July 26, 2007

7/26: The Honeymoon Is Over

A little over two months ago we looked at some early critical blog reports on Fred Thompson from the campaign trail and asked: "Is The Honeymoon Over?" After surveying conservative reaction to Thompson's recent staff shakeups and money woes we can definitively answer, yes. Thompson's surge-and-then-fade fits into an established pattern for GOP candidates online. So as long as he's able to pull his team together, he should easily stay in the top tier with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney for some time. Note for Team Fred: A common theme running through criticism of Thompson is a lack of a distinct policy message. Maybe that's why he's been "flirting" with Newt.

GOP FIELD: No Excuses

First admitting he believes "the most likely outcome next November is a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic president," Race 4 '08s DaveG sketches the only route he sees for the GOP to salvage the situation. Dave blogs, "in order for our guys to surpass Clinton, they have to be able to win some combination of a) Kerry voters who don't want to vote for Hillary and b) Bush voters who have ripped the 'W' from their car. What do these groups have in common? Neither of them like President Bush."

To win the Bush refugees over, Dave advises the GOP nominee "to stake out popular conservative positions that win elections ... while also channeling voters' anger at Bush and congressional Republicans." Specifics include: "1) There was no excuse for the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States; 2) There was no excuse for the Administration's handling of Katrina; 3) There is no excuse for the situation in Iraq; 4) There is no excuse for the president's unwillingness to veto a single spending bill; 5) There is no excuse for the president's attempt to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants."

GIULIANI: Keeping Bush And Nixon Out Of Yankee Stadium's Urinals

On vacation when conservative chortling over ex-Pres. Bush aide Michael Gerson's comparison of Rudy Giuliani to Richard Nixon first broke out, The Corner's Peter Robinson notes that Nixon, "gave us a rich profusion of federal bureaucrats and regulations, creating, to note just one of innumerable items, OSHA, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration." Robinson then shares a Giuliani story from his book It's My Party:

The federal government, [Rudy] explained, had just conducted a study of Yankee Stadium, checking it for accessibility to the disabled. The inspectors had found some three thousand instances in which Yankee Stadium failed to meet federal standards. ... "The urinals are too high,' Giuliani continued, laughing. 'The toilet paper dispenser is incorrectly mounted on the back wall of the toilet. Do you believe anybody does this? ... The federal government sent people here from Washington to do this. This is the stupidity they use. They are pointy-headed stupid morons. This is ridiculous! This is ridiculous!'

Robinson concludes: "Rudy Giuliani, a second Richard Nixon? This is ridiculous."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin picks up on Robinson's story and adds: "Apparently the Rudy people liked it so much they linked to their campaign website. If you are trying to make the point that your candidate is the one to take on the federal bureaucracy and is not about to buy into the Beltway mentality, a story like this is too good to be true. It is also very, very funny."

Less impressed with Giuliani, The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru doesn't buy Ronald Brownstein's case that Rudy "is running as a federalist candidate." Ponnuru blogs: "He's no federalist on abortion. Giuliani eventually came out for a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. He used to be for Roe v. Wade, and now refuses to say if it should remain the law of the land. In neither case, then, is he calling for a state-by-state resolution of the issue."

F. THOMPSON: Can't Hardly Wait

Reports of more staff turnover and fundraising woes set off an inspired round of Fred Thompson criticism and defending. Reactions include:

• SC's The Shot: "According to MSNBC, Fred Thompson will report only $3 million on hand. We don't know how true this is, but if it is true, Fred Thompson's campaign is over before it started. With all the buzz about Thompson right now, he should be raising tens of millions.
• AmSpec Blog's James Poulos: "In many ways Fred's phantom campaign has appeared to be too successful, and I don't know about you but a September announcement strikes me as late late late for a very important date. Bottom line is at some point holding off on that announcement does more harm than good. Surely the people on the inside have a better accounting of that than people on the outside. But part of that calculation is the reaction you get in the press...favorable and otherwise."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "When Thompson gets in, most of us expect we will see a savvy, charismatic candidate. But he's taken some lumps in recent weeks, and with each passing week, the expectations for that official announcement speech - when all Republican eyes will be on him - just keep getting higher. ... Perhaps most troubling, Thompson has run into his current (modest) troubles without anyone else in the race really taking a swing at him."
• The Corner's Yuval Levin: "By the time they run for President, most contenders have been in politics in one way or another for some time and have gathered a team of trusted aides who are used to functioning as a group, and who have experience doing so in campaign mode. Thompson doesn't have that (in part because of the peculiar contours of his career) so he's putting it together in a hurry now. ... It's striking how little the Thompson people seem to know about each other. That'll change pretty quickly of course, but it could well change the hard way."
• The Corner's John Podhoretz: "All of this puts me in mind of a great running joke in the 1998 end-of-high-school movie Can't Hardly Wait ... At the beginning of the movie, a rock band forms in the living room to play at the party. As the party goes on, the band begins to squabble about the direction it is taking. The band breaks up around midnight -... Finally, at the end of the movie as the sun begins to rise, the band wistfully reunites for one more number. If Thompson doesn't get into the race pretty soon, all this instability in his ranks is going to turn him into a laughingstock.
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "In the absence of any policy theme or activity by Thompson this now becomes THE story about his campaign. Others offer helpful advice, similar to mine: get a message, do some real interviews and make some news. Unfortunately now all the interviewers will want to talk about is all of this."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I have a suggestion: Instead of all the horse-race, who's in/who's out punditry, how about paying attention to what the candidates actually say and do, and to their actual voting records -- in short, to real substance? ... Thompson isn't imploding. He has surrounded himself with smart people, and he is a very good communicator who is a proven mainstream conservative. He's gonna be very, very much in the mix, and he is well positioned to win the whole thing."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "I appreciate the underlying sentiment, Quin, but "paying attention to what the candidates actually say and do" is kind of hard when they don't say or do anything. Jennifer's right: As long as Thompson sits on the sidelines, there's nothing to talk about except for the shakeups in his organization. We can't reasonably be expected to ignore them."

F. THOMPSON II: More Please

Jennifer Rubin's and Quin Hillyer's differing takes on whether Thompson has been diligent enough in promoting his message produced this back and forth at AmSpec Blog:

• from Hillyer: "It's absurd to say that Thompson hasn't said or done anything. Since late February, he has said and done a whole lot of things, in radio and TV interviews, in radio commentaries, and in blog writings, including very erudite debates on federalism with NRO's very thoughtful Ramesh Ponnuru. It is in large part because Thompson has said so much, and said it so well, that he has become a phenomenon of sorts."
• from Rubin: "I agree with much that has been said but must disagree with Quin on one point. I think aside from the conversation you describe with NRO, Thompson has been contentless. His Kudlow interview was a prime example-- other than defending his opposition to tort reform he said he couldn't answer any specific questions."
• from Hillyer: "Not to sound like a total Fred-head, but you must've missed a lot of what he has said. He took a principled stance on Scooter Libby when all the other GOP candidates were waffling. ... His answer to Michael Moore was, of course, very funny, but it also was substantive in that it cut RIGHT to the heart of the matter. And so on. Indeed, his blog writings and radio commentaries have been full of good substance."
• from Rubin: "Quin, we'll have agree to disagree. I've actually covered his speeches and reported on many of them here and elsewhere and what I'm saying is nothing new: a zinger aimed at Michael Moore and a defense of Scooter Libby does not a wonk make. He has set out no tax, energy, spending or health care proposals and has yet to sketch out his ideas on any of these issues, even in broad strokes."

Not linking to the exchange, NRO's Jim Geraghty would seem to come down on Rubin's side: "Fred's appearances this week include another one with Sean Hannity on his tour, and local radio? That's small potatoes compared to the other candidates. ... Imagine if he went out and ripped every foolish comment in the Democrats' debate yesterday. It would have dominated the headlines, and provided a story beyond the personnel shuffle. ... Look, going on Jay Leno is great, and generates a day's worth of talk. Going on Tim Russert would generate a week's worth of talk. Don't like Russert? Fine. Do Larry Kudlow again, or Wolf Blitzer, or anybody on Fox beyond Hannity. Heck, do national talk radio. I think one reason so many Republicans see Thompson as the Great Folksy Hope is his skills as a communicator. So why do we see comparably little of the candidate?"

DEM FIELD: First They Made The Candidates Promise To Work For The Minimum Wage ...

Noting that he originally submitted his challenge on YouTube ("CNN didn't choose it -- maybe Dr. Gupta was making the selections"), Michael Moore asks each WH Dem candidate to promise to forgo all free gov't health care should they be elected. Moore blogs at The Huffington Post: "I want every candidate who said they'd work for the minimum wage as president to work uninsured, too, until health care is universal. And I want the other candidates to join them."

CLINTON: Take No Prisoners

While blogger endorsements for any Dem candidate have been rare this cycle, Hillary Clinton scored the support of The Left Coaster's Steve Soto 7/25. Soto first explains his criteria: "Most capably deal with the biases of the corporate media; Most capably fight the right wing smear machine; Ruthlessly battle the GOP's likely 2008 campaign tactics; Obtain the nomination; and, Most importantly, step into the job in January 2009."

Soto then applies these to HRC: "Among the Top Three, Hillary is 1) electable; 2) the most capable in national security and foreign policy; 3) the most able to address the GOP negligence and abdication of responsibility here at home; and 4) the most able to do the job from the first day in office in January 2009. And she is surrounded with an A-List campaign team that has already demonstrated they will avoid some of the same problems that afflicted the Kerry effort in 2004. She and her team have already demonstrated that they will take no prisoners in dealing with the GOP, will hold the media accountable, and have the requisite toughness and yes, ruthlessness for what is ahead. After 2004, this is critical for me."

Also experiencing a blooming in HRC love, Andrew Sullivan has been posting pro-HRC confessionals from self-described conservative readers including: "As a fellow Republican I have to agree with your reader's comments about Hillary in these debates; she's been hard to hate lately. Just like her husband Bill, she's a very calculating and conniving politician. But maybe that's why she's starting to appeal to some. Her supposed weaknesses are becoming her strengths. After eight years of Bush's off-the-cuff, gut feeling, permanent democratic revolution maybe a politician like Hillary is exactly what the country needs."

OBAMA: Distinguishing On Non Distinctions

The escalating exchange between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over Obama's willingness to meet with rogue regimes is highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses the netroots see in Obama. First, all are in agreement that there is no difference between the candidates on the substance of the issue: both are willing to meet with all world leaders, but would take prudent steps before doing so. From there, Obama supporters celebrate his answer as a sign he is willing to challenge Washington consensus on foreign policy. Obama doubters, however, see a candidate not ready to successfully challenge Washington consensus on foreign policy. Those sympathizing with Obama on the issue include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "One thing I'd note here is that the thing Clinton actually said during the debate struck me as fairly reasonable. Then again, so did what Obama said. ... It does, however, obviously reflect a certain set of beliefs about politics -- specifically that more militarism is always better -- which happen to be the exact same set of beliefs that helped drive so many Democratic elected officials to duck and cover during the initial drive for war. To get the foreign policy right, you need on some level to have someone willing to challenge the hawkish political box. Clinton isn't just failing to do that, she's going way out of her way to reinforce it."
• Atrios: "I'm not saying Obama's judgment about his judgment is necessarily correct, just that the very serious foreign policy people in Washington keep, you know, getting it wrong. The foreign policy establishment ... tries to impose those rules onto candidates, declaring this or that a "foreign policy gaffe," even though it's often only a gaffe to the very serious people who brought us George Bush's excellent Iraqi adventure."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "I think Obama can score a lot of points by running against Washington D.C., and I hope he keeps this up. I haven't been too impressed with what all those "experienced" people in Washington have delivered."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I like the rather overt jab at a foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C. that keeps getting it wrong. I would still prefer if Obama had a deployment plan that would require fewer American troops in Iraq, and also if he started arguing against frames like the "war on terror" and pre-emptive invasion in a more general sense. ... At its core, Obama's argument is a progressive one, since it emphasizes diversity of experience, rather than hours logged in Washington think tanks, as a means toward achieving better judgment.

Those less than pleased with Clinton's tactics but still giving her the round on political points include:

• The Nation's David Corn: "I can see the ad now: Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, and Hugo Chavez all strolling into the White House, and a grinning Barack Obama greeting them with a friendly "Welcome, boys; what do you want to talk about?" ... If Obama gets close to the Democratic presidential nomination, pro-Hillary Clinton forces could air such an ad. If he wins the nomination, the Republicans could hammer him with such a spot. And the junior senator from Illinois will not have much of a defense."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "[T]his is politics, not beanbag. Maybe Obama will wake up now and realize that what Clinton did to him is nothing to what Republicans will do to him. HE needs to stop his "above it all" nonsense or he will be eaten alive. Right now he simply is not ready for prime time and has not shown the political acumen or chops to be seriously considered as our Democratic nominee."
• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent: "Yes, Hillary's criticism of him carried echoes of Bush-Cheney Pelosi-to-Syria claptrap. Nonetheless, agree or disagree with her position, what she actually said was that she wouldn't commit to meeting with leaders of rogue nations in the first year, and rapped Obama for supposedly committing to the same."
• AMERICAblog's AJ Rossmiller: "Fundamentally, this is an example of establishment thinking versus normal thinking. ... His sentiment is absolutely right, but he can't afford to be careless; Clinton is too good to pass up an opening like that."
• The Huffington Post's Conor Friedersdorf: "When I look at those answers, the substance seems almost identical. ... Given the way that campaigns are covered in America Obama's statement definitely qualifies as a gaffe, and Clinton's rejoinder as a shrewd maneuver to take advantage of it."

In other less than positive Obama blogging, MyDD's David Mizner makes the case "Obama is simply not being truthful" about claims his health plan covers all Americans. Mizner blogs: "All of this is not to say that Obama's plan is bad. On the contrary, as [John] Edwards says, it's a "serious" proposal, and there's a case to be made against a mandate. Obama should make it. He should stop mispresenting his plan and argue why the burdens of a mandate outweigh the benefits of universal coverage. But it might be too late; he seems to be stuck with a lie.

IRAQ: That's One Hell Of A Cover

The Plank has posted a statement from the pseudonymous 'Scott Thomas' who wrote the 'Shock Troops' New Republic piece that inspired conservatives to level Stephen Glass-like fabulist charges at the magazine again. Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp blogs: "

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division. My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq. It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

Responses from The Corner include:

• Jonah Goldberg: "Isn't this just a bit too precious? The guy writes about how his comrades mock disfigured women, slaughter dogs and wear baby skulls as hats, but he's upset that others have called his and his comrades' character into question? Someone explain that to me. ... In fact, much of the criticism has been that U.S. soldiers would have better characters than those described in his pieces. Sorry: No sale. Scot Thomas Beauchamp may or may not be honest, but he's by no means a victim.


• Mark Steyn: "In English libel law, Private Beauchamp would be regarded as a man with no reputation to defame."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Fox Hunting

The netroots are stepping up their war with Fox News and Bill O'Reilly on a number of fronts. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis identified a billoreilly.com commenter with over 1,000 posts (in other words he is a loyal reader) that once wrote: "If [Hillary] wins my guns are loaded." Aravosis later reports that the Secret Service is now investigating the threat. Aravosis blogs: "Of even greater concern, O'Reilly claims that his Web site is not an open forum, meaning that no one can just walk in and post hate on his Web site. Does this mean that Bill O'Reilly or his proxies approved of the threats against Hillary?"

Attacking Fox and O'Reilly through their sponsors, firedoglake's TRex promotes Brave New Films campaign to pressure Home Depot into dropping its Fox ads. TRex blogs: "Now it's time to get to work. Join with us, the Sierra Club, and MoveOn to put an end to this propaganda and distortion by appealing to Fox's advertisers. Specifically, Home Depot. Why? Because Home Depot says they care about the environment. So we're giving them a chance to prove it by asking them to stop advertising on Fox until it changes its lies and distortions about the climate crisis."

Finally, Crooks and LiarsNicole Belle notes that Keith Olbermann made The Young Turks Cenk Uygur his 'Newsmaker of the Day' for his suggestion that Dems make Fox News correspondents wear a special "opinion media" credential at all official campaign events. Uygur reasons: "Simply put, Fox is a Republican mouthpiece masquerading as fair and balanced news outlet. Even their so-called news anchors and reporters are thoroughly opinionated, slanted, and biased. ... If Fox won't label themselves honestly, it's time for progressives to start doing it for them."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Name Games

Matthew Yglesias explains why he embraces both 'liberal' and 'progressive' labels:

To me, "liberal" denotes a certain political philosophy whereas "progressive" is more like a political coalition. Certain strands of environmentalist thinking are, for example, pretty philosophically alien to my approach to politics, but we're still all part of the same progressive political coalition, opposed to a conservative political coalition that fights any and all restrictions on industry's ability to pollute. More generally, the evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority of people don't have anything resembling a coherent political philosophy. Nevertheless, many of these voters are consistent members of the progressive political coalition out of self-interest, reflex, demographic habit, whatever.

LEST WE FORGET: Breakfast With Bond Starts Next Week!

The Plank's Isaac Chotiner posts the following Matt Damonthoughts on why his Jason Bourne character is infinitely superior to James Bond: "Bond is an imperialist and he's a misogynist. He kills people and laughs and sips martinis and wisecracks about it. ... Bourne is this paranoid guy. He's on the run. He's not the government. The government is after him. He's a serial monogamist who's in love with his dead girlfriend and can't stop thinking about her. He's the opposite of James Bond."

Chotiner comments: "Ugh. Could this be any more self-important? You guys have made three spy movies with no character development!"

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 26, 2007 12:47 PM