September 14, 2007

9/14: The Generic Republican

Fred Thompson wants you to know he's a big fan of federalism. Which is not that bad a plan considering how popular the concept is in conservative circles. The problem is that winning the nomination of the party that won the Civil War eventually requires candidates to get specific about which issues ought to be federal and which issues ought to be local. Does Thompson think marriage should be a local or federal issue? We don't know. Does Thompson think drug policy should be a local or federal issue? We don't know. Does Thompson think end of life issues should be a local or federal? We don't know. And apparently, neither does he.

GIULIANI: Like Fish In A Barrel

Rudy Giuliani's discount New York Times ad countering MoveOn's 'General Betray Us' one was a big hit among most conservative. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt posts excerpts from Giuliani's appearance on his radio show including: "I thought the MoveOn.org ad was disgraceful. I think that it is just another indication of what the Democratic Party has become. I mean, MoveOn.org is one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party."

RedState's Erick Erickson had the most effusive praise: "This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the game is played. This is why I would have no problems with Rudy Giuliani getting the Republican nomination. This is leadership on the issue."

AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin also liked the move while NRO's Jim Geraghty thought the ad "hits all the right notes" but did not like the idea of giving money to the NYT. Hot Air's Allahpundit, however, thought Giuliani should have invited the other WH '08ers to add their name to the copy.

THOMPSON: Not A Details Kind Of Guy

Conservatives were not impressed with Fred Thompson's "I don't remember the details of it" response to a question about the Terri Schiavo case. Michelle Malkin blogs: "This was a case on fundamental matters of ethics, end of life issues, and the definition of personhood and humanity...and Fred punts the question? ... Take a stand, Fred."

The Brody File warns: "It goes to the larger question about Fred Thompson. Nobody will doubt that he's a pretty solid conservative throughout the years. But the life issue was not an issue he pushed. That's never been his thing. He's come in with this reputation that he's going to be the candidate that social conservatives will galvanize around but the jury is still out. More days like that in Florida and the jury may return a verdict Thompson doesn't like."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin has similar thoughts: "'I don't know enough' can't be the standard response to questions on the stump--and this was one that was obviously going to come up. ... He is trying to position himself to the right of Romney on social issues and amplify the notion that Romney is a flip flopper and untrustworthy to carry out the goals of social conservatives. However, it appears he's really not to the right of Romney on a number of social issues. That's fine but then the message is useless or just confusing and needs to be retooled."

NY Sun's Ryan Sager followed up with a statement from Thompson spokesman Jeff Sadosky: "While he believes in the sanctity of life, he also believes that it was a decision for the family to make under state law, so there was no role for the federal government to play." Sager comments: "Thus, this would be an implicit criticism of Congress and President Bush for federalizing what should have been a state issue. Along with gay marriage, this now makes two issues where Mr. Thompson's commitment to federalism is putting him at odds with the religious right."

Also reading between the lines, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein likes what appears to might maybe be Thompson's position: "Like most conservatives, I found the Schiavo case to be a tragedy and thought that the Florida courts should have erred on the side of life. But I also thought that the federal government had absolutely zero role in the matter. And I'm glad that Fred did not feel the need to pander on this one."

THOMPSON II: The Sizzler Candidate

George Will's column critical of Fred Thompson's campaign roll out generated conservative discussion throughout 9/13. The Corner's Mark Levin notes that many of Will's objections to Thompson could also be made about Rudy Giuliani and wonders why Will supports Giuliani anyway. Rich Lowry raises similar concerns and shares a reader email:

Will is in the midst of about a five year jeremiad about the banal Dobson/Falwell influence on the GOP and conservatism. ... Thompson's church attendance admission should be evidence of authenticity, but Will somehow summons it as evidence for the opposite. ... Thompson needs to do a better job of explaining his [campaign finance reform] evolution, but Will is making much out of the speck's in Thompson's eye while ignoring the beams in the eye of his preferred candidate.

Jonah Goldberg also weighs in on Thompson's image as a Washington outsider: "Fred was a co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. He was a muckety-muck lobbyist. He handled the inside-game (masterfully) in the Roberts confirmation process. You can score these facts as you see fit, but I don't think they add up to him being Mr. Outsider. Moreover, I still can't shake the sense that a great many of Thompson's fans are sold on the sizzle as opposed to the steak."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff notes that Thompson isn't the only WH '08er with a tortured history on campaign finance reform and adds: "The only other point Will makes is that Thompson doesn't attend church regularly. Will sniffs that 'going to church is, of course, optional -- unless you are aiming to fill some supposed piety void in the Republican field.' But Thompson isn't attempting to fill a piety void, he's attempting to fill what some see as a 'conservatism' void."

THOMPSON III: A Fair Weather Federalist?

Cato's tax policy dir. Chris Edwards is "pleased that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat into the ring" since Thompson "has been talking and writing about his belief in federalism." Edwards explains: "Federalism "is a tool to promote freedom" as Thompson puts it. So for the supposed heirs to Ronald Reagan who are running for president, let's hear more about expanding our freedom by cutting the federal government down to constitutional size."

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh is also a fan of Thompson's deployment of the f-word: "Fred Thompson could certainly go places with his emphasis on federalism. For one thing, he would do the body politic a great favor in reminding it that the concept is not dead, that it is part and parcel of our Constitutional and national tradition and that we ought to revive and revisit the idea to help pave the way towards resolving some of our tougher and more intractable political debates."

Rand Simberg wonders, however, if Thompson's federalism love extends to opposition of federal marijuana raids: "So is he a federalist, or a fair-weather federalist?"

DEM FIELD: A Little More To The Left Please

All eyes are on Senate WH '08ers as the latest legislative fight on Iraq heats up. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas blogs: "Right now I'm focused on the presidential candidates serving in the Senate, since they have a direct say in how that debate is shaped. Does anyone think Reid would stand in the way of Obama and Clinton if they both demanded a hard line on the supplemental?"

Kos later adds: "We need Democrats to promise NOT to support any supplemental which does not have binding withdrawal timetables. Who has promised this? ... Dodd: Yes. Obama: No. Clinton: No. ... The language from Clinton and Obama is definitely headed in the right direction, but hasn't gotten to this final point."

BIDEN: He's Second In IA!

Linking to IA Independent reporting on IA House maj. leader Kevin McCarthy's endorsement of Joe Biden, TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta keeps score: "Joe Biden is now in second place, with 8 legislator endorsements to establishment favorite Hillary Clinton's 16, which also puts him ahead of Barack Obama."

CLINTON: It All Depends On What Your Definition Of 'Ending The War' Is

Open Left's Chris Bowers reads LA Times polling showing pluralities of Dems in IA, SC, and NH believe Hillary Clinton would be "the best at ending the war in Iraq" and is "left with a tremendous feeling of hopelessness and disempowerment." Bowers explains:

Hillary Clinton does indeed promise to end the war. On the section of her website entitled "ending the war," there is a version of the refrain she has often used in the campaign. ... Now, I don't think it is possible to end the war while still keeping tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. I also don't think politicians who say they will end the war but also say they will keep troops in Iraq are being honest with Democratic voters. However, the fact is that there has not been a meaningful debate on residual forces among the candidates or in the media thus far. As such, there is not reason for me to expect that the argument will resonate with many Democrats, at least yet.

EDWARDS: Well, First If You Don't Count All The Dems Olbermann Interviewed Before The Ad Ran

John Edwards MSNBC as following Pres. Bush's Iraq address has been widelyposted among the netroots. Daily Kos' Tracy Joan blogs: "Edwards' comments marked the first time any presidential candidate has used a national televised address to speak to the American people about President Bush's refusal to change course in Iraq."

OBAMA: Politico Not Controlled By Israel Lobby After All

The netroots are pushing back against criticism of Barack Obama foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski over his support for profs. Stephen Walt's and John Mearsheimer's book The Israel Lobby. TAPPED editors spent 9/13 debating whether "editors at The Politico choose a particularly ominous looking photograph of Z-Big in order to hammer home the idea that he's a shady, anti-Israel influence on the Obama campaign, as opposed to a seasoned foreign policy expert lauded in many Washington circles for his sensible take on the Middle East." Dana Goldstein concludes: "I just don't think the good people at The Politico were thinking all that hard about it."

TAPPED's Matthew Duss comments: "If Brzezinski thought that helping to negotiate the single most significant and long-lasting peace treaty in Israel's history, in which the preeminent Arab state recognized Israel, and removed the threat of a united Arab front against the Jewish state, had immunized him against charges of being "anti-Israel," well, think again, friend."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein comments: "One alternative explanation for the Politico article is that the Israel Lobby isn't really pulling the strings, but being conveniently used by the media to preemptively discredit Zbigniew Brzezinski and drive him from the race. His name is really much too hard to spell or say with any regularity, and it was sort of us or him."

At TPM Cafe, MJ Rosenberg answers Alan Dershowitz' call to dismiss Brzezinsk: "Cool. Second degree Mc Carthyism! Obama didn't do anything. Brzezinski didnt do anything. But Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a book the lobby does not like and so Brzezinski must go down for not condemning it."

OBAMA II:

An AP story reporting Barack Obama predicted "that Congress won't directly challenge President Bush's plans and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number of troops deployed to that country" drew netroots attention. At first the story caused DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas to ask: "Is there anything Obama will fight for? Because at this point, I don't even get the sense he's fighting for the nomination."

Contacted by the Obama campaign, Kos changed his tune: "The Obama campaign has a real case that the AP lede isn't quite accurate. Obama did predict that the Senate doesn't have the votes, but also urged people to contact their congresspersons to try and change things. So it wasn't so much 'resignation', as it was 'help us change this.'

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat argues Kos had it right the first time: "Obama did and said everything the AP reported. Obama did not commit to NOT voting for a bill without timelines. He did not commit to fighting to stop any such bill. Frankly, Kos unfairly slams the AP here. This is indeed preemptive capitulation from Obama. The full statement makes this clear."

Also parsing Obama's words, Obama fan Matthew Yglesias squints hard enough and long enough at Obama's 9/12 Iraq speech to find something he likes on Obama's position on residual forces: "The key shift here being that the training mission should continue "if -- but only if -- Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian." In other words, in the real world, the training and equipping mission will not continue but if a miraculous pony happens to emerge then that's a different story."

DEM FIELD: Like Arianna, HuffPo Readers Love Obama

Arianna Huffington urges readers to check out the The Yahoo News/Huffington Post/Slate Democratic candidate mash-up and highlights the following: "Hillary Clinton made news when she took a hard swipe at Barack Obama and John Edwards as "inauthentic" for slamming her for taking money from lobbyists while they accept money from the people who employ those same lobbyists. ... The money moment from Obama -- both figuratively and literally -- was his handling of Rose's question about the role money plays in today's politics, particularly in light of the Hsu scandal. 'You know, Charlie,' he said, 'money is the original sin of politics. And when you're running for president you're going to do some sinning when it comes to raising money, because otherwise you can't compete.'"

MyDD's Todd Beeton thought the "wholly unscientific candidate poll" included on the page was the most noteworthy: "[The poll] currently shows Obama ahead with 37%, Clinton at 31% and Edwards at 12%. This is surprising, not that Obama is so strong, he shines with this format, but that Clinton does so well and Edwards doesn't."

Jeff Jarvis was not impressed with the effort: "Sorry, Arianna, but your much vaunted presidential mash-up debate has been made into a pathetic insult to the voters thanks to Yahoo's decision not to allow us to remix the raw video. I urge you and Slate to force Yahoo to make good on your promise to turn this into a real mash-up. All we end up with here is an opportunity to passively watch Charlie Rose and Bill Maher ask the candidates questions on the usual topics."

IRAQ: At Least It Was Well Written

Conservative reactions to Pres. Bush's 9/13 address include:

• NRO's Kimberly Kagan: "Senator Jack Reed gave the Democratic response, and the contrast with Bush's speech was striking to those who paid careful attention. Bush addressed the situation in Iraq with detail and nuance. ... Reed spoke only in generalizations. ... That contrast highlights once more what is really the key question of the upcoming political debate over Iraq: Whom do the American people want to run this war, Congress or the people who know something about it?"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I was not able to watch President Bush's speech tonight, but have read it. It was, I think, a great speech. Once again, the President, instead of retreating in the face of his enemies, has upped the ante and taken his case to the people. President Bush laid out the case for engagement in Iraq in a way that most will find compelling. And he postured the surge as an opportunity for pro-war and anti-war factions to unite."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "In a sense, though, Bush's speech is anti-climactic and almost superfluous. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appear already to have done enough to buy the administration's policy six more months. Indeed, the Democrats aren't seriously disputing that the surge has achieved substantial military success. In his response to Bush, Senator Jack Reed did not deny anything Bush said on this score. ... He certainly didn't openly advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by any date certain."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "As is often the case, President George W. Bush did not deliver as good a speech as he and his speech-writing team had written -- but tonight's speech was definitely well written, and it was not badly delivered. The overall impression, I think, was pretty good."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Four minutes of highlights for you including the surprise announcement of the night - plans for an 'enduring relationship' with Iraq, presumably on the model of South Korea, that will involve a 'security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.' That's an odd thing to announce now, when he's trying to reap the political benefits of a (very limited) withdrawal, but there you go."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "I have to say that however necessary it may be to remove 30,000 troops by next summer ... the return to said conditions makes me tremendously nervous and causes me to worry that we may lose all the we have gained through the surge. I really would like to see more evidence that the Iraqi security forces are up to the challenge of filling in for the departing Americans who made up the surge and as of yet, that evidence has been lacking."

IRAQ II: Seoul Or Bust

Netroots reactions to Pres. Bush's 9/13 speech include:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "With the president's speech tonight it appears we are back to the supposed 'Korea analogy' for the occupation of Iraq. We've been in Korea for more than a half century, as we have been in Japan and Germany. ... And fundamentally why was this sustainable? Because the US troop presence was a defense against a perceived greater threat -- either the Soviet Union or the Soviet Union and China. We might add that this is also the premise of our military presence in the Balkans. On neither count is anything remotely like this in Iraq."
• Atrios: "Remind me again how many US troops die in South Korea every year? I'm pretty sure this war has been rhetorically modeled after every conflict we've been involved in, except perhaps the War of 1812."
• Taylor Marsh: "Again with the mission creep. I don't know how many times Mr. Bush has expanded our goals in Iraq, but what he's offering tonight takes it around the bend and back again. ... Korea is the model? Only in Bush's little mind. We haven't taken serious casualties in Korea since the late 1960s. Does anyone believe casualty rates will plummet with Bush's new Operation Enduring Nightmare?"
• Andrew Sullivan: "He seemed almost broken to me. His voice raspy, his eyes watery, his affect exhausted, his facial expression almost bewildered. ... The case was so weak, the argument so thin, the evidence for optimism so obviously strained that one wondered whom he thought he was persuading. ... This is what Bush cannot recognize: there is no Iraq. There are no Iraqis. ... The president's stunning detachment from this reality tragically endures - whether out of cynicism or delusion or, more worryingly, a simple intellectual inability to understand the country he is determined that the United States occupy for the rest of our lives."

IRAQ III: No, We Can't All Just Get Along

The netroots are not encouraged by Washington Postreports that "Democrats Push Toward Middle On Iraq Policy." Michael Cohen blogs at Democracy Arsenal: "I understand that Democrats love to pass legislation as a sign that they are getting something done. But if it has no chance of getting past the President's veto pen what exactly is the point? ... At the very least, applying maximum political pressure on some of the Senators up for re-election might actually clear some of these jokers out of the Senate ... But instead Democrats are taking the Rodney King approach - 'can't we all just get along.' Its just further evidence that when it comes to wielding political power, Democrats don't get it."

Matthew Yglesias adds: "The worst thing imaginable would be for Democrats and vulnerable Republicans alike to join hands in passing a meaningless bill that does nothing but give political cover to members of congress who, when the rubber was hitting the road, did nothing but insist on a blank check for the president."

Open Left's Matt Stoller targets 'Bush Dog' Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) for his quote in the piece: ""When these soldiers, sailors and airmen are buried, they're not buried as Republicans or Democrats. ... I care a hell of a lot more about them than I do about partisan politics." Stoller responds: "Antiwar proponents are portrayed as irresponsible, irrational, and strategically unsound partisans that will not put aside their instincts to save the lives of solders. Tanner says what [the Post] wants, and [the Post] writes as conventional wisdom what Tanner believes. It's a nice trick. And Tanner is willing to go the mat to beat back those crazy anti-troop liberals that actually want to compel Bush to withdraw troops, since that apparently is partisan politics."

CT SEN: Don't Miss The Next Hotline/Diageo On WH '88!

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas commissioned a poll on the Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) cable co. exec Ned Lamont (D) race. If the election were held 9/10-12/07 Lamont would win 48%-40%. Netroots lessons learned include:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "This show, I think, the importance of having an honest and open debate about residual troops in Iraq before the next Democratic nominee is decided. Many Democrats and Independents who voted for Lieberman now regret that vote, almost certainly because they feel suckered on Iraq."
• David Sirota: "this poll should remind us why new and alternative media are so important. We have to continue to develop as many communications resources to get the real story out about all politicians of all parties - Republican, Democrat and Connecticut for Lieberman."
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "That Ned was willing to enter the race last year when the geniuses at the head of the Democratic Party were telling everyone to shut up about the war, put his own money into challenging the war lobby by beating its own toad prince in the primary and then fighting him and his Democratic Senate buddies in the general, is to his credit. He awakened the shiftless and the recalcitrant up to the reality that the party's voters wanted their candidates to do more than smile, kiss babies and be Not Republican. We want them to end the war."

IRAQ IV: Well Tanned, But Still Not Radioactive

The netroots tried their best to get broader MSM coverage of a Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) quote made on CNN. The original exchange includes (bolds from TPM's Greg Sargent):

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

Sargent pitches: "Note that Boehner is specifically answering a question about troop deaths here -- which he calls a "small price," should we win the war. It's really uncanny how often those who aren't sacrificing anything for the Iraq war, aside for perhaps their health in the polls, are willing to (a) Describe the very real sacrifice being made by others as not being such a big deal while simultaneously (b) Describing the sacrifice others are making as their own.

Other netrooters quickly piled on:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Bush needs to be asked to comment on what Boehner said, every single Republican presidential candidate as well. This guy needs to be radioactive."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This guy really is a clueless craven, yet well-tanned, bastard."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "Where are the Democrats on Boehner's callous remarks about 4,000 dead being a "small price" to pay for this war?"

DNC chair Howard Dean, DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen, and John Kerry all heeded netroots calls to attack Boehner. Kerry blogs at The Huffington Post: "What a stunningly cavalier statement about the lives of the young men and women who serve our country. Where is Representative Boehner's apology? And where is an Iraq policy equal to our soldiers' tremendous sacrifice?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Because Bloggers Are Never Motivated By Ego

Atrios recounts:

At some point not all that long ago I was chatting with a member of Congress who was a bit peeved because bloggers were hostile to the member during the campaign. I was surprised by this, because while lefty bloggers certainly can be hostile to Democratic politicians, I didn't remember that they had been hostile to this one. I said as much, and the member backed off and said that the discontent existed because the campaign had gotten relatively little attention from bloggers, which was true. The conversation finished with a quote something like, "Well you know, politicians. We just want to be liked." ... I was taken aback by that because it wasn't really something that had ever occurred to me before. Sure we all want to be liked, but it hadn't really occurred to me that this was a key motivator of politicians. I doubt it is for all, but I suppose it is for some.

LEST WE FORGET: Someone's Had Too Much To Drink

Fire Dog Lake's TRex watches MSNBC:

You know, watching Chris Matthews is like watching an inebriated friend and trying to figure out if he's too drunk to drive home, mentally weighing whether or not you should get into the evil tug-of-war that can be the separation of a drunk and his car keys. ("I'm fine!", "No, you're not fine, you're drunk. You'll get yourself killed or someone else, and I'm not coming to bail you out of jail.", "Godammit, f**k you, gimme back my keysshhh!")

You watch your friend closely after a certain number of beers, checking for signs of uncertainty in the gait, wobbliness, or bleariness. It's so hard to tell with this guy. One minute he's talking sense and you think, "Oh, he's alright." But then you turn your back for a moment and when you look again, he's got his pants around his ankles and he's trying to cop a feel off the waitress.

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 14, 2007 12:49 PM