September 12, 2007

9/12: Advantage Rudy

The very real feud between Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney over PhonyFred has settled who Thompson's entry into the race benefits the most: Rudy Giuliani. Romney has always had fervent conservosphere detractors (e.g. Soren Dayton), but Thompson spokesman Todd Harris is quickly turning off manyconservatives as well. Now Giuliani does have his doubters (e.g. Ramesh Ponnuru), but no seems hell bent on his destruction either. As mentioned above, Romney has his online detractors, but a bevy of committed simpaticos as well (MyManMitt, Hugh Hewitt, K-Lo). With RedState's Erick Erickson officially off the Thompson bandwagon, it is safe to say there is no firm conservative blog support for Fred.

GOP FIELD: Welcome To The Race Al Sharpton!

Mitt Romney took the biggest hit from revelations that ex-SC GOP exec. dir./Romney consultant Wesley Donahue was behind the PhoneyFred.org website, but Fred Thompson did not escape spotless either. Manyconservatives quoted Thompson spokesman Todd Harris' release on the matter: "There is no room in our party for this kind of smut. ... Mitt Romney will do anything, say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in order to win."

Instapundit also posted an email from Romney aide Stephen Smith, including: "The site has no direct affiliation to our campaign, and we had no knowledge of its development. ... The person responsible is not an employee of ours, but we took immediate action to make sure it was clear the site was not affiliated with the campaign." Instapundit comments: "I've dealt with Stephen before, and I have no reason to doubt him, but there's also no reason to doubt that this is an embarrassment for the Romney campaign." Townhall's Matt Lewis also took Romney's explanation at face value, while Race4'08s Kavon Nikrad thinks Romney should have apologized.

Others were much tougher on Romney, but longtime Romney hater Soren Dayton easily led the league, remarking on Harris' statement: "Glad someone finally said it ... [he] what everyone has been thinking for a while." SC's FITSNews makes the case for the firing of Donahue business partner/Romney consultant Warren Tompkins: "Forgive us for asking the obvious question, but whatever happened to firing somebody because they're doing a ridiculously sh*tty job? Obviously despite all its talk of corporate culture, working on the Romney campaign is a lot like working for South Carolina's Department of Education ... you can completely suck ass and keep getting buckets of money."

NRO's Jim Geraghty also warns unofficial Romney bloggers at MyManMitt to stop leaving threatening comments at Dayton's site: "'You will pay when we are running the show!' is not an inspiring message heading into primary season."

Not everyone was impressed with how Team Thompson dealt with the situation either. Captain's Quarters blogs: "the personal nature of the criticism on Mitt Romney himself only extends the damage to the Republican brand and creates hard feelings and divisions among voters that we frankly do not need. Regardless of who wins the nomination, we need all of the candidates as credible advocates for the Republican ticket." Race4'08s Jason Bonham comments: "Thompson is excellent at playing the victim, he's done it in every campaign so far. He makes Al Sharpton look like an amateur."

Also scoring the match, AmSpec's Philip Klein blogs: "What Thompson has going for him in this fight is that of all the top tier candidates, he is the best-positioned to make the calculating, flip-flopper label stick to Romney. ... Romney would be much better off hitting Thompson on the executive experience and tangible accomplishments front. He can subtly connect this to the frustration conservatives have with Bush-i.e. do they want to repeat the mistake of nominating a lovable dude who infuriates liberals but lacks managerial competence?"

At The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez shares another Harris email, this time on Thompson's gains in national polls. From the memo: "This week's round of new national polls is extremely encouraging. All are trending up for Fred Thompson." Lopez later updates with a Romney response: "National polls would matter a great deal more if there was a national party primary. But there isn't one."

ROMNEY: Is There Daylight Between Bush And Paul On Iraq?

The Corner's David Freddoso promotes his NRO online article on Mitt Romney and Iraq under the header "Disowning a War" and blogs: "Is Mitt Romney an anti-war candidate? Not really. But sort of." Highlights from his article include:

• In the most recent New Hampshire debate, Romney was markedly cautious on Iraq, drawing ire from some conservative commentators and Sen. John McCain. But more importantly, Romney spoke repeatedly of the Iraq surge (which he endorsed) as a tactical means of ending the war and bringing troops home as quickly as possible. This has been a staple of his recent war rhetoric, in contrast to his more hawkish rivals, who all say explicitly that they would do it all over again.
• Romney's spokesman, Kevin Madden, did not discourage the idea that Romney does not share their view or that of Bush. "Any candidate that can convince the American electorate that they represent a real change is, I think, always going to be at an advantage," he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean criticism [of Bush] What it does represent is a recognition that even in the last eight years, there have been some things that could have been done better."
• Romney may be leaving a door open, in case he wins the nomination, to say that while America still cannot run from Iraq, he would probably not have become involved to begin with, knowing what he knows now. Such a position would be invaluable when debating Senator Clinton, who spoke out for and voted for a war that 57 percent of Americans now say was a mistake.

NRO's Jim Geraghty links to Freddoso and shares: "One staffer with a rival campaign has been urging me, at length, to write that Romney is the anti-war candidate in the race. When told, 'He's even less a supporter of the war than Ron Paul!' I urged the staffer to switch to decaf." Geraghty did examine Romney's statements on the war and found a strong preference for the word 'if' when Romney spoke about the surge. Geraghty also notes: "Romney has made comments suggesting he's open to Sen. Joseph Biden's plan to partition Iraq. This position isn't totally unheard of in GOP circles but it's opposed by the Bush administration and not wildly popular among Republicans.

AmSpec's James Antle also comments on Freddoso's piece: "I think Dave Freddoso is on to something here -- while mostly operating within the pro-surge, anti-withdrawal framework, Republicans are a bit more divided on Iraq than the Ron Paul against the world debates suggest. And even though Mitt Romney basically agrees with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani on the way forward in Iraq, these differences may have relevance to how they would handle foreign-policy questions likely to come their way as president."

THOMPSON: Osama Would Not Be The First Terrorist For Whom Thompson Helped Obtain Due Process

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru links to a TNR story n Fred Thompson's old law firm's representation of alleged Libyan terrorists under the header "Fred Thompson, Terrorist Lawyer." Instapundit notes that Thompson was working as criminal defense lawyer for the alleged terrorists, not a lobbyist.

Over at RedState, Erick Erickson hits Team Thompson for their suggestions that Osama bin Laden should be tried with due process of law, but blames Thompson spokesman Todd Harris, and not the candidate. Erickson also adds: "The departure of Mark Corallo from the Thompson campaign was a sure sign that what dazzled so many of us from the Thompson non-campaign was going to fizzle. And so it seemingly has with a mistake that should not have been. The Thompson non-campaign extravaganza is starting to take on the appearance of a same old-same old Johnny Come Lately campaign non-event."

CLINTON: Video Saved This Candidate's Star?

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto thought video of Hillary Clinton's Gen. David Petraeus questioning made her look better than the transcript, but he still is sorry he didn't see Clinton: "1. Asking any tough questions about the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad; 2. Asking how we are dealing with the Shiite-on-Shiite civil war in the south; 3. Asking what assurances there are that things will be any better in the spring; 4. Why we seem to be priming for a war with Iran without presenting evidence to the UN." Soto concludes: "In other words, it's Democratic business as usual.

DODD: A Message In A Blog

Chris Dodd asks at The Huffington Post: "Is Petraeus' Testimony Relevant to the Debate on Iraq? ... By every measure, the surge has failed - to secure Iraq, to help forge political reconciliation there, or make America safer. ... The debate we should be having is not on how we change tactics, but how we change policy. ... We need to send a clear message to the President and the Iraqis that it is time for a change of course. That is why I have stated that I will not support any measure that does not include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment. I urge other leaders in the party to join me."

EDWARDS: How To Stay Relevant While Senators Debate Iraq

Positive reviews of John Edwards 9/8 call for a Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization continue to trickle out of the netroots. Matthew Yglesias blogs: "I think this is a very good idea. As Edwards says, "it's important to note that CITO is not a panacea, nor will it be perfect." This is a much more appealing vision of America's relationship with the world than you tend to see nowadays -- one's that's optimistic and looking for opportunities, rather than one seeking conflict and sowing fear."

Talking Points Memo's Ben Craw pitches in with Part I of his 9/8 interview with Edwards about CITO. Craw pitches: "TPMtv caught up with the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate following his speech and talked to him about the "global war on terror" slogan, his new international anti-terrorism initiative, and what he would do if America had actionable intelligence about terrorists inside Pakistan."

In less positive Edwards blogging Grist's David Roberts informs Huffington Post readers: "One of the most meaningful steps the U.S. can take to fight climate change is to forbid construction of new coal plants unless they capture and sequester their carbon emissions. Most enviros seem to think that John Edwards has also called for such a moratorium, and have lauded him for it. Only he hasn't. ... Edwards would require that all new coal plants be compatible with sequestration -- that they be IGCC plants, which make CO2 easier to separate and bury -- but he would not require them to actually sequester their emissions."

OBAMA: Now That Would Be Audacious

Details of Barack Obama's 9/12 Clinton, IA, address are already leaking out. TPM's Greg Sargent has some excerpts and summarizes: "Obama, clearly, is seeking to expand his indictment of the D.C. political and foreign policy establishment, amplifying his argument that for all their Washington experience, many Beltway elite figures were unable to exercise sound judgment and oppose the Iraq folly. Also noteworthy ... Obama's direct targeting of the D.C. punditry."

Also following early buzz on the speech, MyDD's Todd Beeton blogs: "Obama's statement yesterday was a less than auspicious beginning, considering the fact that while it stressed immediacy of the need to withdraw troops there was a conspicuous absence of an end date for withdrawal, leading some to speculate that perhaps Obama is leaving himself room to embrace an open-ended bill."

At Daily Kos, Meteor Blades dreams his ideal Obama speech: "I'd like to see Senator Obama phone up all the other presidential candidates tonight and invite them to stand with him on the podium in Iowa and deliver a unified front on Iraq. United against the Cheney-Bush regime, united for a rapid, well-thought-out withdrawal that could have all but a handful of the troops out of Iraq by election day, 2008, and the remaining handful gone a year later. United behind a bill which supports the troops by fully funding that withdrawal. I'd like to see all the candidates accept Senator Obama's invitation whatever that does to their schedules."

Obama already scored points with some for criticizing the date of the hearings (to close to 9/11) and for the following question: "If we're there the same place a year from now can you please describe for me any circumstances in which you would make a different recommendation and suggest it is now time for us to start withdrawing our troops? Any scenario. Any set of benchmarks, that have not been met."

IRAQ: When Someone Asks You If You Are A God, You Say: Yes!

Gen. David Petraeus' answer to a GOP senator's question became the highlight of the day for most lefty bloggers 9/11. When Sen. John Warner (R-VA) asked Petraeus if the current Iraq strategy "is making America safer" Petraeus responded: "I don't know." Reactions include:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This is HUGE. HUGE. Petraeus just completely undermined Bush's rationale for the escalation of the Iraq war. ... If the Bush/Petraeus "course of action" is not ultimately making us safer, what the hell are we doing in over there? And, why are Republicans sticking with Bush's plan that doesn't make us safer?
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The moment with Warner was enough to make Tweety go postal and ask the questions that every Senator and ever citizen watching the exchange has to ask: if our ongoing presence in Iraq meant a miracle were to occur and we somehow managed to win in Iraq (whatever that would mean), we wouldn't be any safer, then why in the hell are we still there."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "Perhaps it was just a moment of uncharacteristic befuddlement for the general, but if the answer to that question isn't a resounding yes, then, even on the Bush Administration's own terms, it's time to start loading up the troop carriers in Kuwait and bring our people home."
• VoteVets Jon Soltz at The Huffington Post: "General Petraeus was given an order - find a military solution for Iraq where there is none, and without concern for troop overextension or the larger war on terror. ... When one looks at the grander scale, past just the military in Iraq, the picture is dismal, and becoming a critical danger. Unwittingly, General Petraeus just confirmed all of that in the exchange above, today."
• Andrew Sullivan: "He's fighting a war that he hasn't even decided is vital or even beneficial to the security of the United States. That's how lost we are in mission creep. That's the depth of the hole in which Petraeus has been ordered to keep digging."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "And you know what? It is not Petraeus' call to decide what the mission is. It is the job of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States to argue for his own policy. But it is the job of the Congress to decide whether it will fund the policy the President recommends."

IRAQ II: Apparently, The Surge Is No Hoax

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) made some blogging rounds 9/11 in support of the surge. Inhofe guest blogged at Captain's Quarters: "Yesterday I announced www.ReadHisReport.com, an open letter from myself and all those who sign it calling on my fellow Senators to simply read General Petraeus's report in full before they make rash statements about Iraq. Please take a moment to visit the site and sign the letter. ... I also encourage you to visit www.VictoryCaucus.com to sign their petition in support of our troops. Victory Caucus is a great way to stay on top of the news from Iraq and monitor the progress of our military strategy."

Inhofe also sat down with Michelle Malkin to talk about Petraeus testimony and the MoveOn "General Betray Us" ad.

Also in town, Amb. Ryan Crocker aide Kirk Johnson sat down with conservative bloggers on 9/11. Robert Bluey enumerates Johnson's main points: "1. The "surge" has been especially effective in reducing civilian casualties in Baghdad, although less so in the rest of Iraq; 2. Sectarian casualties are only a fraction of total civilian casualties, and such numbers lack meaning in ethnically or religiously homogeneous communities; 3. Violence statistics collected by the military should be viewed as a lower-bound estimate because they tend to miss smaller incidents."

IRAQ III: Not The Timetable They Were Hoping For

The netroots are already pushing back against possible 9/14 headlines describing Pres. Bush's anticipated end to the surge as a troop 'withdrawal.' Reactions include:

• TPM's David Kurtz: "As part of the surge-week PR offensive, the President will make a primetime address Thursday announcing that he intends to bring the surge to an end next summer. That means 30,000 U.S. troops will be rotated home without replacements. The White House--and most press reports--will describe this as a troop withdrawal, which is true in a very narrow sense. But this can't seem to be repeated often enough, if credulous press reports are any indication: the surge was only ever designed to be temporary and could not be sustained for any longer than next summer without seriously compromising overall U.S. military readiness."
• Atrios: "I don't know what he's thinking giving the enemy a timetable, but there it is."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "[T]his is pretty rich. Everyone on the planet knows perfectly well that we're not withdrawing these troops next year because we've achieved some grand success on the ground in Iraq. We haven't, and Bush knows it. We're withdrawing them because the Army has no operational choice."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Obviously, this is BS. We're returning to pre-surge troop levels next year because the surge was a surge -- something temporary -- because the military lacks the logistical capacity to further prolong it."
• The Huffington Post's Chris Weigant: "Democrats in Congress have to quickly decide what to do about this state of affairs. Because if they do nothing, the Republicans are going to run next year on the following slogan: 'Trust us to take care of national security -- we are bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq, but we're doing it in a sober, reasonable, and adult way; by listening to the counsel of generals and taking their advice seriously. Democrats have obviously proven they do not have what it takes to put America's interests before politics, and we do.'"

Already looking ahead to Dem legislation on the Iraq supplemental, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) legislation on the issue and labels him: "Lieberdem Lipinski."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We Won, He Lost

Instapundit links to James Pethokoukis analysis of Osama bin Laden's efforts to "smash the American economy." Pethokoukis blogs:

Overall, the American economy is, adjusting for inflation, $1.65 trillion bigger than it was six years ago. To put that gigantic number in some perspective, the U.S. economy has added the equivalent of five Saudi Arabias, eight Irans, 13 Pakistans, or 15 Egypts, depending on your preference. And while 9/11 did cause the stock market to plunge, the Dow is 37 percent higher than it was on Sept. 10, 2001, creating trillions of dollars of new wealth for Americans. What's more, the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent today vs. 5.7 percent back then. Not bad at all.

LEST WE FORGET: Free Kathy Griffin

Dlisted reports that Catholic League pres William Donohue is attacking Kathy Griffin for the following statements she made while accepting her Emmy for her show "My Life On The D-List." Griffin said: ""A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. ... This award is my god now!"

Dlisted responds: "The Catholic League needs to spend less time watching the Emmys worrying about comics and more time worrying about their priests touching little kids. Seriously! Mind your own business! Jesus and God probably had a laugh over that joke over a cold beer. It's a joooke!"

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 12, 2007 12:52 PM