April 06, 2007

4/6: Hurting Their Cause?

On the heals of Rudy Giuliani's public-funding-for-abortions flap, The Corner's John Podhoretz argues that none of the GOP big three (or Fred Thompson, should he get in) really cares "about abortion one way or the other." J-Pod goes on to ask: "...will Republican opinion leaders spend the year 2007 making abortion a major battleground in the nominating process? With the mainstream media following along lapping it up...I think if they do, the GOP is sunk." Don't expect conservative bloggers to heed J-Pod's warning.

Not directly responding to J-Pod, Townhall's Matt Lewis argues the blogger driven discussion of Giuliani's abortion position is good for the GOP: "Debate and argument are healthy for Democracy. And as a conservative, I am happy that we are having these fights now -- rather than in the General Election. Imagine if we didn't find out that Rudy Giuliani was in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion until two weeks before the Genereal Election. ... Enough of the hand-wringing. Politics is tough. Get a helmet!"

GIULIANI: Cleaning Up Another Disaster

Rudy Giuliani's efforts to control the damage from his CNN interview admitting he supports tax payer funding for abortions damage control efforts made some head way 4/5. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posted text of an email sent by Giuliani's campaign to "friends and allies" including: "What I said yesterday is what I've been saying throughout, I think in the last number of months publicly and privately for quite some time ... I also, on public funding or funding of abortion said I would want to see it decided on a state by state basis. And what that means is I would leave the Hyde Amendment in place. It's been the law now, 17, 18 years, it's part of the constitutional balance that I talked about yesterday and the Hyde Amendment leaves the funding issue largely to the states."

All has not been forgiven as far as conservative bloggers are concerned, but they did appreciate the effort:

• Captain's Quarters: "He has the date of the Hyde Amendment wrong (1976, 31 years ago), but if he will not act to end it or expand abortion funding past its limits on the federal level, he may have an argument that will mollify at least some of the people he angered yesterday."
• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "Giuliani's latest statement seems like a significant and welcome climb-down. ... He is even signaling opposition to changing federal policy in the matter, rather than the mere lack of interest in changing it that he had previously expressed. Given the mess he has made of this issue entirely of his own free actions, I think he should probably stiffen that opposition. But then, I thought his pro-life supporters should have insisted on that from the start.

GIULIANI II: The Kids Love Him

Reports from the field continue to trickle in from IA. Race 4 '08sKavon Nikrand has video of Giuliani from Cedar Rapids and blogs: "What struck me the most about Cedar Rapids was the energy Hizzoner showed. After all, this is a man in his sixties who conquered a very serious illness. We walked downtown Cedar Rapids at a fairly brisk pace for over an hour. Mayor Giuliani bounded with energy, which is even more impressive considering that he had flown in from NH after attending an event there earlier in the morning."

Nikrad also reports on a Des Moines stop: "The Des Moines event was a political rally that was very well attended. I agree with Caucus Cooler that the amount of young people in the audience was worth noting (there is no comparison between this rally and McCain's Cedar Rapids rally last month)."

And in SC the Daily Chaser has video of Rudy responding to "two very controversial issues that nearly destroyed John McCain in 2000 - the confederate flag and Bob Jones University." his answers: "On the confederate flag, Giuliani said its a state issue that he should not and would not get involved in if elected President. On Bob Jones, Giuliani said that he did not know if he would accept an offer to speak there because he has not been offered the opportunity. If offered, he would have to consider it. He said that he does not typically turn down speaking opportunities.

HUNTER: A Trade Position Markos Can Love

Race 4 '08s Kavon Nikrad recaps Duncan Hunter's 4/5 blogger conference call, including:

• Rep. Hunter plans to run on a platform of strong national defense, enforcing our borders, and making trade a "two-way" street between the United States and our trading partners.
• Rep. Hunter's trade plan would serve to "level the playing field" in international trade by renegotiating or withdrawing the United States from GATT which prevents the US from refunding the taxes that manufacturing firms pay as other countries do for their own domestic manufacturer's.
• My impression of Rep. Hunter has always been as one of the few honest and yes "real" politicians. This conference call only served to reinforce that impression.

Right Wing NewsJohn Hawkins did not write on the conference call but does post Hunter's "pitch to conservatives on the internet."

MCCAIN: A Good Target

Max Boot's support of John McCain's assessment of the security situation in Iraq is being widely linked to. Captain's Quarters writes: "While he acknowledges that McCain wore body armor and had armed personnel guarding him, Boot points out the obvious -- that McCain makes a good target, but that other assumptions should not be drawn from it."

ROMNEY: Who Knew Hunting Was So Popular in MA?

Revelations that Mitt Romney has only hunted twice in his life, despite claims he is an 'experienced' sportsman, is drawing some righty blogger ridicule. Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit blogs underneath a picture of John Kerry hunting in '04: "Um, Mitt, if you only have been hunting twice, did your cousins really hand you the automatic that you used to allegedly bag the elusive bunny? ... While it's not exactly a "Dukakis in the Tank" moment, do you really want people to think of this picture, but with your face substituted?"

Also in less positive Romney blogging, The Corner's John Hood doesn't like what he's reading about Romney on taxes: "Gotta say that this Des Moines Register account of Romney's speech in Iowa hoisted some warning flags. While I'm very much in the gradual-reform school when it comes to federal taxes, I didn't like seeing Romney call a flat income-tax rate "unfair" and using the term "dream" rather than, say, goal or target to describe a future tax code that is simpler, flatter, and fairer. Giuliani comes across somewhat better in the exchange.

DEM FIELD: If Only They Could Convince 'Generic Republican' To Run

Matthew Yglesias likes what he's reading about the Diageo Hotline poll showing a generic Democrat beating a generic Republican 47%-29%. Yglesias notes that named matchups never poll as favorably for any of the WH '08 Dems, but Yglesias still likes their chances: "Painting your opponent as a member of the political party he is, in fact, a member of seems like one of the less-difficult lines of attack to carry out. Not a no-brainer by any means, but something that can be done. Especially because Giuliani and McCain are both falling over each other to embrace the most important elements of GOP dogma."

EDWARDS: Keep It Simple, Senator

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat fact checks John Edwardssupporters who claim their candidate supports Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill to defund the Iraq war. BTD links to Politico coverage showing Edwards spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield "wouldn't say [Edwards] supports Reid-Feingold" and adds: "This is nice and all, but Edwards can and should make it simple - he should say he supports Reid-Feingold and advocates for even TOUGHER measures. But this is too cute by half. KISS Senator Edwards. Keep it simple."

RCP Blog's John McIntyre has good new for Edwards after looking at RCP's poll average: "John Edwards has quietly halved his distance behind Barack Obama for second place in the Democratic field. Just a couple of weeks ago Obama led Edwards by 14 points in the RCP Average (25.7% to 11.7%). Today Edwards has whacked over 7 points off of that deficit and now trails Obama by only 6.7 points, (Obama 22.1%, Edwards 15.4%)."

OBAMA: What To Do With All That Money?

The Reality Based Community's Mark Kleiman argues Barack Obama could, if he wanted to, use his new found largess to win the IA caucus despite "despite not picking up endorsements from local notables." Kleiman explains: "Last time around, 125,000 Democrats turned out for the Iowa caucuses; that matched the previous high, from 1988. So a candidate who turns out 100,000 of his own supporters is going to blow the field away. ... Starting with precinct-level lists of supporters, an organizer hired for the last two weeks before the caucuses ought to be able to round up 50 attendees. So 2,000 organizers ought to be able to turn out those 100,000 voters. ... Let's say a field organizer has to be paid $750/week ... Then 2000 organizers for two weeks would cost $3 million. Double that to include supervisors and supervisors-of-supervisors ... 10,000 vans and drivers for the actual night of the caucuses, and office space. So it looks to me as if the whole thing could be done for $6 million."

The Washington MonthlyKevin Drum doesn't see Obama pursuing the strategy: "In any case, I doubt Obama will try to win Iowa with huge wads of cash anyway. He'll save it for places like California and New York. In fact, if anything, I'd guess that Obama's experience in community organizing is his biggest asset in places like Iowa and New Hampshire."

RICHARDSON: Nothing's Anemic About Bill

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum argues Bill Richardson "deserves a little more attention" for raising as much money as he did with "virtually no name recognition." Drum: "Sure, $6 million looks anemic compared to the three frontrunners, but in absolute terms that's pretty impressive, isn't it? If he keeps it up, he'll have a plenty big enough war chest to wage a serious campaign."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Just When You Thought You Were Out ...

Fresh off their victory over pressuring CNN to identify James Carville as a "Hillary supporter" netrootersarekeeping their targets on the network for Suzanne Malveaux's coverage of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) trip to Syria. Media Matters case against includes: "Since April 2, Malveaux has wrongly and repeatedly claimed that Pelosi had no "standing" and was not acting in an "official capacity," has attacked the trip as "political theater" and a "political stunt," and has parroted the Bush administration's attacks on Pelosi for going to Syria while ignoring the fact that a Republican-led delegation met with Assad on April 1. Most recently, Malveaux asked whether Pelosi's trip was a "big wet kiss to President Al-Assad."

Daily Kos' Bill in Portland ME writes: "In short, enough is enough. This has been a horrendous week for GOP lies and deception validated and amplified by the traditional media. Let's tell 'em to knock it off."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM II: More Of A Step In The Left Direction

The netroots are in full support of DNC's latest efforts to marginalize Fox News by not sanctioning any debates affiliated with the network. MyDD's Chris Bowers still hopes the CBC will re-think their co-sponsorship of a WH '08 forum with Fox: "Also, obviously, the debate with the CBC is still an issue, but this is a good step in the right direction. It continues to raise the issue of whether or not Fox is a legitimate news outlet, and shows that Democrats have grown slightly less prone to shaking the hand that slaps them."

The Huffington Post's Earl Ofari Hutchinson makes the case for sympathy for the CBC: "The CBC Institute, which has drawn direct fire for the deal, needs the money for its educational programs. And it's the height of condescension to think that caucus members compromise their political beliefs by making the deal, or worse that it turns the caucus into a Fox subsidiary. ... The CBC's oft-stated mantra is that in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. In inking the deal with Fox, the caucus is merely living up to its mantra. And since that's the way the CBC does business, its interest in Fox and Fox's interest in it makes perfectly good sense."

IRAQ: Far From Over

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has a diary up at Daily Kos urging readers to help support his legislation using "Congress's constitutional spending power to force the President to safely redeploy troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008." Feingold pitches: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did a great job getting the supplemental spending bill through the Senate last week. ... But our work is far from over - we have got to keep pushing to end the terrible mistake in Iraq. That next step has got to be Congress using its power of the purse to end the war. ... By agreeing to cosponsor this measure, and by saying that he will work to make sure this bill gets a vote before the end of May, Harry Reid has again shown his strong commitment to pushing for an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq."

Min. Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has a different message up at RedState: "Mr. President, Veto This Bill." Boehner writes: "American combat troops are now being used to grease the skids for spinach growers, citrus producers, tropical fish breeders, and the peanut industry. How proud my Democratic friends must be. Can someone please explain why a quarter-billion dollars for the Milk Income Loss Contract Program belongs in a funding bill for troops under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also at RedState, AcademicElephant recaps a blogger conference call with Major General William Caldwell on "he impact the congressional standoff over the President's emergency supplemental bill will have on our troops." AE reports: "General Caldwell concurred with Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker's assessment that the US Army would begin to feel the funding pinch at the end of April."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Labor Of Love

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner reacts to suggestions in Beccah Golubock WatsonThe Nation article that lefty bloggers should receive more attention from the political funding world:

If, however, one's part-time writing has not attracted a large readership and a passel of advertisers, why is it that The Powers That Be ought to swoop down and fork over some cash to keep you in business? For one thing, you're already in business, meaning the return on investment would be rather minimal. Moreover, almost by definition, the net harm to The Cause of your blog's disappearance from the scene would be negligible.

Moreover, where is the evidence that blogs are going to go away if people can't make a living from them? Most of us blogged for free for years before making more than minimum wage for the time invested. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of blogs being created every day, including small number of readable ones. Where, exactly, is the blogging crisis?

LEST WE FORGET: Pleasuring Others

Mo Rocca posts the winner of his "Explain the Gonzales imbroglio in no more than 25 words" contest, as well as five other entries. The winner and The Blogometer's favorites include:

• Gonzales likely to fire judges... Perhaps he should fire himself... He says he "serves at the pleasure of the president..." He should pleasure somebody else...
• In bizarre love triangle, AG drives non-stop from Texas to DC to fire attorneys not pleasing rival Rove. President pleasured by the service both provide.
• [the winner]: Patriot Act allowed Justice to appoint indefinite replacements. Eight fired seemingly because of failure investigating Dems. White House emails disclosed knowledge after initital, public denial.

Posted by Conn Carroll at April 6, 2007 12:42 PM