April 09, 2007

4/9: He's So Running

It may seem quaint to remember now, but there was a time when people (including the Blogometer) were unconvinced Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) was going to run for president. Then Bill Clinton sat down for a lunch with bloggers 9/13, and that was all Team Clinton needed to do to convince us that they were committed to the top prize for '08. The Blogometer has also watched rumors ex-Sen./fake-NY DA Fred Thompson (R) might be making a similar run and up til now we've had our doubts. But now that Thompson is blogging at RedState, we're convinced he's running. And as the Pajamas Media most recent straw poll shows, conservative bloggers are already eating out of his hand.

THOMPSON: Red Meat For RedStaters

Already established in one conservative medium (see his Paul Harvey commentaries), Fred Thompson stepped into the blogosphere 4/7 with a post at RedState titled "The Pirates of Tehran." Thompson blogs: "It is critical that we see this incident as part of a long pattern of behavior -- that will continue as long as the current leadership is in power. ... We need to understand this and use every means at our disposal, starting with serious and painful international sanctions, to prevent Iran's rulers from becoming the nuclear-armed blackmailers they want to be."

Thompson's RedState post is receiving high marks from many leading conservative bloggers, especially for the following dig at congressional Dems and French news agencies: "Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term 'the global war on terror.' What are we - Reuters?" Raves include:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Fred Thompson serves up red meat at red state."
• Captain's Quarters: "The Pirates of Teheran comes as close as anything I've heard to accurately describing the ruling clique in Iran. ... Read all of Thompson's post, and ask yourself this: could he have picked a better way to enter the race, as far as the conservative blogosphere is concerned? If Thompson really still had not made the decision to throw his hat in the ring, he would not bother posting at Redstate. ... This is a clear indication that he has heard the calls from conservatives and will shortly start working on an exploratory committee."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "If after reading that "Pirates of Tehran" blog post and FDT commentary like it, if the right-blogosphere readers could elect[] a president RIGHT NOW I wonder if Fred Thompson's straight talk might just win him the election."

Before Thompson's RedState post was up, Bush '04 eCampaign Dir. Michael Turk, blogging at Kung Fu Quip liked what he had found after looking into Thompson's record. Turk highlights a Thompson address to CATO on the campaign finance scandals of the late 90's and writes: "While I have not yet found any public statements by Thompson on the Cunningham case, Mark Foley, William Jefferson, the constitutional questions raised by the raid on Jefferson's office, and the myriad other scandals of the past few years, I'll keep digging to be sure his CATO speech is consistent with his position on investigations of both Democrats and Republicans."

THOMPSON II: There Are Bigger Issues Than CFR

While support for campaign finance reform remains a major stumbling block for conservative blogger support of John McCain, Thompson seems to be getting a pass on the issue. Race 4 '08s Republius casts George Willcriticism of Thompson over the issue as just the "latest effort of Mr. Will in support of the Giuliani campaign." More Repub: "The one substantive concern with Senator Thompson that Mr. Will threads into his screed is the reminder that the Senator supported McCain-style campaign finance reform and the federal income tax checkoff system of presidential campaign subsidies. Fair enough. However, what Mr. Will fails to tell his readers is that Senator Thompson is becoming a lot more conservative on this issue."

Also taking on Will, AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer urges Will "to get over his hurt feelings about" CFR since "[i]n the great scheme of things, it's just not that big an issue." More Hillyer: "So, forgive me if it sounds rude to my friends on this site, but get over yourselves. There's a war in Iraq, and an evil SOB running Iran, and a KGB brute running Russia, and there are statist, cheap-shot-artists running our own Congress who want to raise taxes, increase regulation, weaken our defenses, socialize medicine, and do terrible things to the judiciary. Start worrying about those real issues, and stop fighting about a bad but relatively unimportant policy choice that Congress and the president made six years ago."

GOP FIELD: There Are Bigger Issues Than Abortion

Defending Rudy Giuliani's federalist position on abortion, NRO's David Frum writes: "May I suggest to my pro life friends that they are looking up a blind alley when they argue over the real inner views of the candidates with respect to abortion? The single most important question pro-life Republicans need to ask themselves is this: What kind of judges and justices would the various candidates nominate, given the likelihood that they will face a Democratic majority Senate?"

Townhall's Matt Lewis responds: "having a Pro-Life president is not only important because of the possibility of overturning Roe - but because a president who believes in a culture of life will support other virtuous things, as well. ... Frum is essentially arguing conservatives should take a pragmatic approach toward elections. This strategy might be sagacious in a "lesser of two evils" General Election environment. But this electoral "surrender strategy" does not seem appropriate at this stage in a primary campaign."

MCCAIN: There's No Bigger Issue Than Iraq

John McCain's decision to launch "a high-profile effort ... to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable" is proving highly popular in conservative circles. The Corner's Jonah Goldberg calls "A Vote For McCain is a Vote For Victory" and Race 4 '08s LJ says "McCain is the only candidate in either party (with the possible exception of Joe Biden) who doesn't shy away from discussing the war." More LJ: "You may not agree with McCain's stance on the war, but at least he is putting the health of this country ahead of any political aspirations that he has. That is the true definition of a patriot."

GraniteGrok's Doug Lambert previews what that campaign might look like posting video from a meeting with Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH) and " a group of relatives, friends, family members, veterans, and supporters of our military." Lambert writes: "Certain media covering the event have chosen to focus on the sometimes elevated passion and emotion that this group of close-knit military supporters brought to the meeting, missing the overall message expressed by the group of desiring a united country supporting the troops and the mission to the end-- an end that finishes with victory."

ROMNEY: Ranting For Romney

IA's Krusty Konservative posts a regular feature from state Rep. Chris Rants (R) which 4/8 included a review of Mitt Romney's recent time with the IA state House GOPers. Rants writes: "I know I'm biased (I announced my support of the Governor last fall) but Romney did far and away the best job of any of the candidates to come to our caucus. He handled the questions thrown at him by a pretty tough audience (we are tough on them all) better than any, and left the caucus - even those supporting another candidate - with a new found appreciation of him."

In other positive Romney blogging, SC's Daily Chaser reports Romney won Beaufort County GOP straw and awards Romney the "Best Week Ever" award due to "MO coming off the fundraising news cycle."

DEM FIELD: Always Be Closing

MyDD's Chris Bowers attempts to explain why GOP candidates keep narrowly winning in named "general election matchups between the five top tier, high name recognition, Democratic and Republican candidates" while an unnamed Dem candidate crushes an unnamed GOP candidate 40%-22%. Bowers argues:

First, the Republican coalition is teetering on the brink of total collapse, as less than half of its members are sold on the individuals with the potential to become coalition leaders. Second, Democrats have not yet made the sale to swing disaffected members of the Republican coalition to our side, as otherwise we would maintain our large leads even when names and prompts are included in the question. ... Third ... it means that at the current point in time, progressive and Democratic voters / activists are politically engaged, committed, and self-starting to a degree far surpassing conservative and Republican voters / activists.

EDWARDS: Tax Man

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent reported 4/6 that John Edwards was the first Dem WH '08er to officially pull out of the CBC's scheduled debate with Fox News. Sargent quotes from Edwards email: "we believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective." Sargent comments: "Tough stuff. This'll earn another round of praise for Edwards, who keeps showing he's making a credible bid to be the netroots candidate, and ratchet up the pressure on the other candidates to act accordingly in the increasingly high-stakes battle with Fox.

At Blue Hampshire, MBlair posts her review of John and Elizabeth Edwards town hall on the UNH campus in Durham, NH, including: "Edwards said something quite remarkable in Durham: "the top 300,000 earners in this country now pay less in taxes than the bottom 150 Million Americans." Think about that for a minute. That is not the kind of country I want to live in and it's not the kind of America that the rest of the world needs us to be at this point in time."

Speaking of taxes, TarHeel alerts MyDD readers to Edwards new "weekly Saturday morning podcast" starting with advice "about filing taxes and making it easier for lower income people, or people who do not have lots of brokerage house transactions."

OBAMA: President Of The World

Huffington Post contributors are both trying to explain, and offer advice to Barack Obama. Explainer Dr. Michael Fauntroy blogs: "Obama's success is really an expression of public frustration with the political status quo. The current candidates on the Democratic side, many of whom are very well qualified to seek the presidency, all represent different versions of the status quo. Obama's appearance on the political scene offers hope to millions of Americans who seek something new. How else does one explain his rise to the top of American politics? It can't be about what he has done in office, because he hasn't done anything legislatively to warrant the attention he receives. He's not closely associated with one particular policy issue and hasn't established himself as the "go to guy" on anything."

The Huffington Post's Thomas de Zengotita advises: "He should do a "listening tour." But not in the US, overseas. ... [He should announce] an itinerary, emphasizing that he is traveling as a private citizen, with no intent to represent anything or anybody but himself. His purpose is to listen and to learn. ... But the point is this: the possibility of crowds spontaneously showing up for him in any of these countries is what I am getting at in this post. And with the right preparation it could happen. Think of the impact of that on the primaries. The people of the world--in Japan and India and all those countries, looking to America again as a beacon."

RICHARDSON: Let The Courts Decide

While at Dartmouth College, Bill Richardson told BlueHampshire's Laura what Dems should do about Iraq: "I would have a war powers resolution deauthorizing the war, with timetables and benchmarks. ... there will be a legal fight - the administration will say "well, we don't recognize the war powers act." Then you go to the Supreme Court. That's what I would do, because my sense is that every effort should be made to cut the funding, but I worry about whether we have the votes to do it."

TERROR POLITICS: Sharp Turns On The Road To Damascus

The netroots are pushing back against notedwidespreadMSMcondemnation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall tracks Israeli coverage of Pelosi's message for Syria and seconds Rep. Tom Lantos' (D-CA) claim that PM Ehud Olmert only backtracked on his cooperation with Pelosi after pressure from the WH. Marshall asks:

The message the Israelis sent to Damascus was intended to convince the Syrians that the Israelis were not planning to attack the Syrians in concert with an American attack on Iran. There was concern in Israel that this might lead to a preemptive Syrian attack. A message like that from Israel to Syria might be very unwelcome to some people in the White House. Did the White House pressure Olmert? If there was no message, why was the existence of the message being discussed by Israeli officials before Pelosi went to Damascus? Will the White House deny pressuring Olmert? And did any of this occur to the folks who write the Post's editorials?

Also defending Pelosi, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) writes at Daily Kos: "We Democrats should've been unapologetic this week defending Speaker Pelosi because the truth was on our side ... They thrive on destroying our leaders - we can't let them. Especially when we've got the moral high ground." Arab American Institute pres. James Zogby also defends Peolsi at HuffPo: "Her critics have been unfair, missing the significance and timeliness of her mission. ... In addition to her official meetings, the visit was most notable for its positive contribution to U.S. public diplomacy, so desperately needed in the Arab world."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Not What They Mean By 'Reality Based Community'

Following Rob Blueyreports that GOP WH '08ers are refusing to release their online fundraising totals, MyDD's Matt Stoller tracks GOPbloggerdiscontent about their party's online prowess including these past thoughts from Bush '04 eCampaign Dir. Michael Turk:

At the RNC and on the Bush Campaign ... We had data that indicated Republicans were more likely to spend money online with e-commerce sites. There was a great comfort with buying online, but that had not extended to giving to campaigns. ... On the GOP side, the sites visited tended toward e-commerce and sites that reflected individual pursuits. On the Dem side, we saw a lot more sites like Blue Mountain Greetings or social sites (blogs, greeting cards, and collective activities). ... Republicans were simply not as interested in virtual networking - they do most of it in the real world.

Republicans are still pursuing a strategy of closed, top-down systems. The people in campaigns still see campaigns as top-down and that's largely due to their perception that our people are not engaged. GOP campaign professionals (and I'm excluding Internet strategists) ignore the fact that people may be disengaged because the few opportunities available for participation in a top-down paradigm are not engaging. The Internet is still, unlike in many Democrat campaigns, being treated as an extension of the communications/messaging apparatus. ... Republicans have not learned the value of including the eCampaign in the candidate's inner circle.

Stoller responds with his own thoughts: "On the other hand ... the internet's rise in politics is part of a larger shift in the nature of our political system that is radically reshaping both parties. The Democratic Party is 'ahead' not in the sense that its masters have learned the new tools, but because the party is becoming much more open and aligned around a left-wing ideology that is ascendant in America. The Republican Party will go through this shift as well, maybe in two years, maybe in four, or six, but it will catch up with modern America. But it's going to be a very different structure with different leaders than it is today, either much more aligned with a Perotista anti-immigrant base or more left-wing and aligned with a multi-cultural America.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Hope For The Sake Of Iraqis

Promising to take "war apologists" "angrily to task for the manifest, manifold failures in Iraq, and the criminally self-indulgent fictions on which those failures were based," '03-'04 Baghdad reporter Tish Durkin shares some thoughts with Huffington Post readers including:

• Those who opposed the war seem to feel that they are the perfect opposite of those who sold the war - and of course, in the important sense of the invade-or-not-to-invade question, they are. But in their collective allergy to any fact that may complicate their position; their proud blindness to the color gray, and their fervent faith in their own infallibility, the two sides have always struck me as very much the same.
• It is not, for instance, true that it was the American-led invasion that opened season on the slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians. Whatever else the Bush administration made up about Iraq, the rank murderousness of Saddam Hussein was not one of them.
• It is not true that the Americans invaded Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people. They did so against the will of Saddam, against the will of those who flourished under Saddam, and against the will of numerous Sunn'is and Christians, most of them utterly blameless for the crimes of the regime, who feared what would happen to them after the Shi'ites got out from under Saddam.
• Finally, what depresses me, and makes me despise so much war criticism even when I agree with it, is that so many of those positing it seem so happy about what's gone wrong. They seem to relish the probability that Iraq will get worse and worse so that they can be righter and righter.
• Like liberals - and thinking conservatives, and sentient beings -- everywhere, I gravely doubt that the troop surge - so little so late -- will do anything to save Iraq. But for the sake of the Iraqi people, I sure hope it does - even if that helps the Republicans.

LEST WE FORGET: The Negotiators

Reacting to immigrant activists complaints that Pres. Bush's new immigration plan is too costly for the undocumented, The Corner's Mark Krikorian shares a joke:

An illegal alien approaches a Republican politician at a bar and asks, "Would you give me amnesty for a million dollars?" "Why, sure," replies the politician. "How about $1,000?" asks the illegal. The politician retorts in horror, "What kind of person do you think I am?" "We've already established that, sir," says the illegal alien. "Now we're just negotiating the price."

Posted by Conn Carroll at April 9, 2007 12:42 PM