July 20, 2007

7/20: Come On In, The Water's Fine!

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin tracks recent attacks on Fred Thompson from rivals, the MSM, and conservative blogs and concludes:

It seems Thompson's opponents have figured out several things: 1) While he is testing the waters they still can unleash the piranhas; 2) Thompson's muddled response to the lobbying issue may have signaled that he is less than adept at this stage in fending off attacks and 3) There is no time like the present to knock Thompson down a peg or two and scoop up some of those McCain voters who may be shopping around for a new choice. This poses an interesting dilemma for the Thompson camp: if he is going to get attacked shouldn't he get into the race, defend himself and define himself before voters start to say things like "oh, he's the lobbyist who likes trial lawyers"? It is rule one in politics that if you don't define yourself, others will.

We couldn't agree more.

GOP FIELD: Not That It Even Matters Who Wins This Nod...

Under the header "Why The GOP Will Lose (badly) in 08," The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford links to Politico coverage of Rep. Don Young (R-AK) berating Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) with, "You want my money, my money ... Those who bite me will be bitten back." Commenting on Young's fight to keep money for native Alaskan and Hawaiian educational programs Stuttaford blogs: "It is not your money, Congressman. It's ours. That a prominent Republican does not understand that rather basic point underscores the problem that the party faces."

GIULIANI: Poll Smoker vs. Poll Smoker

Rudy Giuliani strat. dir. Brent Seaborn posted a lengthy reply to Pollster.comCharles Franklin 's case that recent polling trends show Giuliani will be "the next John McCain." Seaborn points "out a few differences between the McCain and Giuliani trend line" including:

• As the race developed early in the spring, the race quickly but briefly, developed in to a two-way race, and our initial bounce extended into the beginning of this two-way race. The two-way race divided most of the Republican primary vote between 2 major candidates -- the nature of a two-way race generally forces undecided or leaning voters to make a choice between the leading candidates and many broke our way.
• When Mayor Giuliani first announced his candidacy for president, he received a considerable bounce in the polls. We anticipated that the race would close after our initial bounce
• As the race developed early in the spring, the race quickly but briefly, developed in to a two-way race, and our initial bounce extended into the beginning of this two-way race.
• As McCain's trend line declined Mitt Romney's slowly rose and Fred Thompson entered the race. Senator McCain is still a candidate for President and continues to receive a substantial vote share
• Fred Thompson now seems to be the beneficiary of an announcement (or pre-announcement) bounce. And Fred Thompson's entry to the campaign has effectively made this now a four-way race.
• After months as the frontrunner and the addition of a fourth candidate to the GOP primary it is notable that we are in roughly the same spot we were in before our bounce and when this was still a three-way race.

GIULIANI II: Columnists Whose Favorites Live In Glass Houses ...

The Corner's Mark Levin fired back against George Will criticism of Fred Thompson for supporting McCain-Feingold, noting that Will's preferred nominee, Giuliani, has had his own heresies with the 2nd Amendment, life, and marriage.

Turning back to the 1st Amendment, Levin blogs: "As for McCain-Feingold, Rudy was once (and still is?) a strong proponent. As the Club for Growth has written: "Rudy Giuliani's record on protecting political free speech falls woefully short. When John McCain launched his campaign finance crusade on the political stage, Mayor Giuliani was an unabashed supporter, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a 2000 interview: 'I'm a very, very strong supporter of campaign finance reform. A very strong supporter of McCain-Feingold for a long, long time now.'"

MCCAIN: A Job For Ethan Hunt

Captain's Quarters hosted John McCain on his 7/19 podcast, where McCain lashed "out at Harry Reid, calling his suspension of the defense appropriation bill unconscionable" and talked "about his presidential campaign, which is something he refused to do with CNN, taking responsibility for the "failure" but insisting he will not withdraw."

Townhall's Matt Lewis links and comments: "In all seriousness, the media loves to build people up, tear them down, and then build them back up (see Martha Stewart). It would be a great media story if McCain rids himself of his "consultants" and then makes a comeback. ... Already, you can see his press (and blog) coverage is improving (though it couldn't have gotten much worse). Are we witnessing the beginning of a McCain comeback?"

F. THOMPSON: Everyone Gets A Mulligan

New York and Los Angeles Times stories on Fred Thompson's early '90s connections to pro-choice groups are taking their toll on Thompson's reputation, but not his pro-life credentials. The emerging conservative line is that the Thompson's campaign inartful response to the stories says more about his campaign's readiness for prime time than it does about his pro-life credentials. Reactions along these lines include:

• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "If you get the sense this is all a lot of fumbling and stumbling as the great Keith Jackson would say I share that view. People can quibble about whether Thompson was and continues to be candid but one thing is certain. They simply must do better to compete in a presidential election with the opposition they face."
• an email to The Brody File: "The significance of this is not what Fred did 16 years ago. Had he been candid and honest, and explained himself, all would be well. The issue is that Fred lied for political expediency, and allowed others on his staff to do so on his behalf."
• The Brody File: "Lied may too strong a word. It seems like Thompson did what most politicians do. They beat around the bush and try to avoid an outright apology. Because of Thompson's consistent pro-life record in the Senate, pro-family groups will probably give him a pass on that aspect. But Thompson needs to be careful. He wants people to see him as a plain spoken, tell it like it is southerner. But evolving stories like this are normally left to "inside the beltway" Washington insiders."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I am more sympathetic to the argument of a faulty memory, as the "discussion with administration officials" consists of one meeting (a little under two and a half hours, and I'll bet that includes travel time and waiting in the lobby) and two phone calls totalling an hour and twenty minutes. ... So it's about three hours and change of actual lobbying efforts from sixteen years ago. No wonder he didn't remember."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "What on earth was Mark Corallo thinking when he told the LA Times no way nuh uh never happened when he didn't know that for a fact? Did the campaign even think to check the billing records? ... Now, instead, they look like liars."
• Patterico's Pontifications: "OK, that's fine. 19 hours of work done 14 years ago is not something you'd necessarily remember. But the problem is that his campaign issued a blanket denial, when it shouldn't have. That was an unforced error. For that reason, I disagree with my friend John when he says the story merits a "yawn" and nothing more."
• Blog's for Fred's Joe Carter: "When a spokesman for Thompson speaks on his behalf, we need to be able to trust that the message is honest and accurate. It also needs to be conveyed clearly, and not require the nuance of a DC lawyer to differentiate between fact and supposition. ... I don't like being wrong. I don't like having to apologize to abortion advocates. And I really don't like finding I put my own integrity in question. ... I'll chalk it up to miscommunication and put it behind me. My support for Fred Thompson hasn't wavered and I'll continue to do what I can to help him on the road to the White House."

The Corner's Yuval Levin argues the story must mark a turning point for Thompson's approach to the life issue:

Fred Thompson has so far managed to gain the trust of pro-lifers without actually saying anything about either principle or policy-what specifically he believes, or what kind of laws or rules he might support or oppose. He's done it by reference to his Senate record by criticizing Roe v. Wade, and by some vague but welcome platitudes. ... The story of Thompson's lobbying for a pro-abortion group in favor of allowing federally funded family planning clinics to advise patients to have abortions will almost certainly make it impossible for him to sustain that approach to the issue. ... He won't have much trouble making the case that he wasn't a pro-lifer in 1991 but is today. The same is true for a lot of conservatives. But to do that, he'll need to say something about why, and something about what that means to him in practice. Done right, such explanations would only help his chances in the primaries, and probably in the general election too. How he manages the challenge will tell us a lot about his ability to handle himself in the coming campaign.

THOMPSON II: Meep Meep

NRO's Jim Geraghty alerts readers that "somebody who insisted on anonymity" is passing around mid '90s clips of Thompson's support for campaign finance reform with headlines that include: "McCain, Feingold, Thompson Introduce Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Of 1997" and "President Endorses McCain-Feingold-Thompson Bill." Geraghty comments: "Now, I think it's acceptable to note that the person who called this information to my attention would prefer to see a candidate not named Fred Thompson get the Republican nomination. I cannot help but suspect that with Thompson having something of a bad day on other fronts, this individual is attempting to emulate the advice of James Carville, who said that when an opponent is drowning, throw him an anvil."

DEM FIELD: More Litigation For Everyone!!!

At Huffington Post, Jeff Marion writes about last weekend's "American Association For Justice" candidate forum. His impression of the candidates:

• Bill Richardson: "solid, and definitely improved his standing with the crowd."
• Barack Obama: "gave the longest opening speech, and won a lot of support from AAJ members for coming out firmly against caps on damages in claims involving victims of medical negligence."
• John Edwards: Though Obama lives in Chicago, "Edwards had the 'home field advantage' with this crowd." He had a lot "friends and donors" there, who gave him "the biggest ovation of the day."
• Hillary Clinton: "Her presentation was outstanding, and she gave the most wonkish presentation of the day."
• But Joe Biden "was the winner in this forum. Everyone voting in the Democratic primaries needs to take a long second look at Joe Biden."

DEM FIELD II: So If Biden Never Needed Surgery He Would Have No Idea How To Address Health Care?

Blue Hampshire gets into policy and asked the camps to supply a 200-word pitch for their candidate on health care. The submission had to start with the words: "I am the only candidate ..." Without further adieu:

• John Edwards: "... to propose a specific plan that guarantees true universal health care and also gives Americans the option of a public plan."
• Barack Obama: "... who will sign legislation by the end of my first term that will cover every American and cut the cost of every family's premiums by up to $2,500 -- the biggest cost-savings that any presidential candidate has proposed."
• Chris Dodd: "... that has over 20 years of experience getting things done."
• Mike Gravel: "... that has proposed a single-payer Health Care Voucher plan."
• Dennis Kucinich: "... to recognize the single payer not-for-profit comprehensive solution to the problem of providing access to health care is a solution that includes everyone and excludes no one."
• Hillary Clinton: "Hillary Clinton is committed to providing quality, affordable health insurance to every single American."
• Joe Biden: "... who knows first-hand what it is like to survive a life-threatening emergency surgery."
• Bill Richardson: "... who believes that all stakeholders -- government, individuals and business -- must share the goal and the sacrifice of providing universal health care coverage for all Americans."

CLINTON: Kossacks Back After Attack

Kos' McJoan picks up on AP's report about the Pentagon critique of Hillary Clinton, calling it "one of the most outrageous outgrowths of the extreme politicization of government under the Bush-Cheney regime. ... That some lackey apparatchik in the Pentagon would dare to accuse a United States Senator of 'boosting enemy propaganda' is an outrage."

Some other reaction on the left: Todd Beeton: "Classic that the Pentagon would insinuate itself into the presidential campaign in this way, not so subtly questioning Sen. Clinton's patriotism and, ultimately, her fitness to be commander in chief. What else do we expect from a crowd that thinks even drafting a Plan B for Iraq is treasonous." David Kurtz: "How thankful we should be to have brave men like [Defense Undersec] Eric Edelman to stifle debate, to lash us in our moments of weakness, and to encourage us to be oblivious to the reality all around us. Then and only then can we achieve America's true greatness." Big Tent Democrat: "His response is disrespectful, outrageous and he should be immediately fired for his unacceptable behavior. And you can have no doubt that Edelman is not a uniform wearing member of the military, but rather a BushCo hack."

At Open Left, Chris Bowers tries to figure out "just how far ahead Clinton actually is." He says: If she leads in IA, "the nomination is hers to lose"; if she's second in IA, "the nomination is still hers to lose as long as, in New Hampshire, she is more than 11 points ahead" of the IA leader; if she's third or fourth in IA, the nod is hers to lose as long as in Nh she's "more than seven points ahead" of the 2nd place finisher. If she "fails to meet all of the above three scenarios, and thus loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, she can still win the nomination if Iowa and New Hampshire are won by two different candidates, if she finishes second in Iowa, and if she is more than fifteen points ahead nationally." Got that?

Dana Goldstein wrote: "Is it any huge surprise that some lifelong feminists happen to be sympathetic to the candidate who is a lifelong feminist? ... I don't think she's the leading feminist candidate because she's a woman. I think she's the leading feminist candidate because she has always worked her ass off on feminist issues." Matthew Yglesias follows up: "I think it's completely fair for Clinton fans to argue that Hillary Clinton has the strongest record on women's issues of the major candidates in the race and to decide that that's a good reason to support her. On the other hand, nobody should walk away from this conversation with the idea that the image of Clinton as the least-liberal candidate overall is the result of some kind of smear campaign waged against her by male bloggers."

DODD: Pajama Party!

Matt Browner Hamlin, a Chris Dodd staffer, notes at Daily Kos and Open Left Dodd's commemoration of Blogosphere Day. A statement posted reads in part: "I congratulate ActBlue for their continued success as the online clearinghouse for Democratic action." Several other pols weighed in as well and encouraged participation in ActBlue's fundraising push, as we see courtesy of Kos' McJoan:

• Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid: "I am immensely proud that 17 of my Senate colleagues have joined me in using ActBlue to build our Democratic majority."
• Sen. John Kerry: "I'm really excited about the possibilities we have for bringing about that change -- and I'm excited about the partner we have in ActBlue to get it done."
• Retired Gen. Wes Clark: "This isn't just about 2008, 2010, or any specific election. It's about building support for activists, for new ideas, and for candidates from the local to national level."
• Senate Maj. Whip Dick Durbin: "We celebrate the many important ways that progressive blogs have changed our democracy for the better -- while also making sure we nurture and invest in the blogosphere, making it an even greater force for positive change in the months and years ahead."
• '06 CT SEN nominee Ned Lamont: "Our campaign would not have been possible without your support last year. And future underdog campaigns will not be possible without the opportunities for engagement that ActBlue provides."

"Mike Lux notes: "Democrats have trouble being Democrats because of their fear of not being able to raise enough money. ... ActBlue allows regular folks, rather than just special interests, to organize themselves and get in the game." Chris Bowers: "Act Blue was not an operation that lined up several large progressive donors before its launch, but rather simply a great idea that a few enterprising, grassroots progressive activists decided to undertake on their own. As a result of their efforts, now anyone can raise money for whatever Democratic candidates they like, now the blogosphere can quantify its direct fundraising contributions to Democratic candidates, and now Democrats have been able to help eliminate their long-standing financial deficit against Republicans."

EDWARDS: Everybody Hates John

Marc Ambinder's admission (while trying to explain why John Edwards $400 haircut story got more coverage than Mitt Romney's $300 haircut story) that, "the press was trying to bury Edwards," drew wide netroots condemnation of the MSM. Reactions include:

• Digby: "This is exactly this kind of thing that makes people like me laugh when I get lectured by professional journalists about "objectivity" and "ethics." ... Please, please, no more hand-wringing sanctimony from reporters about the undisciplined, unethical blogosphere. Their glass houses are lying in shards all around their feet."
• Daily Kos' DDay: "The media, the Beltway punditocracy in particular, has not learned one iota the lessons of 2000, and will continue to play this high-school crap FOREVER, until their stature dwindles to the point where it doesn't matter anymore. It would be good to let them know that you don't care for this kind of garbage, that as an American you wish to make your electoral choices on the merits and not through their filter. We've grown up since high school. The media hasn't."
• Lawyers, Guns, and Money's Scott Lemieux: "I'm amazed that anyone can see the question of whether or not reporters should use their reporting not to inform readers but to irresponsibly indulge their petty superficial prejudices about the individual candidates as a fairly debatable proposition. This open press corps contempt for Gore defined campaign 2000, and personally I think there are a lot of dead soldiers and Iraqis who think that what a president will actually do in office is more important that his or her suits and haircuts."

In other netroots-MSM-hating, Slate's John Dickerson earned Atrios' 'Wanker of the Day' honors for his insinuation that Edwards new ad narrated by Elizabeth Edwards played on her cancer for political gain. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent comments on EE's strong reply to Dickerson: "This is noteworthy, because it again shows Elizabeth in her role as front-woman in the campaign's ever-more-frequent efforts to hit back at media figures who criticize the candidate, particularly right-wingers. ... But it's also a function of who Elizabeth Edwards is. Elizabeth Edwards has been known to post on all manner of blogs at all hours of the day and night, apparently not always with the knowledge of the campaign. So I guess we'll be getting lots more of this."

OBAMA: Wonder Why Lieberman Didn't Make This List?

Responding to recent questioning of Barack Obama's commitment to the Dem brand, MyDD's Democratic Avenger blogs: "Nothing drives me more nuts than this idea that some how Barack Obama is not really a Democratic team player or that he runs down the Democratic brand. In 2006 ... no one nationally did more, nor could do more than Barack Obama. ... The following are links to some of the different campaigns that Barack Obama campaigned for while his own seat was not up for election at all."

DA then lists and links to articles on Obama appearances for then SEN candidates Claire McCaskill (D-MO), James Webb (D-VA), Harold Ford (D-TN), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

OBAMA II: Point Taken

Blue Hampshire's elwood checks out Barack Obama's NH visit 7/19. Some of his "random thoughts": "Yes: Obama and Clinton both have 'rock star' status, for better or worse. The only other time I've seen this since I started following the primary closely in 1968 -- except for incumbent Presidents -- was Reagan in 1980, and now we have two at once." Though his stump was "almost entirely" aimed at differences between the Bush admin and Dems, an exception being his statement that the Iraq war "should never have been authorized."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: How Soon Before We See A JetRed?

Michelle Malkin is claiming victory with ally Bill O'Reilly in their battle with Daily Kos over Jet Blue's sponsorship of the blog's Yearly Kos '07 convention set for 8/2-5. Malkin blogs: "Just got word that JetBlue has asked the YearlyKos organizers to remove its name from the nutroots convention's website. For its sponsorship deal, JetBlue apparently donated 10 travel vouchers to YearlyKos. I understand that there are no plans to revoke the vouchers." Malkin also posts the response Jet Blue's CEO David Barger is sending to those inquiring about Jet Blue's relationship with Daily Kos, including:

Thank you for contacting JetBlue with your comment. We have been surprised and disappointed that the donation of JetBlue travel (10 tickets total) to a bloggers convention has been misinterpreted as support and/or agreement with a politically centered website we have absolutely no connection with. ... JetBlue was one of 23 groups to donate items and thus 'sponsor' the YearlyKos convention. JetBlue will have no presence at the conference or any other involvement with the YearlyKos event. We have NO INVOLVEMENT with DailyKos or anything said or represented on that website.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas notes O'Reilly and Malkin's crowing, and argues they have one nothing: "But go to the YearlyKos convention website, and you'll note the JetBlue logo is still there, on the home page. And I've confirmed that yes, indeed, JetBlue isn't going anywhere. They don't plan on caving to pressure from the neanderthals at Fox News."

More from kos on the significance of the dispute: "Remember, this fight is about Fox News' hurt feelings. They wanted Democrats to legitimize their propaganda operation and we squashed those efforts like a bug. This is their way of lashing back, yet no one seems to give a shit. The Dodd and Hillary campaigns used the opportunity to slam Bill O'Reilly and his usual band of misfits. And despite their premature crowing, JetBlue -- the chief target of their ire -- isn't going anywhere."

Open Left's Matt Stoller also paints the battle as part of a larger war: "

The right has an entire system we like to deride, 'wingnut welfare', but Fox News made $300M last year and will be a cash cow for a long time to come. While Josh Marshall and Dailykos are self-sufficient, probably hitting in the $50k/month range for revenue, there is just no comparison in terms of the capital they can invest in ideas. ... one obvious source of reliable support for our movement is the progressive corporate sector. ... That channel is terrified that they will lose advertisers from campaigns like Fox News Attacks Global Warming, and, after the Presidential debate loss, they realized we are a direct threat to them.
The goal of the Fox News attack is not to get Jet Blue to drop its sponsorship, it's to teach other companies a lesson. ... Conservative institutions from Fox News to AEI rely on corporate money, so they know how useful it can be. Expect more of these attacks from the right, because they don't play around. They go for the throat.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Keep It Simple Silly

Describing global warming as "both a climate crisis and a political crisis" Open Left's Matt Stoller quotes economist Robert Shapiroon why cap and trade does not fit into "a progressive value system" including:

By creating tradable financial assets worth tens of billions of dollars for governments to distribute among their industries and plants and then monitor, a global cap-and-trade program also introduces powerful incentives to cheat by corrupt and radical governments. Corrupt governments will almost certainly distribute permits in ways that favor their business supporters and understate their actual energy use and emissions.

LEST WE FORGET: Copy This!

After selling his mistakenly early delivered Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on eBay for $250, Vodkapundit's Will Collier received a nasty email missive from eBay informing him he had violated copyrights and that his listing had been removed. Collier responded:

Now, this is really, really, really funny. For one thing, regardless of what the nimrod lawyers from The Christopher Little Literary Agency said in their nastygram to eBay, there's absolutely no shred of copyright violation in advertising and selling a legitimate copy of a book. I've no more violated J.K. Rowling's copyright than I've flown around downtown Atlanta on a broomstick.

Oh, and incidentally, I got a nice email from Robin Lenz at Publisher's Weekly while I was typing up this post; she's received the book and is quite pleased with her purchase. So, let's all enjoy a fine laugh at J.D. Nimrod, Esq. and his firm of officious idiots. Nice work, guys. Be sure and bill the good Ms. Rowling for all the many hours you've spent in making yourselves look like utter morons.

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 20, 2007 12:41 PM