as a person who "supports parental notification laws and a ban on partial birth abortion; is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and believes marriage is between a man and a woman," is "just a tad bit disingenuous?" Brody continues: "Does the way he portrays himself on his website bother you or do you just chalk it up to political spin just like every other candidate out there?"

HUCKABEE: Why Is He Doing This?

RCP Blog's Tom Bevan posts a 3/14 interview with Mike Huckabee conducted in NH, including:

• RCP: First question: why are you doing this?
• HUCKABEE: Because I really believe this county needs leadership that will restore America to its spirit of optimism, bring practical solutions to many of the problems we face, and that can bring people together from not only other parts of the country but from political parties.
• RCP: And what's the issue that driving you?
• HUCKABEE: The single most important issue is restoring America's faith in itself. This country is at its best when it's optimistic and resilient and when it sees that its greatest days are ahead of it, not behind it.

MCCAIN: Straight Vlog Express

Eye on '08's Soren Dayton and Townhall's Matt Lewis continue their video dump from their weekend trip on the Straight Talk Express through NH. New video includes:

• at Eye on '08, McCain "has harsh words for the House Democratic Leadership on the Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill that they just passed. ... He called the Democratic approach a "new recipe for defeat."
• at Townhall, McCain tell Lewis Ronald Reagan would be "very upset" about the current spending practices of todays conservative movement.
• at Townhall McCain tells Lewis "he absolutely hates the influence of soft money on politics" while discussing campaign finance reform.
• at Townhall, Lewis talks to pastor/ex-state Rep./former Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes supporter Mike Gilman about why he supports McCain.
• at Townhall, undecided state Rep. Stephanie Eaton (R) (who has a 96% NARAL rating) tells Lewis why she is pro-choice but still is considering McCain.
• and finally a Ronald Reagan fan tells Lewis why he supports McCain.

ROMNEY: Mormons Need Not Apply?

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt took issue with a sentence in RedState's Erick Erickson's review of Hewitt's "A Mormon in the White?" The offending line: "If we can expect heavy participation by Mormon missionaries as grassroots activists for an American presidential campaign, why can we not ask questions about Romney's Mormon beliefs and why can Americans not be concerned?"

Hewitt responds: "I find the effort to mainstream religious tests and even religious bigotry to be abhorrent and far outside the political mainstream. ... Erick ignores how Catholic Americans were very enthusiastic over Kennedy's candidacy, and how that was not the occasion for denunciations of Popery or assaults on the miracle of Fatima or Lourdes. ... The attempt to use Romney's candidacy as a step-stool for attacks on the LDS is shocking when it occurs on the left, and worse when it occurs on the right."

Erickson returns fire at RedState: "I understand Hugh's concerns, but I just can't bring myself to find fault in a deeply evangelical Christian who will not vote for Romney because he is not a Christian. Certainly Hugh and I may disagree, but I also understand the Christian who is so deeply committed to his religion that he will not vote for someone outside his religion."

ROMNEY II: Unfiltered Oppo Research Dumps

The American Spectator's Prowler reports Romney booster blog Evangelicals for Mitt "has been using opposition research provided by the Romney campaign, as well as accepting funds from donors steered to the site by the Romney camp."

Race 4 '08's Republius is not pleased that Romney is feeding anti-Mike Huckabee/Fred Thompson stories through E4M: "While I am not yet formally behind any one Republican presidential contender in 2008, I am willing to publicly condemn those GOP candidates who engage in negative campaigning during this process, which is evidently what the Mitt Romney campaign is guilty of."

THOMPSON: Another Pro-Life Conversion?

The Corner continues to link to audio and transcripts of Fred Thompson's Paul Harvey Show radio addresses. His latest on Dem funding for Iraq finishes: "This bill isn't just about funding the war for democracy and freedom in Iraq. It's a political statement. And it's about buying enough votes with pork in order to make that statement. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing, if Congress did have its power cut off every once in a while."

Also The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru and AmSpec Blog's James Antle are fighting over Thompson pro-life credentials. Ponnuru writes: "The evidence that these guys [Thompson and Bill Frist] were once pro-choice is pretty substantial. Why not just admit that they've changed their minds?" Antle responds: "Ramesh Ponnuru is right that there is substantial evidence that Fred Thompson and Bill Frist began their political careers as at least nominal pro-choicers before embracing the pro-life label. That they stressed the pro-life policies they supported when talking to professional pro-life activists doesn't alter this fact. Both Tennessee senators compiled pro-life voting records, something nobody is trying to take away from them."

CLINTON: The Anti-Kucinich

Matt Stollermusings on why Hillary Clinton remains the front runner despite recent remarks "that she will continue a military mission in Iraq" had lefty bloggers comparing the Iraq positions of the Dem big three. Stoller argued: "There is just no way that she can say that she will end the war and that she will continue a military mission in Iraq to contain extremists and ward off Iran. Those are mutually exclusive. ... Whatever you think about the supplemental fight, our party's standard-bearer at this moment does not represent the party or the country. ... I'm just wondering why Clinton is getting a free pass on Iraq."

Ed Kilgore responds: "There's one big problem with Matt's anathema: it would also apply to Barack Obama, John Edwards, and quite a few other Democrats generally considered to be unimpeachably anti-war. ... Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan explicitly calls for a "residual force" to stay in the country to fight terrorists and deter foreign intervention. John Edwards, who has emphasized the need for immediately withdrawing half the current troop deployment, has also talked about a continuing if limited military commitment. ... Dems who basically want to forbid U.S. military force commitments in the Middle East ought to be supporting Denny the K."

Matthew Yglesias basically agrees the big three have no substantive differences on Iraq, but still comes out strongly against HRC: "Now, in a big picture sense, what this emphasizes is the extent to which it would be good to have a president you trusted. ... To me, what separates Clinton from Obama and Edwards on this front is that Clinton appeared to be saying that one mission of her proposed continuing presence in Iraq would be trying to intimidate Iran which sounds more like loophole territory than prudence territory to me." Yglesias also concluded by invoking Kucinich: "If, however, you want the United States to more-or-less entirely abandon the project of projecting military power in the Middle East you really do need to back Kucinich."

MyDD's Chris Bowers was having none of the suggestions that there are no substantive differences between Clinton and Obama on Iraq. Instead he identifies some reasons why HRC is still winning including: 1) Most Democrats do not make Clinton their first choice; 2) Obama actually is making up ground; 3) Clinton still commands the most attention; 4) Clinton camp blurring the lines on Iraq; 5) Obama and establishment media, allowing Clinton to brand herself as anti-war; and 6) It is also important to keep in mind that many voters do not even consider policy questions when selecting a candidate, and instead prefer personal qualities / characteristics.

OBAMA: Playa' Hatin'

Barack Obama doubting is spreading into usually friendly quarters. MyDD's Jerome Armstrong recaps unfavorable reviews from Obama's 3/24 Las Vegas, NV, performance and remembers how Obama "gave a somber non-partisan delivery to a hall full of the most partisan Democrats in the nation" at the DNC winter meeting. Armstrong adds: "It just seems that Obama doesn't have the knack to plays to the crowd, or he just doesn't prepare for doing it."

At The Huffington Post, Tish Durkin says she still "could very well end up voting for" Obama but right now "he fact that everyone loves him" drives her crazy. Durkin continues: "It's that he's new. And just by being new, he can, without promising anything, promise to realize that sweet, recurrent American dream: the dream that after all these years of disillusionment, some untold chevalier is going to ride up to the Capitol on his white horse and, with a brandish of his boldness, kick Congress in its cronyism, and finally, you know, 'bring the country together' and 'get things done' .. Like all rescue fantasies, this one has tremendous power - and tremendous problems when it has the sore luck to hit the light of day."

WEBB: Drinking With Jim

Huffington Post political correspondent Melinda Henneberger dropped by the run on military time offices of Sen. James Webb (D-VA) to talk about his opposition for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Henneberger summarizes: "He is convinced that cutting off funding would be too hard to do in a sufficiently targeted way, and that troop caps "mean you've just given the administration the floor" -- and thus would actually decrease the likelihood of a full withdrawal. Instead, the focus should be on the diplomatic front -- because without real progress there, all the caps and cuts and timetables in the world won't mean much."

Daily Kos diarist Pegasus notes Webb "doesn't support most of the out-of-Iraq methods that are bandied around this site" and queries Kossaks on whether they are "Pissed at Senator Webb?" A relatively small sample shows only 35% of readers are. 27% "just want to have a beer with him."

Finally, Taylor March hits back at Fox News "sissies" who "couldn't even figure out the word for ammunition and how to describe a magazine clip" when trying to report on the arrest of a Webb aide for gun position. Daily Kos' Kagro X adds: "Best possible way to get arrested, I say. Beats Viagra smuggling by a mile, eh Rush?"

PROSECUTOR PURGE: It's The Crime, Stupid

The netroots are hitting back against MSM reports that the "firestorm over the fired U.S. attorneys" is due to by Dep. AG Paul McNulty's failure to follow the company line that the WH "would not comment on personnel issues." Talking Points MemoJosh Marshall responds: "I can almost imagine Harriet Miers pitching the ABC reporter on this nonsense. ... this is the classic case of mistaking the symptom for the disease. As McNulty could see, refusing to give any explanation for an unprecedented firing of multiple US Attorneys with active investigations or prosecutions of prominent Republicans simply wasn't tenable. ..."

Marshall continues: "There's this old line the wise folks in Washington have that 'it's not the crime, but the cover-up.' ... But only fools believe that. It's always about the crime. The whole point of the cover-up is that a full revelation of the underlying crime is not survivable. Enough of this shambling foolery. The controversy wasn't 'sparked' by the break down of the cover-up. The 'controversy' is about the underlying bad acts."

Daily Kos's pontificator picks up on a second angle: "Given this selective release of a single internal White House email (which only could have come from a White House source), it's clear that the White House has waived its claim of executive privilege. You can't claim that a category of documents is protected by a privilege, and then release a cherry-picked few from that category in order to help yourself. If you release some, you have to release all."

PROSECUTOR PURGE II: 'Witch Hunt' Is Not A Defense

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall describes Monica Goddling's letter invoking the 5th Amndt to prevent her testimony before the House Gov't Reform Cmt. as "a sort of witness's nullification." Marshall explains: "the essence of his argument is that the committee has relinquished its legitimacy as an investigative forum and that she has thus unilaterally decided that she will refuse to testify."

Marshall later draws out one possible self-confessed crime Goodling could be protecting herself from, quoting from the letter: "it has come to our attention that a senior Department of Justice official has privately told Senator Schumer that he (the official) was not entirely candid in his report to the Committee, and that the official allegedly claimed that others, including our client, did not inform him of certain pertinent facts." Marshall deduces: "His name isn't stated. But this appears to be a reference to Deputy Attorney General McNulty. ... Here we finally appear to have a bad act that Goodling believes or at least claims may expose her to criminal prosecution -- lying to Congress by proxy by intentionally misinforming an official about to testify before Congress."

PROSECUTOR PURGE III: Think Of All The SPAM They'll Lose Forever

Noting that "about 95% of Karl Rove's email traffic" has been done "using RNC email accounts to get around governmental records archiving regulations" Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall asks, "Can executive privilege even conceivably cover emails from the Republican National Committee? By any definition, those aren't emails written or received by anyone in their capacity as a presidential advisor. They're private and have nothing to do with the president in his executive capacity."

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto is also excited about what the House Gov't Reform Cmt. has ordered the RNC to save the emails: "The White House's use of nongovernmental email accounts and servers to mask their political activities done on government time is about to blow up in their faces. ... Sure, the RNC and Bush/Cheney will now furiously delete all these emails if they haven't done so already, but just the fact that there is a record of such communication means that: 1) it is essential to demand that Rove and others be put under oath to testify to Congress; and 2) claims of executive privilege go out the window if the White House was conducting the allegedly protected communications in a nonsecure, purely political manner through outside cut outs."

PROSECUTOR PURGE IV: The Resignation Watch

Townhall's Dean Barnett and RCP Blog's Tom Bevan joined the growing list of conservative bloggers calling on AG Alberto Gonzales to resign. Barnett writes: "Gonzales and Miers are two of the president's Texas friends, and neither one of them had previously demonstrated the ability to organize a one car funeral. In short, these terminations should have been easy. Thanks to the maladroit efforts of the Dynamic Duo, they weren't. ... The Bush administration should move on from the bumbling and stumbling of the Gonzales era.

The shrinking number of Gonzales supporters aren't even bothering to defend their man. Mark at RedState "Gonzales has done nothing wrong besides giving fumbling answers to reporters' questions. If Republicans are not altogether thrilled with Gonzales, so be it. They must put that aside and realize that there is value in the fight if not in the man. It is time for Congressional Republicans to stand together on this for the sake of the party and its future."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The 50-State Macaca

At TechPresident Bush '02 eCampaign Dir. Michael Turk is worried the GOP is not matching the Dem efforts he learned about from the following email:

Do you remember the George Allen "macaca" video? ... The Democratic Party needs to support that kind of diligent reporting in the new election cycle -- with video crews permanently on the ground in early primary states, for example. What did John McCain say in New Hampshire? Who did Rudy Giuliani visit in Iowa? What did Mitt Romney do in South Carolina? The DNC needs to know the answers to these questions every time a Republican makes a campaign stop, and we have to be ready to take the proper course of action. Let's set up a state-of-the-art operation to bypass the media and take the story of their lies, flip-flops, and out-of-whack priorities directly to you."

Turk responds: "Despite the fact that this is a fundraising pitch, and may be all blow and no whistle, the thought of a 50-state videography plan should actually make Republicans nervous. The sheer volume of footage the Democrats could grab on Republican gaffes at all levels cannot be underestimated."

LEST WE FORGET: Why Do Fools Fall In Love?

Picking up on research form Robert Cialdini's book Influence: Science and Practice showing that people who were asked to write essays in support of a random point of view they did not hold, still held that same view point months later, Dilbert Blog advises his unlucky in love readers:

Go down to the local mall with a clipboard and pretend to be doing a research experiment. Offer $1 to attractive people who will write a paragraph describing how incredibly sexy you are. (Based on the research, you should offer a low dollar amount so people don't think they did it entirely for the money.) Tell participants that the research has to do with handwriting analysis of people who are writing opinions they do not believe. Stop after you get 100 people to do it. That's less than the cost of one meal at an upscale restaurant.

Give the participants your e-mail address and tell them they can get the results of the research study in a month if they contact you. According to the science, about two-thirds of the people who wrote a paragraph on your sex appeal will strongly believe it a month later, no matter how hideous you are. And a few of those people will remember to e-mail you for the results. You'll still have to close the deal, but I think we can agree that I just did the hard work for you.

Posted by Conn Carroll at March 27, 2007 12:42 PM