July 12, 2007

7/12: Whose Free Rider Problem?

Looking at the last 5 months of Dem WH '08 polling, many in the netroots are beginning to worry about how well Hillary Clinton has solidified herself atop the field, and they aren't confused why: her ability to minimize distinctions between and her opponents on Iraq. NBC First Read's Mark Murray asks "Is Hillary Getting a Free Pass on Iraq?" But the better question is: "A free ride from whom?" After all, it was Barack Obama and John Edwards who sat passively on stage while HRC told Dems during the 6/3 CNN debate that "the differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don't want anybody in America to be confused." Bloggers like Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield are doing their best to draw out distinctions on the issues, but really isn't it her rivals' jobs to identify and communicate this message?

DEM FIELD: Not So Minor Differences

Seeking to help voters determine real differences between the candidates on key issues, Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield posted the results of his Iraq Policy Straw Poll 7/11. Each candidate was asked "to define what makes them different from the other candidates" on Iraq, beginning their answer with the sentence 'I am the only candidate who...' while promising to refrain from citing their resume. Responses include:

• Chris Dodd: "I am the only candidate with a plan that will immediately begin redeploying our troops from Iraq within 30 days and responsibly end this war by March of 2008. Earlier this year, I was the first and only candidate to co-sponsor the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment, and later this week, I will introduce an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill that expands on the ideas set forth in Feingold-Reid-Dodd."
• Joe Biden: "I'm the only candidate who has a plan not only for getting our troops out of Iraq, but for what we leave behind. Leaving Iraq is necessary, but it is not enough. We have to ensure that as we leave we do not trade a dictator for chaos in Iraq and the region."
• John Edwards: "I am the only candidate who supports an immediate withdrawal -- today, not in four months -- of 40,000-50,000 troops, to trigger Iraqis and regional powers to find a political solution, which is the only way to resolve the situation."
• Dennis Kucinich: "I am the only candidate for president who organized opposition to the Iraq war in Congress, who voted against allowing President Bush to go to war, and who has voted 100 percent against funding the war."
• Bill Richardson: "I am the only candidate in this race who believes we must get all US troops out of Iraq with no residual forces left behind. None. Those who say we should leave behind a residual force must answer this question: how long does that force need to be in place before we can leave? One year? Two years? Five? Ten?"
• Barack Obama: "I am the only top-tier candidate who opposed this war from the beginning and who has energized the grassroots to pressure Congress to listen to the American people and bring the troops home. In 2002, Senator Barack Obama publicly opposed the war because he knew that even a successful overthrow of Saddam Hussein would result in a war of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. The disastrous course of the war has affirmed that foresight."

DEM FIELD II: Cruisin' With The Homies

Open Left's Chris Bowers is concerned tht "for quite some time, there has been only one trend in national polls on the Democratic nomination campaign: complete stability." Bowers links to a Pollster.com graph showing Hillary Clinton cruising over 10 points above the rest of the Dem field nationally and adds: "Although fewer data points lead to somewhat less stable trend lines, the situation in early state polling is not much different. In Iowa, Edwards narrowly leads Clinton, who narrowly leads Obama, just as it has been for months. ... In New Hampshire, since the beginning of the year, Clinton and Richardson are up a few points, while Edwards is down a few points. These slight movement are not much to write home about."

Bowers then explains why the stability worries him: "This stability is not a healthy development for the progressive ecosystem. ... A boring campaign is not good for the progressive ecosystem, because it results in a less engaged progressive rank and file."

CLINTON: Come On And Take A Free Ride

MyDD's Jonathan Singer links to a NBC First Read post headed "Is Hillary Getting a Free Pass on Iraq?" and comments: "all the better for her campaign for being able to somehow spin a position that is at least somewhat to the right of that of much of the rest of the Democratic field into one that looks about the same as that of much of the rest of Democratic field. A campaign that is that politically and strategically deft is one that can win a primary election and one that can win a general election."

Singer is still worried, however, that "her positions aren't the right ones and that she has taken stances in the past that, however politically popular at the time, did not pan out" and pleads for NBC to "run the same story and others like it on its evening news, which is viewed by a few million people. Such a move would probably negate the need for such questions and headlines in the first place."

OBAMA: Too Bad Blagojevich Just Got Re-Elected

Admitted Barack Obama fan Matthew Yglesias still is not impressed with Obama's recent call for merit pay for public school teachers. Yglesias blogs: "This simply isn't much of a federal issue. Presidential primary campaign talk about teachers is always going to be dominated by efforts to court union support precisely because education policy is such a tiny proportion of what a president actually does."

GOP FIELD: Advantage Rudy

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal admits the data on post-John McCain GOP Field polling is thin (limited to RT Strategies/Cook Political Report) but reports "without McCain in the race, Giuliani's support increases by 7 or 8 percentage points, while none of the other candidates gets a boost of more than 2 points. This means that while Giuliani is the first choice of 20-21% of Republicans, he is the second choice of roughly 35-40% of those who supported McCain in June. So for the moment, a collapse in McCain's support should work to Giuliani's advantage."

GIULIANI: Firefighters Not Catching Fire

Conservatives continued to help Rudy Giuliani push back against firefighter union attacks on his record as NY mayor. Townhall's Matt Lewis reposts a Giuliani email documenting the partisan bent of the union, going back to their 1988 endorsement of Michael Dukakis and leading up to IAFF Pres. Harold Schaitberger's co-chairing of John Kerry's WH '04 campaign.

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein chips in with YouTube clips of Giuliani emergency management dir. Jerry Hauer defending Giuliani's choice on command center location, former IAFF chapter pres. Pete Gorman admittting the cideo was a "political message," and links to "a more detailed response to specific criticisms made in the video."

GIULIANI II: Team Rudy

Giuliani's announced foreign policy team drew rave conservative reviews. Power Line's Scott Johnson blogs: "Yesterday Rudy Giuliani announced part of his foreign policy team. Among the notable stars are Norman Podhoretz, Martin Kramer, Peter Berkowitz, former Senator Bob Kasten, Kim Holmes, and Harvard Professor Stephen Rosen. Perhaps most notable to me is Yale's Professor Charles Hill. Among other things, Professor Hill is a legendary diplomat and the former chief of staff of the State Department. ... These are all stellar appointments. Their support of Giuliani is impressive. ... Over at The American Thinker, Ed Lasky capably profiles the team.

The Corner's Michael Rubin alerts readers to Kramer's excellent webpage and blog.

F. THOMPSON: A Lot Of Clients Chased Him ... And Those Who Chased Him Tended To Catch Him

Fred Thompson posted a lenghty response to the Los Angeles Times stories on his past lobbying work at Power Line, including:

A lawyer who is a candidate or a prospective candidate for office finds himself in an interesting position because of the nature of the legal profession and the practice of law. This is true when the practice was as varied as mine, and it's especially true when the office being considered is the Presidency of the United States. ... The easiest and most generally used tactic when running against a lawyer is to trade off a general perception that most people dislike lawyers. ... A first cousin of this ploy is to associate the lawyer with the views of his client. ... Even if my memory serves me correctly, it would not be appropriate for a lawyer to make such comments. I'm certainly not surprised that such a diverse career is being mined by others.

Power Line's Scott Johnson adds: "We'll probably have a bit more to say on the Democratic attacks on Senator Thompson's professional work, though we will reserve our own comments for subsequent posts. In the meantime, thanks to Senator Thompson for entrusting us with his column on a subject that is close to our hearts."

NRO's Jim Geraghty explains why the LAT has usch little credibility on the issue: "I would note that if the he-lobbied-for-abortion-groups story had come from... well, let's just say a news source that isn't the Los Angeles Times, it might carry more weight among conservatives. ... As it is, the Los Angeles Times, famous for its hit piece on Arnold Schwarzenegger right before the 2003 election, is so widely distrusted among the right that I'll bet more than a few conservatives have concluded that if it comes from the L.A. Times, it can't be true."

F. THOMPSON II: Just A Tease?

Patience for Thompson's impending official announcement is beginning to wear thin. Remarking on CNNcoverage suggesting Thompson will wait till 8/07, IA Voice blogs: "It's like he's approaching this campaign from a Hollywood perspective, trying to make it like an old 1980s sit-com. You know the kind I'm talking about, the shows where the romantic tension is high and the question is "will they or won't they?" Problem is, once "they do", the results almost never live up to expectations ... and once you've rung that bell, it's very hard to unring it. In other words, it could hurt him, playing this "will he or won't he" game."

Hot Air's Allahpundit has similar thoughts: "I think it might be because Congress is in recess in August and he'll have the headlines to himself. If he announces now, his press coverage runs side by side with stories about spiking violence, Republican defections, and disastrous opinion polls, none of which do him any good given his own position on the war. Or maybe he's just doing the actorly thing and building suspense for his grand entrance. I don't know, and I don't much care anymore."

F. THOMPSON III: What Would Buckley Do?

Captain's Quarters is not impressed by Brody File revelations that Thompson argued the GOP should avoid producing an official platform in '96 to avoid an ugly fight over aborion. CQ writes: "Especially after Pat Buchanan's appearance in 1992, Thompson wanted a unified convention, which he knew the Republicans needed to gain any momentum against Bill Clinton. ... So, considering the vulnerabilities it imposes on individual candidates, the arguments and disunity it causes when drafting it, and the complete and utter lack of interest from voters, I think the question should be asked again: why have a platform at all?" CQ later updats with a William F. Buckley article against "platforms altogether."

IRAQ: What's So Bad About National Ice Cream Day?

The netroots continued to attack Sen. Ken Salazar's (D-CO) "Iraq Study Group" bill, hoping to deny GOPers an opportunity to distance themselves from Pres. Bush on the war without actually hindering his ability to prosecure it. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis singles out AP's coverage of the bill and blogs: "This legislation has no more impact than National Ice Cream Day, and for AP to suggest that this somehow implements the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group is absurd. ... Come on, AP, don't just repeat what people tell you. Everyone lies."

A Center for American Progress memo arguing against the bill since "the ISG's recommendations are ambiguous and others have been overtaken by events" is being widely linked to in netroots circles. Daily Kos' mcjoan links and urges: "Beyond the fact that the ISG recommendations are largely now rendered meaningless ... codifying these recommendatons in a toothless sense of the Senate resolution--which Salazar's effort is--achieves nothing to change the course of the occupation. It does nothing to take us closer to a redeployment of forces out of Iraq--indeed, it could result in a never-ending commitment. ... Call them and tell them to vote for both of the upcoming Levin/Reed and the Feingold/Reid amendments."

IRAQ II: Have Any Senate Dems Voted For A Timetable That Passed Either?

Seeking to buck Senate GOP resolve on Iraq, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt notes "that neither Senator Domenici nor Senator Smith has yet crossed the political Rubicon that is support for date-certain defeat. Indeed, no GOP senator up for re-election has yet voted for a timetable that passed." Hewitt advises conservatives not organize yet, but warns: "if enough Republicans defect to allow such a bill to pass, then the course is clear. I can't support someone who doesn't support victory. I suspect there are tens of thousands of Republican activists who feel the same way. ... Even if a GOP senator gets everything else correct, if their vote allows the war to be lost, I don't know how a Republican activist can contribute to or work for their re-election."

At RedState, The Directors have a lengthy post (they even apologize for its length) on Iraq, including:

The war in Iraq is vital to America's national security and to the Global War on Terror. It is a fight which we are not currently losing on the ground, and which we will not lose if we commit to victory. ... Each place that the coalition openly fights against al Qaeda, the citizens and tribesmen join in, standing side by side with Americans - their differences forgotten - and helping to win back their neighborhoods, their cities, and their country. This is the truth about what is happening on the ground - the truth that the American people do not hear, and Ms. Pelosi will not say. ... The Iraqi people do by and large want us there - not forever, but until they are secure enough to take over themselves. ... The American military can win this fight. What is needed is for the American people, and their leaders, to put politics aside in favor of presenting a united front against those who, regardless what concessions we make, will do their utmost to kill us.

Also at RedState, Paul Seale tells the MSM to stop saying John McCain's candidacy failed because of Iraq: "I hate to mention this to you folk in New York and California who run the news departments, but that is not why we Republicans are not attracted to Senator McCain right now. ... most of McCain's fall can be centered on his positions during the immigration debate and a few other areas in the past where he failed to carry the mantle of small government. ... In the end, though, I would argue that McCain's strength is the Iraq war. I would argue that the most qualified person to the Commander in Chief in the GOP field (okay, the entire Presidential field) is John McCain."

IMPEACHMENT: Coming To A Congress Near You?

Harriet Miers invocation of Pres. Bush's direction that she not testify before the House Jud. Cmt. spurred a fresh round of impeachment talk. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall links to Marty Lederman analysis showing that while Miers is under no leagal obligation to follow Bush's request she honor executive privilege, she is under legal obligation to honor the subpoena. And a Talking Points Memo emailer makes the case that "telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena - if only to actually invoke the privilege ... is a felony under federal criminal law."

Atrios responds: "Let's impeach the President for lying or committing felonies. Either way." And a Daily Kos diarist tracks news that Dennis Kucinich's impeachment legislation has gained two new co-sponsor's: Reps. Jim Moran (D-VA) and Sam Farr (D-CA).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: If Only Carbon Trading Were This Easy

Tyler Cowen alerts us to an expanding markety in Europe: driver's license points. Cowen excerpts:

It is the latest ruse on the roads of France: drivers are avoiding disqualification by trading licence points on the internet. Complete strangers are taking the rap for speeding offences in return for up to 1,500 euros (1,000 pounds), and police admit they are powerless to intervene. Even pensioners who have not driven for many years are getting in on the act. ... French officials were unable to estimate the scale of points fiddling. Across the border in Spain, the Autopista.es online motoring site, estimates the black market in points there is worth 30 million euros a month.

LEST WE FORGET: Less Than Meets The Eye

Matthew Yglesias counters Steve White worries that Michael Bay's cozy relationship with the Pentagon makes Thansformers "an apologia for militarism." Ygelsias defends:

Obviously, the film is soaked in enthusiasm for military hardware. On the other hand, the threat from the Deceptacons is quite real. Meanwhile, until the climactic battle with the Deceptacons, the tension in the film within the "good guy" camp. Mostly, the paranoia of the national security apparatus -- represented by the chief of Sector Seven and the guys who want to imprison Bumblebee -- versus the correct liberal view that we need to widen the circle of allies, distinguish between good and bad alien robots, etc. Similarly, the Autobots have a minor conflict between the more hawkish Ironhide and the more dovish Optimus Prime on the subject of killing humans, in which Optimus' more pacifistic stand gets a positive portrayal. All-in-all, I saw a balanced, patriotic, security conscious liberalism not the run-amok nationalism and militarism of the Bush-era GOP.

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 12, 2007 12:44 PM